1
An Unofficial History of Dravidian Writing By Clyde Winters, Ph.D Uthman dan Fodio Institute Chicago, Illinois 60643
2 Abstract The recent discovery of inscribed pottery in South India indicate that the history of writing among the Dravidian people did not begin with the introduction of Brahmi writing to South India. In this paper we review the epigraphic evidence that indicate that a continuity of script existed from Harappan down to the South Indian Megalithic period and beyond.
3
An Unofficial History Dravidian Writing The Dravidian people originated in Middle Africa. From here Dravidian speaking people went on to settle parts of Europe and Asia. The original inhabitants of the Sahara where the Egyptian or Kemitic civilization originated were not Berbers or Indo-Europeans (Winters 1985b). This was the ancient homeland of the Dravidians, Egyptians, Sumerians, Niger-Kordofanian-Mande and Elamite speakers is called the Fertile African Crescent (Anselin 1989, p.16, 1992; Winters 1981,1985b,1989, 1991,1994). The inhabitants of this area lived in the highland regions of the Fezzan in modern Libya and Hoggar until after 4000 B.C. We call these people the Proto-Saharans (Winters 1985b, 1991). 19 91). The generic term for this group is Kushite. The Proto-Saharans were called Ta-Seti and Tehunu by the Egyptians. In the archaeological literature they were called A-Group and C-Group respectively. Farid (1985, p.82) noted that: We can notice that at the beginning of the neolithic stage in Egypt on the edge of the Western Desert corresponds with expansion of the Saharan Neolithic culture and the growth of its population .
The Fertile Saharan Crescent is an arc shaped series of highland regions in the Saharan zone of Africa. The Saharan zone is bounded on the north by the Atlas mountains, the Atlantic Ocean in the West, the tropical rain forest in the south and the Red Sea in the East. It was here that the ancestors of the founders of the river valley civilizations in
4 Africa, the Middle East, China and Indus Valley developed their highly organized and technological societies (Winters 1983a, 1985b). The Original homeland of the Dravidian speaking people was the Saharan zone of Middle Africa. We call the ancestors of the Dravidians the Proto-Saharans. The homeland of the Proto-Saharans was the Libyan and Sudanese deserts. It was in this region between 9000-6000 BC, that the elements of Proto-Dravidian culture were created (Winters 1985). Ethically the Proto-Dravidians were round-headed Mediterraneans of the ancient variety. variety. Around 7000 BC, Mediterrane Mediterraneans ans of a fairly tall stature stature not devoid of negroid char charac acte teri rist stic icss appe appear ar in the the Saha Sahara ra at Caps Capsaa (now (now call called ed Cafs Cafsa) a) (Des (Desan ange gess 1981:424-25) 1981:424-25) . These Mediterraneans Mediterraneans are called Capsians. Capsians. This group flourished flourished in an area extending from the western most borders of north Africa, into the southern Sahara. Skeletons of the Mediterranean type have been found throughout Middle Africa, Southeast Asia, Mesopotamia, the Indo-Pakistan region and even Central Asia. It is no secret that the founders of ancient Egypt, Elam, Sumer and the Indus Valley were all of the Mediterranean type. In the ancient inscriptions many Proto-Saharans were called KUSHITES. These Kushites were also called Saka, Kushana, Kutians, Kus and Qus (Lacouperie 1886:28-29; Winters 1982). In the primary center of Proto-Dravidian settlement in Middle Africa, they used a common black-and-red ware (BRW) and herded cattle, sheep and goats. They also possessed wheat and millet. (Winters 1985a) This supports Kohl's (1988:596) hypothesis that millet was introduced into Inner Asia from Africa. The Dravidians migrated out of the Sahara, due to population pressure and the search for sources sou rces of new metal reserves.
5
Agricultural Terms grain
cotton
rice land of cultivation ║
Dravidian valci pani,panchi uri,ari kalan ║ 'husked rice' Sumerian se Manding se
║ ga(n) ║
fani,fande maro
ga ║ ║
Domesticated Animals dog
║
horse
cattle,cow
sheep ║
Dravidian ori
pari,iyuli naku,gonde 'bull' kuri,koor║
Sumerian
paru, 'mule' gud
ur
Manding wuru
bari,wolo
zar,sar ║
gunga, kongo
sara ║
Below are some of the cognate terms Dravido- African terms ter ms
for fo r
agric agr icul ultu ture re
and
dome do mest stic icat ated ed
anim an imal als. s.Th There ere
is
abundan abun dant t evi eviden dence ce that Afr Africa ican n mil millet lets s were cul cultiv tivate ated d in the th e
Indu In dus s
Vall Va lley ey
duri du ring ng
Winters,1981a,1981b). Indi In dian an
agri ag ricu cult ltur ure e
millets
from
Hara Ha rapp ppan an
Weber was wa s
(1998)
"gre "g reat atly ly
ancient
time ti mes s
to
(Web (W eber er, ,
maintains
infl in flue uenc nced ed" "
modern
times
by
1998 19 98; ; that thes th ese e
(p.267).
It wou would ld app appear ear fro from m the arc archaeo haeolog logica ical l evi evidenc dence e that
local
millets
were
cultivated
before
the
3rd
6 mill mi llen eniu ium m the th e
B.C. B. C.
foun fo undi ding ng
of
civilization integrated
(Web (W eber er, , the th e
in
Gujarat
into
a
African
the th e
to
note no te
3rd 3r d
that th at and an d
that th at
dominate
African
established
surrou sur rounds nds
millets
appe ap pear ar
in
civi ci vili liza zati tion on
the
well
1981 19 81b) b). . and an d
to
2nd 2n d
cereal
the
the th e
arri ar rive ve
in
of
were
South
Asian
rice
pattern patt ern
1998).
Sout So uth h
B.C. B. C.
Afri Af rica can n
grain,
rise ri se
transpo tra nsporta rtatio tion n
(Weber,
mill mi llen enni nium um
wher wh ere e
by
(Weber,1998).
India
mill mi llet ets s
But Bu t
millets
pattern
Contro Con trovers versy y
woul wo uld d
Wint Wi nter ers, s,
Hara Ha rapp ppan an
subsistence
for
1998 19 98; ;
It
is
mill mi llet ets s was
Yet
Asia As ia, ,
it both bo th
inte in tere rest stin ing g
repr re pres esen ent t
also
a
the th e major
domesticate(Weber,1998). The Th e Dr Drav avid idia ian n te term rms s fo for r mi mill llet et ar are e li list sted ed in th the e Drav Dr avid idia ian n
Etym Et ymol olog ogic ical al
2671.
cursory
A
pro pr ovided
below
languages
show
language.
review
fro rom m a
of
the
the
at
2359 23 59, ,
Man Ma nde
relationship
terms
sonna
are
4300 43 00
linguistic
Dravidian,
close
These
Kol
Dict Di ctio iona nary ry
and an d
examples and
Wolof
between
these
outlined ---
below: ---
---Wolof(AF.)
suna
---
----
--Mande
(AF)
suna
bara,
baga
de-n,
doro koro
7 Tamil
connal
varaga
tinai kural
Malayalam
colam
Kannanda
---
varaku baraga,
tina
baragu
tene
korale,korle *sona
*baraga
*tenä *kora
Below
we
will
agr ag ricultural lang la ngua uage ges s West We st
terms.
(Mal (M alin inke ke, ,
Atla At lant ntic ic
Galla), The
compare These
Kpel Kp elle le, ,
(Wol (W olof of, ,
Somali,
that incl clu uding
for
cultivation b
j(w)
#
come
Bamb Ba mbar ara, a,
Fula Fu lani ni), ),
Nubian
and
domestic ica ated
cro cr ops
Dravidian
terms
Paleo-Dravido-Africans
cul cu lture
0
other
wheat
and
is
0
corresponds
and
from Azer Az er, ,
ancient
came
from
a
cattl tle e
and
grew
millet. b to
many
the
The
j(w)
Mande
Soni So nink nke) e), ,
Afro Af ro-A -Asi siat atic ic
the
African
(Oro (O romo mo, , Egyptian. sedentary numerous
Egyptian #.
African
term
Egyptian terms
for
cultivation: Galla Tulu Nubian Malinke
baji
'cultivated
(Dravidian ba,
language) bat
'hoe
field' bey, up
benni ground' be
8 Somali
beer
Wolof
mbey,
ambey,
Egyptian
b
Sumerian
buru, Thes Th ese e
Paleo-African The
term te rms s
to
term
j(w)
bur for fo r
term
Egyptian
corresponds
bey
'to cult cu ltiv ivat ate e
for for
many
root sugg su gges est t
cultivate
grain
African
is
0
terms
for
Galla
up' that th at
was sa
#.
the th e *be. This
seed,grain: senyi
Malinke
se
,
Sumerian
si se
Egyptian
sen
'granary'
Kannanda
cigur
Bozo
sii
Bambara
sii
Daba
sisin
Somali
sinni
Loma
sii
Susu
sansi
Oromo
sanyi
Dime
siimu
Egyptian id.
ssr ssn
'corn' 'lotus
plant'
9 id.
sm
'herb,
id.
plant'
isw
The Th e
iden id enti tifi fica cati tion on
'seed 'se ed,g ,gra rain in' ' groups
in
were
separated Sumerian
the th e
se
a
s>0/ s> 0/#_ #___ ____ ____ ____ __e e
abov ab ove e
familiar
into Ø
of
lang la ngua uages ges
with
distinct #
'weeds'
and
sugge su ggest st
seeds
at
the
Supersets.
Egyptian
Ø
patt pa tter ern n
The
sen
#,
for fo r
that th at
thes th ese e
time
they
fact and
that
Malinke
Ø se # ar are e al all l se sepa para rate ted d bo both th in ti time me an and d ge geog ogra raph phic ical al area
highlight
the
early
use
of
seeds
*
se
,
by
hoe ho e
to
Paleo-Dravido-Africans. The Th e cult cu ltiv ivat ate e Ø
hbs
#
Egyp Eg ypti tian an. . African
Pale Pa leoo-Dr Drav avid idoo-Af Afri rica cans ns
thei th eir r and Thes Th ese e and
crop cr ops. s. Ø
wb
The Th e
Egyp Eg ypti tian an
#,
which
mean
Egyp Eg ypti tian an
term te rms s
are ar e
Dravidian
used us ed
the th e
term te rms s
for fo r
'to
open
anal an alog ogou ous s
terms
Tamil
for
hoe ho e
are ar e
up' to
in
Blac Bl ack k hoe: parai
Malayalam
para
Kannanda
pare
Nubia
bat
Malinke Egyptian Hausa Swahili Egyptian
daba per
'to
plough' fartanya palile hbs
10 Galla
buqis
Sumerian It
'root
buru
would
appear
'to
that
up' root
contrast
exist
up'
between
b
and
(f)_______p. This indicates that in Paleo-Dravido-African that b < p.
The Th e
Pale Pa leoo-Dr Drav avid idoo-Af Afri rica can n
term te rm
for fo r
hoe ho e
was wa s
prob pr obab ably ly
*ba(r)/pa(r). The
PaleoPal eo-Drav Dravido ido-Af -Afric ricans ans
terms
also als o
posses pos sessed sed
other oth er
for
hoe:
Malayalam
kuntali
Tamil
kuntali
'pickaxe'
Nubian
Kadid
Wolof
konko
Malinke
kope,
daba
Galla
doma
Hausa
garma
Kod
guddali
Kannanda
guddali
Kpelle This
kali evidence
suggest
con co ntrast
between
patt pa tter erns ns
of
hoe
many ma ny
t
that
=/=
d,
t
d.
highlight
Pale Pa leoo-Dr Drav avid ido o the
>
Afri Af rica can n
The the
phonological alterna nat tion
cons co nson onan ants ts
for fo r
including:
11 b
=/=
p
l
=/=
r
g
=/=
k.
B.B. Lal (1963) proved conclusively that the Dravidians were genetically related to the C-group of Nubia, given the fact that both groups used 1) a common BRW, 2) a common burial complex incorporating megaliths and circular rock enclosures and 3) a common type of rock cut sepulchre. The BRW industry diffused from Nubia, across West Asia into Rajastan, and thence to East Central and South India (Rao 1972:34). The Proto-Dravidians lived on hillocks or slopes near water. But some Capsians lived on plains which featured lakes and marshes. Their way of life continued from the neolithic era up to the time of the Garamante ( a group of Manding speakers) that remained in the Fezzan region of Libya until Roman times (Winters 1983a:210,1983b:15).
Terms of Civilizing Elements arrow
city
house
║ writing
boat ║
║ Dravidian
kakam
ur,uru
lon
carru
kalam║
Sumerian
kak
ur,bar
mu,u Ru,sar kalam║
Manding
kala
furu
lu,nu
sebe kulu║
12 The ancestors of the Dravidians, Manding and Sumerians were organized into a federa federall syste system m during during the neolit neolithic hic subplu subpluvia vial.l. These These early early ProtoProto- Saharan Saharanss made made adequate uses of local game and plant life life and they established established permanent and seasonal settlements around well stocked fishing holes. They lived on plains, punctuated by mountains and numerous points of inundation due to the frequency of rain in the ancient Sahara. Terms Denoting Social Class Chief
High Officials
male
lord
║ ║
║ Dravidian Ca, Cira
gasa(n)
kenton mannan ║
Sumerian
Sar
gana
gi
manus ║
Manding
Sa
gana
ke
mansa ║ ║
The Proto-Saharans claimed descent from the Maa or Fish Confederation. The Maa Confederation includes the Egyptians, Elamites, Dravidians, Manding, and Sumerians. In honor of this great ancestor Maa, they worshipped a god called :Amun, Amon or Amma. In addition to pay homage to Ma, the descendants of the Proto-Saharans use the term Ma, to denote greatness or highness, e.g., Manding:Maga, and Dravidian:Ma. Other Proto-Sahara Proto-Saharann tribes claimed claimed direct descent descent from the great Maa, founder founder of the Fish Confederation. For example, the Manding call themselves Ma-nde (the children of Maa) and the Sumerian called themselves Mah-Gar-ri ( exalted God's children).
13 The Proto-Saharans also had their own writing system. This writing system was used by the Dravidians in the Indus Valley, the Manding in the Western Western Sahara, and the early Egyptians. Due to the richness of the flora and fauna in the Sahara 8000 BP (before the present), ethnic groups in Middle Africa were semi-sedentary hunter-fisher gatherers who engaged in the exploitation of their habitat.In the early period the Proto -Saharans may have had a limited interest in the domestication of plants and animals. But it was not until the return of an arid climate to the Sahara between 12000-7000 BC, that the Proto -Saharans were forced to domesticate cattle cattle and goats to to ensure a reliable reliable source of food. food. Pastoralism and fishing proceeded food production in the Saharan Proto-Dravidian homeland. homeland. It appears appears that a hunter-gather hunter-gatherer er group specializi specializing ng in the hunting hunting of animals became cattle herders. They were keenly aware of the habits of game and therefore made the shift from hunter-fi hunter-fishersher-gather gatherer er to animal husbandry husbandry rapidly rapidly once the climatic climatic conditions in the Sahara made it impossible to collect grains. Due to the origin of the Dravidians and other African groups in the Sahara they share many terms for flora and fauna (Winters, 1999a, 1999b,2000). Due to the richness of the flora and fauna in the Sahara 8000 BP,ethnic groups in Middle Africa were forced to domesticate cattle. Once climatic conditions improved food surpluses led to the rise of towns and cities,complex political organization, social ranking of individuals in society, and craft specialization as certain clans and ethnic groups became more sedentary. This is supported by the numerous hearths and remains of cattle found in Chad and Libya (Wendorf, Close, & Schild 1985).
14 Often wild ass, Barbary sheep, hyena and hare were associated with wild cattle in the Sahara. Bones of domesticated domesticated cattle have come from the the Uan Muhuggiag site situated in the Sahara. Between 7500 and 10,000 BC we discover that in addition to these remains archaeologist have found evidence of slab-lined storage pits. At this time the houses had large stones situated around the perimeter (Wendorf,Close, & Schild S child 1985). Aridity arrived in the Sahara around 5900 BC. In 5800 BC settled life returned to the Sahara. During this period goat were domesticated and emmer wheat was cultivated. The farmers also cultivated millet and barley (Wendorf, Close, & Schild 1985). 19 85). The ability to produce surplus food led to an increase in population, changes in social organization and class distinctions . Naturally, population increases forced the ancestors of the Proto-Saharans to spill over into more marginal areas. This population pressure probably forced many Proto-Saharan clans to domesticate plants and animals to preserve traditional levels of food production. The Proto-Dravidians used a common black-and-red ware that has been found from the Sudan, across Southwest Asia and the Indian Subcontinent all the way to China (Singh 1982:xxiv) .The earliest use of this BRW was during the Amratian period (c.4000-3500 BC). The users of the BRW were usually called Kushites. The Proto-Dravidian migrations were not spontaneous in nature, their colonization of Central Asia was formalized. The Proto-Dravidian colonists of inner Asia were motivated by both curiosity and the need for metals. Metallurgy was important to man in the 3rd Millennium BC. At this time man was already mining metals to be fabricated into tools, jewelry and cooking utensils. Most scholars speculated that by 2000 BC properties of many common metals were understood and the location of ores were known. The
15 Dravidians probably early knew basic smelting and fabricating techniques and the basic alloy compositions. Terms Relating to Mining blacksmithing gold
steel copper
Dravidian inumu, irumbu kaani Sumerian
gush-kin
Manding umu,numu
hole
urukku uruttiram tulai
urudu saani tuufa
dul,tul kura,kuta du,tyolo
The metals were carried on both land and sea by Proto -Saharan merchants especially, the Manding and Dravidian speakers of Asia. Boats were used for water transportation while the horse horse or ass may have been used to carry goods goods along overland overland routes. Cattle Cattle were often used to pull carts loaded with goods. Geographical Terms road
mountain
deluge
Dravidian calai
kunru
Sumerian sila
kur
maari
Manding
kuru
mara 'zone of pond'
sila
amaru
The bronze Age Civilizations of Europe were founded by non- Indo-European speakers. Mellaart Mellaart 1981) The Sino-Tibetan Sino-Tibetan (S-T) and Thai speakers speakers fought the Kushite Kushite culture bearers until the end of the Bronze Age (Gafurov 1980). In the ancient literature the Proto-Dravidians are called Kushites. Using boats the Kushites moved down ancient waterways many now dried up, to establish new towns in Asia and Europe after 3500 BC. The Kushites remained supreme around the world until
16 1400-1200 1400-1200 BC. During this period period the Hua (Chinese) (Chinese) and Indo-European Indo-European (I-E) speakers began to conquer the Kushites whose cities and economies were destroyed as a result of natural catastrophes which took place on the planet between 1400-1200 BC. Later, Later, after 500 AD, Turkish speaking people began to settle parts of Central Asia. Asia. This is the reason behind the presence of the K-s-h element in many place names in Asia e.g., Kashgar, HinduKush, and Kosh. The HinduKush in Harappan times had lapis lazuli deposits. This linguistic evidence further supports the reality of Lycian and Dravidian existing as cognate languages given the established close relationship between Caucasian , Dravidian and Lycian. In summary the Dravidian people influenced many aspects of Anatolian civilization. Most importantly, the Lycians were probably a colony of the Dravidian speaking people who settle the area after the Proto-Dravidians left the Fertile African Crescent to colonize Europe. The archaeological evidence suggest a widespread widespread dispersal of of Proto-Saharan tribes tribes between 3800-2500 BC. This explains the common arrowheads at Harappan sites, and sites in Iran, Egypt, Egypt, Minoan Crete Crete and early Heladic Heladic Greece. In addition, addition, linguist linguist have found a very close close relationship relationship between Lycian and Tamil (Winters 1989c). The I-E and S-T speakers followed two methods of penetration into former Dravidian areas. First, between 2000-1650 BC they settled in areas of Dravidian occupation in small numbers, and were partly assimilated into Kushite society. Between 1650-1250 BC as the The Caucasian speakers were probably Kushites. N. Lahovary, in Dravidian Origins and the West,(Delhi 1963,p.39) is sure that the Caucasian speakers are descendants of the Egyptian colony at the Colchis. This would explain the close relationship between Dravidian-Lycian and Caucasian, and Caucasian and African languages including Egyptians as discussed by Lahovary in his book. .
17 I-E and S-T speakers reached a numerical majority in or near a Kushite town they would join forces to militarily overthrow the original inhabitants and take political power, this typified the second form of I-E and S-T S -T invasion in their respective areas of occupation. The Sumerian writing was deciphered by Col. Rawlinson. Until the Germans created the Aryan model of History, the Sumerians were said to have come from Africa. This is why Rawlinson used Oromo and Ge'ez to decipher the Sumerian writing. Researchers today claim they don't know the origin of the Sumerians to deny their African origin. The major proponent of the ancient model was Col. Rawlinson the decipherer of the cuneiform script. Using the classical literature and linguistics Col. Rawlinson said the founders of ancient civilization were the Scythes. S cythes. He made it clear that these Scythes S cythes had nothing to do with the contemporary people called Scythians because according to Rawlinson they came from Africa and were also known as Kushites. He called these people Hamites, based on the Bible identification of the children of Ham: Kush, Misraim (Egypt), (Egypt), Nimrud (Sumer-Elam) and Canaan were Scythic. As you can see the ancient Scythians had nothing to do with the Turks. Granted there is a relationship between the Turkish language and Dravidian but this is the result of the Dravidian people who formerly occupied all of Central Asia when the Turks migrated into there present habitation area. Moreover, we know that the Sumerians had keen relations with Dilmun which was the Indus valley. The Dravidians early colonized the Indus Valley and Iran. Although the Dravidian speakers form a solid block of related languages in South India, the territorial domains of the Dravidians once extended into the Indus Valley, and Iran. This view is supported by
18 (1) the evidence of Dravidian loan words in Sanskrit, and (2) the presence of Dravidian speakers in North India. Moreover, the recent decipherment of the Indus Valley script proves the Dravidian presence in the Indus Valley (Winters 1984b). Gafurov Gafurov (1980), discussed the possible possible influence of the Indus Valley Valley culture on the interior of Central Asia. Since many Indus Valley dwellers were of Dravidian origin we know that they spoke an aspect of Dravidian (Nayar 1977;Winters 1990) . Menges (1966), using linguistic data "assumed an earlier habitat of the Dravidians far to the northwest on the plateau of Iran...an area extending still a little bit more to the north into what has become Turkistan". This view is now confirmed by archaeological evidence of an Indus Indu s culture in Inner Asia (Brentjes 1983; Winters 1990). The Dravidians settled in Asia between 3000-2800 BC. (Winters 1985) From here the Dravidians spread into Central Asia, China, South and Southwest Asia. It was probably from Iran that bronze working radiated into Central and Southeast Asia. (Winters 1985b) The epicenter for the Dravidian dispersals in Asia was Iran. The motivation behind Dravidian dispersals was agro-pastoralism in the region and the search for new sources of met metals als for trade rade wit with Meso Mesopo pota tam mia, ia, the Indu Induss val valley ley and and bey beyond ond (Wi (Winter nterss 1985a,1985b) .This would explain the close relationship between Dravidian and Elamite on the the one hand, hand, and Drav Dravid idia ian, n, Mand Mandin ingg , and and Elam Elamititee on the the other other (Win (Winte ters rs 1985c,1989b). The Elamites lived in the Fars and the Bakhtiar valleys. This mountain area was named Elimaid Elimaid in ancient times. times.
19 The Elamites called themselves:Khatan. The capital city of the Elamites Susa ,was called: Khuz by the Indo-European speakers, and Kussi by the Elamites. The Chinese called the Elamites Kashti. The Armenians called the eastern Parthia: Kushana. The
BMAC cultures in Central Asia originated after after the decline of the Harappan site site
of Shortughai (c.2400-2200 BC) on the Oxus river. river. The pottery of these people was quite diverse, some of the pottery was dark brown on a greenish-white or reddish pink slip. Some researchers have noted the existence of strong Elamite affinities among the Bactria: ia: an ancien ancientt oasis civilization Bactrian aristocracy (see: Ligue & Salvatori (Ed.), Bactr from the sands of Afghan Afghanistan istan
(1989), p. 137). In addition the Altyn depe ruins have
terracotta statuettes with Proto Elamite and Proto-Sumerian script (see: P.A. Kohl (Ed.), The Bronze Age civiliz civilization ation of Central Asia (1981 (1981)) p.112 p.112).). The major Kushite group from Mesopotamia to northern India were the Kassites. The Kassites, Kassites, who occupied occupied the central Zagros were called called Kashshu. Kashshu. This name agrees with Kaska, the name of the Hattians. P.N. Chopra,in The History of South India, noted that the Kassite language bears unmistakable affinity to the Dravidian group of languages. It was probably the Kassites who introduced worship of the gods Indra and Varuna to the Indo-Aryan speaking people.
Similar pottery was used in West Asia. The pottery from Susa in Iran and Eridu in Mesopotamia of the fifth millennium BC are identical. Between 3700 and 3100 BC, Elam was under the influence of Uruk, as indicated by the shared art found at these sites during this period. By the end of the 4th millennium BC , we see the beginnings of distinctive Elamite culture in the western Fars, at the Kur Valley. Here at Tel-i-Malyan we see the first
20 Proto-Elamite tablets written in the Proto-Saharan script. Other Proto-Elamite writings soon appear at Susa. The authors of the Proto-Elamite tablets were of Proto-Saharan origin. Malyan and Susa soon became the kingdoms of Anshan and Susa. These Proto-Elamites soon spread to Tepe Sialk and Tepe Yahya which was reoccupied after being abandoned earlier due to ecological decay. The Proto-Saharans in Elam shared the same culture as their cousins in Egypt, Sumer, Elam Elam and and the the Indu Induss Vall Valley ey.. Vess Vessel elss from from the the IVBI IVBI work worksh shop op at Tepe Tepe Yahy Yahyaa (c.2100-1700 BC), have a uniform shape and design. Vessels sharing this style are distributed from Soviet Uzbekistan, to the Indus Valley. In addition, as mentioned earlier we find common arrowheads at sites in the Indus Valley ,Iran, Egypt, Minoan Crete and early Heladic Greece. There was a large migration of people into Central Asia during the 4th millennium BC .In .In Turk Turkme meni niaa thes thesee sett settle lers rs occu occupi pied ed the the Etek Etek plai plainn and and the the Tedz Tedzen en delt delta. a. In Baluchistan's Hilmand region we find the inhabitants practicing intensive agriculture. Other farmers began to establish themselves on the steppes near the Amu Darya (i.e, the Oxus) and Zeravshan rivers. Archaeologists believe that in the 3rd millennium BC people living from Iran to Sogdiana, Sogdiana, and the Indus Valley to the Capsian sea shared shared a common culture.(L culture.(Ligabue igabue & Salvatori 1989) Here the people practiced intensive irrigation agriculture . This was especially true on the Shortughai plain where we find the Amu Darya river and its tributaries the Kokcha and the Qizilsu.
21 This region had rich and fertile soils. It was here that we find Indus Valley type artifacts at the Harappan site of Shortughai. The Harappan settlement of Shortughai dates between 2400 and 2200 BC. Other Harappan artifacts have been found at Dashly and Balkhab which are also situated in Bactria. In addition to BRW on Proto-Dravidian Proto-Dravidian sites in Asia, there is a clear association association of irrigation agriculture and mining operations on the Shortughai plains settled by the Harappans. At Shortughai archaeologists have found industrial sites where lapis lazuli was worked. In other oases and steppe areas the Dravidians practiced a sedentary pastoral economy centered on irrigation agriculture. Shortughai was an important center for processing lapis lazuli. Situated along the Kokcha river, Shortughai controlled access to the mines of Sar-i-Sang in Badakshan. Other lapis lazuli mines were established in the Chagai Chag ai massif, near Harappan sites on the Hilmand and Indus rivers. Other Proto-Dravi Proto-Dravidians dians entered entered Turkmenia. Turkmenia. As in the rest of Asia, the Dravidians Dravidians spread over the region by watercraft. This is one of the reasons why the Indus Valley culture, as well as Sumerian civilization were established along rivers. Central Asia was early occupied mainly by the Kushana tribes. The Kushana ruled Turkestan until the 8th century A.D., when the Uighurs invaded the area. The Uighurs destroyed both the Kucha and Karasahr empires which were founded by the Kushana (Bagchi 1955). In conclusi conclusion on to this section section of the paper, paper, Dravidia Dravidiann coloni colonists sts from from Iran or Afgh Afghani anist stan an prob probabl ablyy sail sailed ed along along the the Tedj Tedjan an rive riverr to sett settle le parts parts of sout southe hern rn Turkmenia/Turkmenistan.This is supported by the discovery of imported Indus seals at
22 Altyn-Depe Altyn-Depe (Masson (Masson 1981). Altyn-Depe Altyn-Depe was a large ceremonial ceremonial complex in southern Turkmenia. Archaeologic Archaeological al evidence also indicates indicates that colonists colonists from southern southern Turkmenia probab probably ly took took food food - produc producing ing cultur culturee to the borders borders of Xinji Xinjiang, ang,Chi China na in the 3rd millennium BC.(Kohl 1981) Other culture elements including the wheel and cattle were take takenn to Chin Chinaa by the the Elam Elamitites es and and Prot Proto-D o-Dra ravi vidi dian anss in the the 3rd 3rd mill millen enni nium um BC. BC. (Fairservis 1975). The languages of the Dravidians, Elamites, Sumerians and Manding are genetically related (Winters 1985d, 1989b, 1994). N. Lahovary (1957) noted structural and grammatical analogies of Dravidian, Sumerian and Elamites. K.L. Muttarayan (1975) provides hundreds of lexical correspondences and other linguistic data supporting the family relationship between Sumerian and Dravidian. C. A. Winters (1980, 1985d, 1989b, 1994) and L. Homburger (1951) have provided evidence of a genetic relationship between the Dravidian languages and the Manding Superset of languages. Dr. Homburger has also proven that the Manding and Coptic languages are closely related. The discovery of Intercultural style vessels from Susa (in Iran),Sumerian, Egyptian and Indus Valley sites suggest a shared ideological identity among these people (Kohl 1978). In fact the appearance of shared iconographic symbols and beliefs within diverse areas suggest cultural and ethnic unity among the people practicing these cultures. The common naturalistic motifs shared by the major civilizations include, writing (symbols), combatant snakes , the scorpion, bull and etc. This evidence of cultural unity is explained by the origin of these people in the Proto-Sahara (Winters 1985a, 1989).
23 The Proto-Saharans or Kushites used similar terms for writing. In general the term for writing was formed by the labial stops /p/ and /b/. For example:
Dravidian par 'write' Manding bo, bu 'make a stroke', sebe 'write' Elamite tipu 'to write' Galla tafa 'to write' There are also other corresponding terms for 'mark', or 'draw' that begin with velar stops: Dravidian kiri, kuri 'write, draw, mark' Egyptian hti 'carve' Manding kiri, kiti 'mark' In Egyptian we have several terms for write 0 ss #, 0 zs # , and 0 ssw #. During the Old Kingdom writing was referred to as 0 iht # . The Egyptian term for writing 0 ssw # is analogous to the Mande terms 0 sewe # or 0 sebe # 'writing, trace, design'. In Dravidian among
other terms we have rasu 'write', and
shu 'writing' in Sumerian. The Egyptian term 0 zs # is also closely related to Sumerian 0 shu #.
Writing systems among Dravido-African people were mainly mainly devised for two purposes. Firstly, to help merchants keep records on the business venture they made.
24 Secondly, the Proto-Saharan script was also used to preserve religious doctrines or write obituaries. The scarcity of documents, written for historical preservation among ancient Dravido-African groups resulted from the fact that the keeping of history, was usually left in the hands of traditional (oral) historians. These historians memorized the histories h istories of their nation and people for future recitation before members of their respective communities. This oral history was often accompanied by music or o r delivered in poetic verse and remains the premier source for the history of most African nations even today.
It is obvious that the first inscriptions were engraved in stone by the Proto-Saharans , or a stylus was used to engrave wet clay (Winters 1985b). The use of the stylus or stick to engrave clay is most evident in the pottery marks found on the pottery excavated at many ancient sites which possess similar symbols impressed on the pottery. This view is supported by the fact that the term for writing in Dravidian and Egyptian include the consonants /l/, /r/ or /d/. A "u", is usually attached to the initial consonants (Winters 1985b). For example: Sumerian ru, shu Elamite talu Dravidian carru Egyptian drf
25 These terms agree with the Manding terms for excavate or hollow out 0 du #, 0 do #, 0 kulu #, 0 tura #, etc. The Sumerian term for
writing was 0 du #. This show that the
Proto-Saharan term for writing denoted the creation of o f impressions on wet clay and hard rock. The origin of writing among the Proto-Saharans as an activity involving the engraving of stone is most evident in the Egyptian language. languag e. This hypothesis is supported by the Egyptian words 0 m(w)dt #. The term 0 md t # means both '(sculptor's) chisel' and 'papyrus-roll, book'. The multiple meanings of 0 md t # makes it clear that the Egyptian, and probably other descendants of the Proto-Saharans saw a relationship between engraving stone and the creation of books.
26
Other Egyptian lexical items also support the important role Proto-Saharans saw in engraving rocks, and writing. In addition to md t we have, 0 hti # 'carve, sculpture' and 0 iht # 'writing'. The fact that iht is an Old Kingdom term for writing, almost identical to hti, is further evidence that writing involved the engraving of stone.
POTTERY INSCRIPTIONS The Proto-Saharan writing was first used to write characters on pottery (Winters 1980), to give the ceramics a talismanic quality . Similar signs appear on Chinese, Harappan, South
27 Indian Megalithic, Libyan and Cretan pottery (see figure 1). These signs were invented by the Proto-Saharans for purposes of communication. These pottery signs agree with the so-called linear Egyptian signs mentioned by Petrie (1921, p.83). They frequently appear on Egyptian pottery . Moreover Dr. J.T. Cornelius (1956-57) used epigraphic evidence to show that the graffiti marks on the South Indian Megalithic pottery has affinity to other ancient scripts including the Libyan, Egyptian and Cretan signs. The pottery signs were symbols from the Proto-Saharan syllabic writing. David (1955) was sure that the Dravidian and Cretan writings were analogous to the Egyptian pottery script. The comparison of these these pottery symbols support this view.
28
29
The Egyptian pot marks in Upper and Lower Egypt. Petrie (1900) was the first to record the Egyptian potmarks. These potmarks are found on pottery dated to Dynasties O to I (van den Brink 1992). These Thinite potmarks published by van den Brink (1992) agree almost totally with the Oued Mertoutek, Gebel Sheikh Suleiman, Harappan, ProtoElamite and Proto-Sumerian (see figure 3). SYLLABIC WRITING It is clear that a common system of record keeping was used by people in the 4th and 3rd millennium B.C. from Saharan Africa, to Iran, China and the Indus Valley. Although the Elamites and Sumerians abandoned the Proto-Elamite writing and the Uruk script respectively, in favor of cuneiform writing, the Dravidians, Minoans (EteoCretans) and Manding continued to use the Proto-Saharan script (see figure 2) (Winters 1985c).
30
The oldest Proto-Saharan syllabic inscriptions come from Oued Mertoutek and an d Gebel Sheikh Suleiman. These inscriptions are over ove r 5000 years old (Wulsin 1941; Winters 1983a ). The Oued Mertoutek inscription was found in the Western Sahara (see figure 4). This inscription was found on the lower level of Oued Mertoutek and dated to 3000 B.C. by Wulsin (1941). The Oued Mertoutek inscription like other Libyco-Berber writing is in the Manding (Malinke- Bambara) languages. In ancient time a major Manding group was the Garamantes, they lived in the Fezzan. Graves (1980) claimed that the Garamantes who primarily lived in the Fezzan region of Libya, founded Attica, and worked the mines at Laureuim and Trace in Asia Minor. The Oued Mertoutek inscription is of a ram with syllabic characters written above the ram, and within the outline of o f the ram's body (see figure 4). This inscription written in an aspect of Manding was deciphered in 1981 (Winters 1983a).
31
We were able to decipher the Oued Mertoutek inscription, and the Minoan Linear A, Harappan writing and the Olmec script because of the Vai script (Winters 1984a,1984b,1984c). Winters (1977,1979) discovered that the Vai syllabary of 200 characters matched all the signs in the syllabaries of Crete, Olmec America, Oracle Bone writing of China and the Harappan script (Winters 1979,1983b,1983c). And that due to the genetic linguistic unity of the people who made these signs, when you gave the signs in these diverse areas, the phonetic ph onetic values of the Vai signs, but read them in the Dravidian or Manding language you could read the ancient literature of Crete and the
32 Indus Valley (Winters 1985b). Thus the syllables which retain constant phonetic values can be used by different groups to write their own languages. Many would-be decipherers have assumed that it is almost impossible to prove a genetic linguistic relationship using data of comparatively recent time-depth. But this view of archaeological decipherment is untenable. In fact, in the well known decipherments of Egyptian and Cuneiform, linguistic data of a comparatively recent timedepth was used to interpret the inscriptions. For example, Jean Champollion used Coptic Cop tic to read the ancient Egyptian writing. And Sir Henry Rawlinson, the decipherer of the cuneiform script used Galla (a Cushitic language spoken in Africa) and Mahra ( a south Semitic language) to interpret the cuneiform writing. This meant that we could read the Proto-Saharan writing using recent Manding and Dravidian linguistic data. This view is supported by the use of cuneiform writing by different groups in West Asia and Asia Minor. The cuneiform script was used to write many distinct languages including Akkadian, Elamite, Hurrian, Hittite and Sumerian. The key to deciphering the world of cuneiform writing was the fact that each sign had only one value. As a result, to read a particular cuneiform script took only the discovery of the language written in the cuneiform script. Therefore the decipherment of the Persian cuneiform script provided the key to the cuneiform cognate scripts. The decipherment of the ancient Manding inscriptions using the Vai sounds, was the key to the decipherment of the ProtoSaharan scripts: Linear A, the Oracle Bone Bo ne writing, the Olmec and the Harappan writing (Winters 1979, 1983b,1984).
33
Indus Valley Writing The Harappans have left us thousands of written documents. These documents are a re called seals by archaeologists. The Harappan seals are written w ritten in a Dravidian language anologous to Tamil (Winters,1990). Contraversey surrounds the Indus Valley writing. Recently , Steve Farmer, Richard Sproat and Michel Witzel, in “The Collapse of the Indus-Script Thesis: The myth of Harappan Civilization” ( Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies, 11/2 (2004), pp.19-57) argue that the Harappan people of the Indus Valley were illiterate. Farmer et al, claim that the Indus Valley seals have no phonetic content. Any theory must have internal and external validity. The question we must ask is “Does the theorems in the Farmer et al, article measure the content it was intended to measure?” The answer to this question is a simple “No”. Farmer et al make several theorems ,generally they claim that the Indus Valley symbols must be heraldry or a bevy of magical symbols because the inscriptions are: 1) low sign frequency on the Indus seals (p.36) ; 2) signs to brief to reflect phonetic encoding (pp.31-33); 3) absence of manuscript tradition; and 4) the inability of the Dravidian theory to lead to the decipherment of the Indus Valley writing (p.20). All of these theorems are easily falsified. Firstly,
34 there is a manuscript tradition for Indus valley writing. This is supported by the appearance of Harappan signs on India pottery . B.B. Lal found that 89% of the graffiti marks on the megalithic red-and-black ware had affinity to Indus Valley signs. In addition many symbols found in the Indus Valley writing are also found on the Indian Punch marked coins. The research by Lal indicated that the Indus Valley writing should be read from right to left. This view was later confirmed by I Mahadevan in 1986. Secondly, Dr. Winters have pointed out elsewhere, that the Harappan seals record “wish statements” and can be deciphered using the Tamil/Dravidian language (see):http://geocities.com/olmec982000/IndusInspiration.pdf (see): http://geocities.com/olmec982000/IndusInspiration.pdf . The ability to read Indus seals using Dravidian languages, and presentation of the grammar and morphology of the Indus Valley writing falsifies the variable of Farmer et al,
that we are unable to
decipher the Indus Valley writing using the Dravidian hypothesis (see: http://us.share.geocities.com/olmec982000/HarWRITE.pdf ). Until, Farmer et al, can present linguistic evidence to falsify Dr. Winters’ decipherment we must reject researchers contention that Dravidian languages can
35 not be used to read Indus inscriptions. I point out in the above article that the sayings on the seals, are similar to the messages recorded in the TiruKurral. The Holy Kural contains
statements that the
Dravidians used to help them attain aram, and the good life through doing Good. The Indus valley seals were probably worn by the Harappans given the presence of a hole on the back of the seals where a string could be placed to tie the seal around an ankle or neck. If Farmer knew anything about Dravidian culture and history he would have known that the Dravidians have a long tradition of wearing totems containing short messages with great import or meanings. For example, the "thaalikkodi", talisman on a turmeric-dyed string or gold, worn around the neck, is the Tamil counterpart to the Western wedding ring now. In addition,Indians continued the practice of using a few letters to write literate text , as indicated by the punch marked coins that average 5 symbols. Farmer et al, argue that the inscriptions on the Harappan seals are too short to represent phonetic reading . This hypothesis must also be rejected,
the
research of Farmer et al lacks validity, fails to support
36 their conclusions and is contradicted by their own statistics. For example, Farmer et al make it clear that the mean word length for comparable Egyptian text is 6.94 and Indus text 7.39, this shows no statistical difference and should have alerted the researchers’ to the fallacy of their arguments. Farmer et al’s, contention that there is no evidence of short text in the history of writing representing literate text is contradicted by the history of writing in ancient Egypt. Dr. Gunter Dryer, an Egyptologist, has found Egyptian text with as few as two (2) symbols that are phonetically readable ( see:
37 http://www.archaeology.org/9903/newsbriefs/egypt.html ).
This is evidence that the literature review of the authors does not reflect the actual knowledge base for ancient writing. The absence of support for any of the theorems made by Farmer et al, mean that we must reject their hypothesis based on a content analysis of their work and evidence and lack of validity. Internal validity
38 relates to the ability of the content of a research proposal to draw correct inferences from the data. In Farmer et al the researchers state that the mean word length for comparable Egyptian text is 6.94 and Indus text 7.39, this shows no statistical difference, and thus fails to support Farmer’s inference that the short length of Indus text indicate illiteracy. External validity arises in research when the experimenters draw inaccurate inferences from the sample data and apply them to external phenomena . Farmer et al maintain that no ancient writing system can produce literate text with just a few signs. This theorem is falsified by the discovery of Dr. Dreyer of readable Egyptian text with as few as 2 symbols. Continued debate of Farmer et al is giving the work of these authors more weigh than it deserves. An examination of the content of Farmer et al make it clear that the review of the literature indicate that they did not read all of the previous research in this area, it they had they would have found the work of Dr. Dreyer that contradict their proposal that short inscriptions indicate illiteracy. A cursory examination of the content of the work proves that it lacks content validity , and does not support the
39 claims made by the authors regarding the literacy of the Harappans. It makes it clear that the data presented by Farmer et al did not accomplish the stated purpose of their article. We have only one recourse, rejection of the theories made by Farmer et al.
Scholars early recognized that the Harappans may have spoken a Dravidian language. This view was supported by 1) the fact that in the West Indus , Brahui , a Dravidian language is spoken in Baluchistan and Afghanistan; 2) the Rig Veda is written in a form of Dravidian called SumeroTamil; and 3) the presence of Dravidian loan words in Sanskrit indicated that Dravidian speakers probably occupied northern India and Pakistan before the Aryan invasion of the area after 1000 BC with their grey ware. Over 4000 Harappan seals have been found at 60 different sites. The script incorparates 419 signs. But there are around 60-70 basic syllabic signs. The remaining 339 signs are compound or ligature signs formed by the combination of two or more basic signs (Winters,1987). (Winters,1987). There are also 10 ideographic signs (Winters, 1987a).
40 Inscribed Indus Valley Objects Harappan writing appears on both steatite seals and copper plates/tablets (Winters, 1987b). Ninety percent of the seals are square, the remaining ten percent are rectangular. They range in size from half-an-inch to around aroun d two-and-half inches.
Harappan seals and sealings
The seals have a raised boss on the back pierced with a hole for carrying, or being placed on parcels. These seals carry messages addressed to the gods of the Harappans requesting support and assistanc in obtaining "aram" (benevolence) (Winters 1984a, 1984b).
The key to deciphering the Harappan script was the recognition that the Proto-Dravidians who settled the Indus Valley had formerly lived in the Proto-Sahara were they used the so-called Libyco-Berber writing (Winters,1985b). (Winters,1985b). Further research indicated that the Indus Valley writing was related not only to the Libyco-Berber writing but also the Brahmi writing. Some researchers claim that the Brahmi writing is related to Phonecian writing. But a comparison of the Brahmi vowels and Phonecian vowels fail to show similarity.
41
Comparison of Brahmi and Phonecian Vowels
Although we fail to see a relationship between the Brahmi and Phonecian vowels, comparison of the Brahmi and Harappan vowels show complete correspondence.
It is clear that a common system of record keeping was used by people in the 4th and 3rd millenium BC from Saharan Africa to Iran, China and the Indus Valley (Winters, 1985). The best examples of this common writing were the Linear A script, Proto-Elamite, Uruk script Indus Valley writing and the Libyco-Berber writing (Winters, 1985). Although the Elamites and Sumerians, abandoned this writing in favor of the cuneiform script, the Dravidians, Minoans, Mande (the creators of the Libyco-Berber writing) and Olmecs continued to use the Proto-Saharan script. The Sumerian, Elamite, Dravidian and Manding languages are genetically related (Winters,1989). (Winters,1989). This is not a recent discovery by linguist and anthropologists. N. Lahovary in Dravidian Origins and the West (Madras,1957) noted structural and grammatical analogies of the Dravidian , Sumerian and Elamite languages. K.L. Muttarayan provides hundreds of lexical correspondences and other linguistic data supporting the family relationship between Sumerian and Dravidian languages. And D. Proto -Elamo Dravidians Drav idians:: The Evidence and its Implication Implica tion (Philadelphia, McAlpin in Proto1981) provides documented evidence for the family relationship between the Dravidian languages and Elamite. Using the evidence of cognate scripts and the analogy between the Dravidian language, and the languages spoken by peoples using cognate scripts it was able to make three assumptions leading to the decipherment of the Harappan writing. One, it was assumed that Harappan script was written in the Two, it was assumed that the Dravidian
Dravidian language.
language shares linguistic and cultural affinities with the Elamites, Manding and Sumerians--all of whom used a similar writing system.
42 This led to a corollary hypothesis that the Harappan writing probably operated on the same principles as the related scripts, due to a probable common origin. Three, it was assumed that since the Harappan
script has affinity to the Proto-Manding writing (Libyco-Berber) and the Manding language, the Harappan script could be read by giving these signs the phonetic values they had in the Proto-Manding script as preserved in the Vai writing, since the northern Manding languages like Bambara and Malinke are genetically related to Dravidian languages like Tamil. The discovery of cognition between Vai and Harappan signs ont the one hand, and the corresponding relationship of sign sequences in the Harappan and Vai scripts helped lead to a speedy reading and decipherment of the Harappan signs. This made it possible to use symbols from the Manding-Vai script to interpret Harappan signs. The only difference, was that when interpreting the phonetic values of the Harappan script, they were to be read using the Dravidian lexicon. The terms used to express the translation of Harappan signs are taken from Burrow and Emeneau's, Dravidian Etymological Dictionary. Once the seals were broken down into their syllabic values, we then only had to determine if the Harappan term was a monosyllabic word, or if it was a term that was made up of only one syllable. A comparison of the Harappan signs, Brahmi and Vai writing show that the signs have similar phonetic value. It is the similarity in phonetic value that allows us to read the Indus Valley writing use Vai signs. Many would-be deciphers of dead languages have assumed that you can not read ancient language using contemporary or comparatively recent time-depth lexical material. This is a false view of archaeological decipherment. For example, Jean Champollion used Coptic to read the Egyptian hieroglyphics; and Sir S ir Henry Rawlinson, used Galla ( a Cushitic language spoken in Africa) and Mahra (a South Semitic language) to decipher the cuneiform writing. Moreover, we know from the history of the cuneiform writing several different languages (Eblate, Elamite, Sumerian, Assyrian, Akkadian, etc.) were used written in the cuneiform script. This meant that if cuneiform could be used to write different languages, why couldn't the Proto-Saharan script used in ancient middle Africa (and later Asia and Europe), be used to write genetically ge netically related languages like the Manding and Dravidian groups.
43
This decipherment Harappan seals (Winters, 1984a, 1984b, 1987a, 1985, 1987b, 1989) shows that they do not contain the names and titles of their owners. They are talismans, with messages addressed to the Harappan gods g ods requesting blessings. This is in sharp contrast to the Mesopotamian seals which were used for administrative and commercial purposes. The Harappan seals illustrate that the Harappan Believer wanted from his god 1) a good fate; 2) spiritual richness; 3) virtue; 4) humility; and 5) perserverance. They were protective amulets found in almost every room in the city of Mohenjo-Daro.
44
A Unicorn seal, note the manger under the head of this god
The Harappan writing was read from right to left. Above we can see the average Harappan seal and its talismanic formula: 1) depiction of Diety X (in this case Maal/Mal) as an animal, and then the votive inscription was written above the Deity. The manger, under the head of Maal is made up of several Harappan signs. It reads Puu-iPaa or " A flourishing Condition. Thou distribute (it)". The Harappan seals were often found by archaeologists in a worn condition. The fact that the seals often had holes drilled in the back, suggest that the seals were we re tied with string and hung around the neck or from belts.
Perforated boss on the back of many seals
The importance of the Harappan seals as amulets is attested too by the popularity of wearing totems among the Dravidians. During the Sangam period (of ancient Dravidian history), the warriors and young maidens wore anklets with engraved designs and or
45 totemic signs. Moreover at the turn of the century, in South India, it was common for children to wear an image of Hanumen around their neck; while wives wore a marriage totem around their necks as a symbol of household worship. In the Harappan worldview animals were used in many cases to represent characteristics human beings should exhibit. As a result the bird was recognized as a symbol of the highest love, due to its devotion to its offspring ; and the elephant due to its strict monogamy symbolized the right attitude towards family life and social organization. The principal Harappan gods are all depicted on the Harappan seals. The main god of the Harappans was the unicorn. The unicorm probably represented Maal ( Vishnu or Kataval). Kataval). This god was held in high esteem by the coherds and shepards. Other Harappan gods were represented by the water buffalo, humped bull, elephant, rhino, tiger and mythological animals.
Seals depicting the Harappan gods
The crescent shaped horns of the oxen or castrated bull on some Harappan seals may represent the mother goddess "Kali". The lunar crescent shape of the oxen's curved horns recalled the lunar crescent which was w as the primordial sign for the mother goddess. Siva was probably represented by the the short horn bull. The elephant on the Harappan seals may have represented Ganesa/Ganesha the elephant headed god of India. In the "Laws of Manu", it is written that Ganesha is the god of the 'shudras', the aboriginal population of India. The Tamilian name for the elephant god is 'Pillaiyar, palla and
46 veeram'. The hunter figure on Harappan seals wearing the horned headdress and armed with a bow and arrow may have been Muruga, the son of Uma. Pillayar, is considered the shrewdest of animals. He is associated with Harvest time, abundance and luck. The appearence of mythological animals on the Harappan seals may refer to Pillayar or Ganesha in one of his many transformations. In summary , my decipherment of the Harappan seals indicate that the seals and copper plates/tablets are amulets or talismans. They are messages addressed to the Dravidian gods of the Harappans, requesting for the bearer of the seal the support and assistance of his god in obtaining aram (Benenolence). (Benenolence). As a result, each animal figure on the seals was probably a totemic deity, of a particular Dravidian clan or economic unit that lived in the Harappan cities. As a result, eventhough the Harappans had different gods, each god was seen by his follwers as 1) a god having no equal, 2) a god having neither Karma, and 3) as a god who is the ocean of aram. The Harappan believed that man must do good and live a benevolent life so he could obtain Pukal (fame), for his right doing(s). Through the adoption of benevolence an individual would obtain the reward of gaining the good things of life--the present world-and the world beyond. In general, the Harappan seals let us know that the Harappans sought righteousness and a spotlessly pure mind. Purity of mind was wa s the 'sine qua non', for happiness 'within'.
Dravidian Writing After the Decline of Indus Valley
Writing on South India Ceramics Writing was never lost in India. The earliest writing appeared on Indus ceramics. These signs are the same as the Indus Valley signs. Indus Valley type signs continued to be produced throughout India, especially South India as evidenced by the appearances of these signs on megalithic pottery, burial urns and palm leaf manuscripts. The
47 evidence, when we considered, the cermaic scripts, show an unbroken history of writing from Harappan to contemporary times. Archaeologists agree thet Black and red ware (BRW) was unearth on many South India sites are related to Dravidian speaking people. The BRW style has been found on the lower levels of Madurai and Tirukkampuliyur. B.B. Lal in 1963 made it clear that the South Indian BRW was related to Nubian ware dating to the Kerma dynasty. This is supported by the appearance of Harappan signs on India pottery . B.B. Lal (1963) found that 89% of the graffiti marks on the megalithic red-and-black ware had affinity to Indus Valley signs. This research indicated that the Indus Valley writing should be read from right to left. This view was later confirmed by I Mahadevan in 1986.
Indus Pot from Revi
Adchanallur Urn, Tamil Nadu
Singh (1982) made it clear that he believes that the BRW radiated from Nubia through Mesopotamia and Iran southward into India. BRW is found at the lowest levels of Harappa and Lothal dating to 2400BC. T.B. Nayar in The problem of Dravidian Origins (1977) proved
48 that the BRW of Harappa has affinities to predynastic Egyptian and West Asian pottery dating to the same time period. After 1700 BC, with the end of the Harappan civilization spread BRW southward into the Chalcolithic culture of Malwa and Central India down to Northern Deccan and eastward into the Gangetic Basin. The BRW of the Malwa culture occupied the Tapi Valley Pravara Godavari and the Bhima Valleys. In addition we find that the pottery used by the at Gilund, Rajasthan on the banks of the Bana River, was also BRW (see: Gilund, at:http://bestindia http://bestindiatours.com/archae tours.com/archaeology/harappan/Gilund.htm ology/harappan/Gilund.htmll ). This indicates that the people at Gilund, like other people in North India at this time were Dravidian speakers given their pottery. If this is so, the building where the "bin" containing the cache of BMAC seals were found probably represented a warehouse where exotic objects imported from Central Asia were probably stored. Let's not forget, that Central Asia was a major center for Harappan copper and tin for hundreds of years. S. Gurumurthy in Ceramic traditions in South India upto 300 AD , found , like B.B. Lal before him that the graffiti on
South Indian pottery was engraved with Harappan signs. He found that the Tamil Nadu pottery graffiti agrees with Brahmi letters dating back to 1000BC. This further supports the view that continuity existed between Harappan writing and Brahmi-Tamili writing discovered in South India. The recent discovery of a Tamil-Brahmi inscription at Adichanallur is very interesting. It is interesting because the site is dated between 1500-500BC by thermo-luminescence.
49
Dr. Satyamurthy of the Archeaological Survey of India (ASI) and Superintending Archaeologist and Director of the excavation has dated the inscription to 500BC. Dr. Sampath, retired Director of Epigraphy of ASI, has tentatively read the inscription as “Ka ri a ra va [na] ta”.
This inscription is very interesting because the date for
the site would place the writing at an age hundreds of years prior to the introduction of Brahmi writing to India.
Inscribed Pot from Adichanallur
It is no secret that the Megalithic sites of India have yielded many inscriptions that agree with signs associated with the Indus Valley writing. Moreover, it is no secret that the archaeologist B.B. Lal was able to learn the direction for the writing of the Indus Valley script by studying cognate sites on South Indian Pottery. Since the date of this inscription is very early
50 it suggest that it may be written in the Tamil of the Indus Valley seals. I decided to test this hypothesis by attempting to read the Adichanallur inscription based on my decipherment of the Harappan writing. The Adichanallur inscription has five singular signs and two compound signs (5 & 6). We will read the inscription from left to right. Reading the signs from left to right we have the following: (1) ta, (2) na, (3) ka, (4) I, (5) tata, (6) uss vey and (7) gbe. Signs 2 and 7 are not normally found in the corpus of Harappan signs. As a result, I had to refer to the Vai inscriptions which I have used over the years to find the phonemic values of the Harappan signs. In Vai, the term gbe, means “righteousness”. The transliteration of the inscription therefore reads: Ta na ka i tata uss-vey gbe. The translation of the inscription is the following: “ Tanaka, give him greatness, open (up for his) Fate righteousness”. The term tata, can be read as greatness or father. So we might also read the inscription as follows: “Thou father Tanaka, (will have a) Fate blossoming Righteousness”. These readings of the Adichanallur inscription are tentative. This epigraphic finding and others is making it clear that the history of writing in India must be re-written. The epigraphic evidence from South India is making it clear that the Indian writing has a continuous history spanning from Indus Valley times
51 down to South Indian pottery and later Tamili writing.
Yet, the fact remains the inscriptions from this site are older than any Brahmi inscriptions. It stands to reasoning that these inscriptions may be read syllabically, rather than as an alphabet. This would explain the economy of signs used to write this obituary. I look forward to there reading by “experts” in this area.
The model for the geometric patterns for the Brahmi script, was Indus writing; Eventhough Gift Siromoney and Michael Lockwood believe the the Brahmi script was invented by one person and that the writing system has no relation to Harappan writing.Like Siromoney & Lockwood , Irathan Mahadevan believe there is no relationship between Brahmi and Indus writing, because the later sctipt in his opinion is pictorial, and Brahmi was based on Phonecian writing. V. Kannaiyan on the otherhand, believes that Brahmi was borrowed from the Tamil, by Asoka and is based on the Tamil Nadu Cave script. Mahadevan disputes this theory in Early Tamil Epigraphy:from the earliest time to the Sixth Century AD. Although this is Mahadevan's opinion this view is not supported by the evidence. S. Gurumurthy in Ceramic traditions in South India upto 300 AD , found , like B.B. Lal before him that the graffiti on
South Indian pottery was engraved with Harappan signs. He found that the Tamil Nadu pottery graffiti agrees with Brahmi letters dating back to 1000BC.
52 Dr. Gurumurthy attempted to read the Indus Valley writing based on his identification of Indus writing as a form of Brahmi.To read the signs he uses the rebus method, for example he identified the so called jar sign as "head of a human body". Mahadevan rejects Gurumurthy”s
decipherment because the lexical items Gurumurthy calls
Proto Dravidian include many Sanskrit terms. In addition, Mahadevan believes that basing the Indus-Brahmi connection on "mere resemblances" may be methodologically unsound. Eventhough Mahadevan rejects Dr. Gurumurthy's decipherment of Indus writing, the fact remains that as pointed out by Dr. Gurumurthy the Brahmi signs are identical to inscriptions from Tamil Nadu. The recent discovery of urns from Adhichanallur in Tamil Nadu, by the Archaeological Survey of India dating back to 800 BC with TamilBrahmi inscriptions make it clear that the Tamil were writing long before the Brahmi script was popularized in India. Poorna Chandra Jeeva , in his recent Decipherment of the Indus Writing also used Brahmi. He believes that Tamil-Brahmi or Tamili,
is a descendant of Indus writing and that Indus writing is an alphabetic system. He accepts the view that Brahmi-Tamil, was influenced by the Phoenician writing. Dr. Jeeva, like Dr. Gurumurthy, claims that the jar sign is of a head. But instead of claiming the head is human, Jeeva says it's a cow head and gives it the sound value "aa". This does not correspond to Tamil, "aa" does not mean cow head, or head for that matter.The DED says that "aa" meams `ox', not cow head. This is not the only mistake made by Jeeva in his interpretation of Indus writing if he is reading the signs using Brahmi. Jeeva claims that he has found diacritic marks in the Harappan writing (see:pp.253-257). The main problem with his reading of the signs is that the sound values he
53 gives the signs via his rebus reading of the script are inconsistent and based on pure conjecture. Although Dr. Jeeva has not deciphered the Indus writing he does provide numerous examples of Brahmi, Tamili and Indus signs that are analogous. Winters’ decipherment of the Indus writing made it clear that Brahmi was based on the Indus writing, but he did not use Brahmi or Tamili to read the signs, because he had discovered that the sound values for script could be found in the Vai writing system of West Africa. The major problem with Dr. Gurumurthy and Dr. Jeeva's use of Brahmi to decipher the Indus writing is that they assumed that Brahmi was modeled on Phonecians This was the worng theoretical frame work to base their hypothesis since the Brahmi and Phonecian signs have different sound values..
Winters’ read the Harappan signs by giving them the same sound values as the Vai writing. I was able to do this because the Mande languages are related to Sumerian, Elamite and Tamil. A comparison of the sound values he gave Indus writing, when he compared Indus signs to Brahmi signs. This test illustrated that the writing systems are genetically related. Winters’ decipherment of the Indus Valley writing indicate that the Brahmi script is a descendent of the Harappan writing. Many scholars have suggested continuity between the Harappan script and the Brahmi semi-alphabetic writing. Hunter and Langdon believed that there was a connection between Harappan writing and Brahmi. Moreover Mahalingam has made it clear that the Brahmi script was probably invented to write non-Aryan languages. Other points supporting this view are the Boustrophedon style of writing the Harappan signs, and the Asokan inscriptions at
54 Yerragudi in Andhra Pradesh. Other evidence of Brahmi being written from right to left comes from Sinhalese inscription, and early coins from Eran. Some scholars dispute the theory that a continuity exists between the Harappan and Brahmi script. This is false. The Brahmi and Old Phoenician share similar shapes, but the characters lack phonemic agreement . The origin of the Brahmi writing is Ethiopic.
In conclusion, geometric forms of the Brahmi writing are based on Harappan writing. Jeeva and Gurumurthy are correct in claiming a genetic relationship between Brahmi and Harappan writing, even though they have failed to decipher the Indus writing. Their failure in deciphering the writing results from their inability to see a relationship between the Harappo-Dravidians and their kin, the Mande, Sumerian and Elamite speakers who used similar writing systems (Proto-Sumerian, Linear Elamite and Libyco-Berber [Vai] writing]. This failure, was compounded by the fact that Jeeva and Gurumurthy assumed 1) Indus writing was primarially pictographic and tried to read the writing using a rebus method without really knowing the culture and ideology of the Harappans. They are interpreting these signs based on their view of artifacts in the contemporary world, as a result, we find one of the researchers seeing the jar sign as a human head and the other recognizing the same signs as that of a cow head. Secondly, Dr. Jeeva and Dr. Gurumurthy read the Indus symbols as an alphabet. The fact that the writing is syllabic, and not alphabetic suggested that you must read the language using the monosyllabic words associated with each sign. Moreover, the Tamili alphabet is too limited in number to account for the over 400 signs
55 used to write the Indus seals. This is the basic reason why Dr. Jeeva has not provided different readings for each of the man signs that include attached signs/ lines. Moreover, although Dr. Jeeva reads, the man sign as "k", it would have been more logical to read the signs as "al", since this is the monosyllabic word for `man' in the Dravidian Etymological Dictionary (DED). Use of a rebus reading to read all the Harappan signs unless the figure is clearly that of something we can not dispute will always lead to the wrong interpretation of the meaning of a sign e.g., reading the sign for man as `k', instead of `al'. Eventhough we can not use Brahmi or Tamili to read Indus writing, we must reject the view of Mahadevan and Siromoney that Brahmi was not modeled on the Indus writing. This view is supported by the fact that the Brahmi and Indus signs have similar values to Winters’ identification of the sound values for Indus signs. This finding is congruent with the archaeological evidence and sound values Winters gives Indus writing.
Punch Marked Coin Script The Punch Marked coins of India also show the continued use of Indus Valley signs after the decline of civilization in the Indus Valley.Dilip Rajgor, in Punchmarked coins of Early Historic India (2001), gives a detailed history of punchmarked coins in India dating from 600 B.C. to the rise of Magadha around 400 B.C. Dr. S.
Kalyanaraman, in Survival of Sarasvati hieroglyphs into historical
periods (see: http://spaces.msn.com/members/sarasvati97/) provides a detailed discussion of the relationship between the punch-marked coins of India and the Harappan writing. Dr. Kalyanaraman wrote that :
There are remarkable parallels There
“
56 between between the Sarasvati heiroglyphs heiroglyphs and the symbols used on punch-marked punch-marked coins and on the sign graphs employed on Sohgaura copper plate inscription – which becomes an explanatory Rosetta stone in two scripts: Sarasvati hieroglyphs and brahmi script. Such a similarity similarity has been noted by many scholars, some also suggested that the devices on punch-marked coins are a survival of the Sarasvati (Harappan) Civilization: Dr. Pran Nath had noticed the resemblance between the signs on punch-marked coins and the Sarasvati epigraphs (Indus inscriptions) and had published his study of punchmarked coins in the British Museum in: Indian Historical Quarterly, Vol. vii, 1931, Supplement, pp. 11 f. Bhattacharya, P.N., A hoard of silver punch-marked coins from Purnea, MASI, No. 62, pp. 5ff; Durga Prasad, Classification and significance of the symbols on the silver punch-marked coins of ancient India, JASB, 1934, pp. 217 ff.; Observations on different types of silver punch-marked coins, their period and locale, JASB, 1937, pp. 322 ff.; Suryavamshi, Bhagwan Singh, Interpretation of some symbols of the punch-marked coins, Journal of the Oriental Institute of Baroda, Vol. XII, No. 2, Dec. 1962, 1962, pp. 152 ff.; ff.; Fabri Fabri,, C.L., C.L., The punc punch-m h-mark arked ed coin coins: s: a survi survival val of the the Indus Indus civilization, JRAS, 1935, p. 307 ff.; Altekar, AS, Symbols on the copper band in the Patna museum, JNSI, Bombay, Vol. IX, Part II, pp. 88-92. K.N. Dikshit noted in Numismatic Society Society and United United Provinc Provinces es Histor Historyy Societ Societyy meetin meetings gs that that certain certain metal metal pieces pieces recovered during the excavations at Mohenjo-daro agreed in shape and in weight-system with the punch-marked coins. (Reported by KP Jayaswal in: JRAS, 1935, p. 721). “
57
Comparison of Punch and Indus Valley Writing
Dr. Kalya Kalyanar narama amann contin continued ued that that
“Some “Some excerpt excerptss from from CL Fabri’s Fabri’s article article which which
appeared in JRAS, 1935 (pp. 307-318) are presented hereunder: “Punch-marked coins are the earliest Indian archaeological ‘document’ that exists,” wrote Mr. EHC Walsh in 1923 in a thorough study of these interesting remains of Indian proto-historic times. (Indian (Indian Punch-ma Punch-marked rked Coins Coins (a Public Public coinage coinage issued issued by Authori Authority) ty),, in Centen Centenary ary Supplement, JRAS, 1924, pp. 175-189. At the time time when he wrote his his article, very litt,e litt,e if anything, was known of the freshly discovered prehistoric civilization in the Indus Valley, at Harappa and Mohenjo-daro…Mr. Walsh said in 1923: “Until our present sources of information are added to, the significance of the marks on punch-marked coins must remain the subject of speculation and surmise.”… “The significance of these symbols, however, is of paramount importance. That they have some meaning, no one doubts. It is obvious that a few of them are solar, lunar, and
58 such-like symbols; but these are only a fraction of the great mass. It is not impossible that they hold the clue to early Indian history, and if one day scholars can ‘read’ these signs, they will be able, probably, to reconstruct a period of Indian history of which we do not know anything at present. I am writing not to explain these symbols, but to show that the solution of this problem is closely connected with the deciphering of the Indus Valley script.
It is also interesting to note that K.K. Thapliyal in Studies in Ancient Indian Seals, found that many Indian seals from the 3rd century BC to the 7th century ce ntury AD , portray animals, with an inscription above the animal an imal ( just like in the case of the Harappan seals) which were indicative of the religious views of o f the owner of the seal. This evidence supports our finding that the Harappan seals were worn (or carried) by the Harappans to help them remember the Harappan man's goal, to obtain guidance from his deity.
Origin of Sanskrit Writing The Sanskrit language is highly respected in India. It carries the religion and culture of all the people of India. India. A.B. Keith, Keith, in A History of Sanskrit Literature (1928), makes it clear that Sanskrit was probably invented as early as the 6 th Century BC. Although Sanskrit is recognized as a major language controversy surrounds its origin. Some researchers see it as language given to mankind by the Gods, while others see Sanskrit as an artificial language created to unify the diverse Indian nationalities. Keith in A History of Sanskrit Literature
commenting on this state of affairs noted that: “ We
must not…exaggerate the activity of the grammarians to the extent of suggesting…that Classical Sanskrit is an artificial creation, a product of the Brahmins when they sought to counteract the Buddhist creation of an artistic literature in Pali….Nor…does Classical
59 Sanskrit present the appearance of an artificial product; but rather admits admits exceptions in bewild bewilderi ering ng profus profusion ion,, showin showingg that that the gramma grammaria rians ns were were not creato creators, rs, but were were engaged in a serious struggle to bring into handier shape a rather intractable material” (p.7). Although, this is the opinion of Keith it appears that Sanskrit is lingua franca, an artificial language, that was used by the people of India to unify the multi-lingual people of the India nation. This led Michael Coulson, in Teach Yourself Sanskrit (1992) to write that “The advantage to using Sanskrit, in addition to the dignity which it imparted to the verse, lay in its role as a
lingua franca
uniting the various regions of Aryan India”
(p.xviii). As a result of its use as a lingua franca it has absorbed over the years many terms from various Indian languages. But at the base of Sanskrit we probably have a Dravidian language since Dravidian was spoken not only in the South, it was also the language of many Tribal groups in the North. The view that the Dravidian languages are the foundation of Sanskrit is supported by both Konow and Keith who noted that the auxiliary verbs, periphrastic periphrastic future, and the participial forms forms in Sanskrit were probably of Dravidian Dravidian origin. Stephan Stephan H. Levitt Levitt in a recent article article in the International International Journal Journal of Dravid Dravidian ian Lingui Linguisti stics, cs, has sugges suggested ted that that Sanskri Sanskritt may have adopte adoptedd many many North North Dravidian forms 1. In addition, Levitt is sure that certain Sanskrit etyma for animals and plants that end in –l, are of Old Tamilian origin. Due to early Dravidian settlement in Northern India there is a Dravidian substratum in Indo-Aryan. There are Dravidian loans in the Rg Veda, even though Aryan recorders S.H. Levitt, Some new Dravidian etymologies for Sanskrit words, Internationa Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 32(2), pp.7-22. 1
60 of this work were situated in the Punjab which occupied around this time by the BRW Dravidians. There are islands of Dravidian Dravidian speakers in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. There are over 300,000 Brahui speakers speake rs in Qualat, Hairpur and Hyderabad districts of Pakistan. There are an additional additional 40,000 Brahui in Emeneau and Burrow (1962) (1962) found 500 Dravidian loan words in Sanskrit. In addition, Indo-Aryan illustrates a widespread structural borrowing from Dravidian in addition to 700 lexical loans (Kuiper 1967; Southward 1977; Winters 1989). Iran and several thousand along the southern border of Russia and Yugoslavia (ISDL 1983:227). Emeneau and Burrow (1962) have found 500 Dravidian Dravidian loan words in in Sanskrit. the number of Dravidian loans in Indo-Aryan is expected to reach 750. There are numerous examples of Indo-Aryan structural borrowings from Dravidian. For example, the Bengali and Oriya plural suffix -ra is analogous to the Tamil plural suffix -ar. Both of these suffixes are restricted to names of intelligent beings. be ings. (Chatterji 1970:173) Oriya borrowed the -gura plural suffix from the Dravidians. (Mahapatra 1983:67)
The syntax of the Indo-Aryan languages is ambivalent because of the
Dravidian influence on these languages. As a result, they represent both SOV and SVO traits. According to Arthur A. Macdonell in A Sanskrit Grammar for Students (1997), says that the Sanskrit language is known by many names. It was called Nagari ‘urban writin’, writin’, DevaDeva-nag nagar arii ‘cit ‘cityy writ writin ingg of the the god gods’ s’.. V. Kanak Kanakas asab abha haii in the the
Tamils Tamils Eighteen Eighteen
Hundred Years Ago, says that Sanaskrit is called Deva-nagari, because it was introduced
to the Aryas by the Nagas. The characters associated with Deva-nagari are the characters
61 used to write Sanskrit today. The Naga were Semitic speaking people from Ethiopia. According to Macdonell the Semitic writing was introduced to India India around 700BC2 (pg.2). The Semitic speakers of Africa Africa founded the ancient civilization of Punt. As a result I refer to the speakers of Ethiopian Semitic languages languag es Puntites. The Puntite languages are characterized by a basic vocabulary, a system of roots and vowel patterns and the formation of derived verbs by prefixes. The South Arabian languages: Sabaean, Minaean and Hadramautic, are slightly different from modern South Arabic, but analogous to the Ethiopian languages. This represents the influence of the Jectanid tribes on South Arabic. It is clear that the the Proto-Puntite speakers lived lived in Africa. Wolf Leslau Leslau has made it clear that Ethiopic and South Arabic form a dialectical unity. Dialectical unity means that two or more languages form a unified dialect. According to Haupt, in 1878, Akkadian , Minaean and Ethiopic all belong to the same group of Semitic languages, even though they are separated in time and by great geographical distance. This is surprising considering the fact that Ethiopic and Akkadian are separated by many hundreds of years. The best example of this unity is the presence of shared archaicism . The linguistic feature of shared archaicism is the appearance of the vowel after the first consonant of the imperfect. For example, one of the most outstanding features of Puntite, is the presence of a vowel following the first consonant in the verb form known as the imperfect, e.g.,
yi quattul
(using the hypothetical verb consonants q-t-l, yi is the person person marking marking prefi prefix) x) or yi k'ettl Arthur A. Macdonell in A Sanskrit Grammar for Students. Oxford University Press, Delhi,( 1997) p.2. 2
62 'he kills'. In Southwest Semitic the form of the perfect is yu qtul-u . Here we have the same hypothetical
q-t-l form, but there is no vowel following the first consonant of the verb root.
This results from the fact that in Black African languages we rarely, if at all find words formed with double consonants. The fact that Southeast Semitic has shared archaicism with Puntite shows that at the time the Akkadians and Ethiopic speakers separated these groups had dialectical unity. The lack of this trait in Arabic and Hebrew shows that they have been influenced by the IndoEuropean speakers who invaded Palestine between 1500 B.C. and Arabia 900 B.C. Semitic verb root Akkadian kl 'to be dark'
ekelu
mr 'to see'
amaru
br 'to catch'
baru
dgh 'remove' kdn
'to protect'
Ethiopic/S. Arabian
Soqotri
okil 'to cover'
Geez ammara;Tigre amara Soqotri
daqu
Geez
kidin
Tigre
b'r dagba 'to perforate' kadna
Clearly Black African language forms are the base of most Semitic words. Anta Diop recognized that in relation to Arabic words, once the first consonant was suppressed, there is often an African root, This phenomenon was also recognized by Wiener who believed that many African words were of Arabic A rabic origin. The Cushitic substratum has strongly influenced the phonology, morphology, syntax and vocabulary of the Puntite languages. Cushitic Saho
la
English
Semitic
wild cow
*la-at
Samoli la id. id. This supports the view of I.M. Diakonoff Hamitico-Semitica
Languages.
(Moscow ,
1965, p.104.) that the Semitic speakers and A-Group lived in close proximity in ancient times.
63 This makes it clear that Arabia, which was occupied in neolithic times by the Anu, was probably not the original homeland of the Semitic speakers. It also appears that that Puntite speakers lived in Libya which which was part of the the Proto-Sahara. As early as 2500 B.C. , Puntite people migrated into North Africa. Josephus maintained in Antiquities, that the people of Punt founded Libya. The Bible says "...[T]he Libyans that handle the shield" (Jeremiah 46:9); "Persia, Ethiopia and Libya with them; all of them with shield shield and helmet". helmet". (Ezekiel (Ezekiel 38:5) The Puntites Puntites are mentioned mentioned in Egyptian Egyptian literature literature as invading this area around 2400 B.C., according to the text of Herkhut, found at Aswan, written during the VIth Dynasty of Egypt. It is interesting interesting to note that as pointed out in the West Asia unit many people of Persia and Ethiopia originally had lived lived in Libya. This supports the Bible's listing listing of the Libyans , Persians and Ethiopians of analogous ethnic groups. In the ancient literature of Kemit (Egypt) and Mesopotamia, Punt Pu nt was recognized as a sea power. From ports along the Red Sea, the people of Punt traded with with of Kemit, Arabia, West Asia and Mesopotamia. Modern Ethiopia is part of the land known to the Egyptians "the lands of the gods". The inhabitants of Punt, on the other hand called their country Arwe. It was from here that the Semitic speaking nations moved northward n orthward into Arabia and Mesopotamia. The Kemites allude to the Arwe Kingdom in a short story which tells how a good natured serpent of great size speaks to a ship wrecked Egyptian whose life he saved: "I am the Prince of Punt...But it shall happen when[thou] art parted from this place ,that never shalt thou behold
this island more, for it
will become water...." This "good natured serpent" may refer to the King-Serpent that ruled Punt according to
64 Ethiopian traditions. The Ethiopians who conquered India India were members of the the Arwe civilization. According to Ethiopian traditions the first empire was founded by Za Besi Angabo, of the Arwe line which ruled Ethiopia for 350 years. This dynasty began in 1370 B.C. The traditions of this dynasty are recorded in the Kebra Nagast , or "Glory of Kings". The greatest and most famous of the rulers rulers of Arwe was was the Queen of Sheba, known as Makeda of Tigre, and Bilkis to her subjects in South Arabia. Za Sebado, was the grandfather of Makeda, he ruled Ethiopia from 1076-1026 B.C., his wife was named Cares. Makeda was born in 1020 B.C., and ascended the throne in 1005 B.C., she ruled Ethiopia and South Arabia until 955 B.C. During her rule she visited King Solomon of the Jews. Here Makeda was impregnated by Solomon. Makeda had a son. He was named Ebna Hakim, from his descendants Hebrewism came to Ethiopia. Queen Makeda had a residence near Axum, but the main capital of Arwe was located along the southern end of the African shores of the Red Sea in a district called Azab, Asabe or Saba, which meant in the Tigrinya language of the time "the southern lands". The name Sheba , was a variation of the name Saba or a specific designation.
When Ebna Hakim took the throne, his mother had already established colonies in Arabia and India. Hakim took the name of Menelik I in 955 B.C. At Axum, Menelik established his capital. The first city of Axum was at Dar'o Addit Kilte.3 Menelik I, ruled an empire extending from the Blue Nile to Eastern India. He later, according to tradition, made the empire much larger. After Menelik the people of Arwe worshipped either Hebrewism or the serpent Arwe. In the Kebra Nagast , a history of the Ethiopians written by Ethiopians, we find mention . Ther There e is evid eviden ence ce that that Mene Meneli lik k I may may have have conq conque uere red d Axum, because in the Book of Aksum, it is maintained that the city of Axum (Aksum), was founded by Aksumaw, son of Ityopis (Ethiopia), a great grand-son of Noah.
3
65 of the Arwe kings who ruled India. The founder of the dynasty was Za Besi Angabo. This dynasty according to the Kebra Nagast began around 1370 BC. These rulers of India and Ethiopia were called Nagas. The Kebra Nagast claims that " Queen Makeda "had servants and merchants; they traded for her at sea and on land in the Indies and Aswan". It also says that her son Ebna Hakim or Menelik I, made a campaign in the Indian Sea; the king of India made gifts and donations and prostrated himself before him". It is also said that Manalik ruled an empire that extended from the rivers rivers of Egypt (Blue Nile) to the west west and from the Kebra sout southh Shoa Shoa to east easter ernn Indi India" a",, acco accord rdin ingg to the the Kebra
Nagast Nagast Kebra Nagast Nagast . The Kebra
identification of an eastern Indian empire ruled by the Naga, corresponds to the Naga colonies in the Dekkan, and on the East coast between the Kaviri and Vaigai rivers. By the 6th Century BC, the Naga had strong kingdoms in India between the Jumma and the Ganges river and Sri Lanka. It is interesting to note that in the fragments sculptures of the the Naga Naga King Kings, s, at the Gover Governm nmen entt Muse Museum um , Madr Madras as from Amara Amarava vatiti they they are are distinguished by the hood of five or seven headed serpent behind their backs. Naga princesses had a three-headed serpent and ordinary Naga were typified with a single-headed serpent. The major Naga tribes were the Maravar, Eyinar, Oliyar, Oviyar, Aru-Valur and Parathavar. The Nagas resisted the invansion of the Cholas . In the Kalittokai IV,1-5, the Naga are described as being "of strong limbs and hardy frames and fierce looking tigers wearing long and curled locks of hair." The Naga kings of Sri Lanka are mentioned in the: Mahawanso, and are said to have later become Dravidians, as testified to by the names of
these people: Naganathan, Nagaratnam, Nagaraja and etc. The Naga were defeat defeated ed by anothe anotherr group of Dravid Dravidian ian speakin speakingg people people form
66 Kumarinadu. Kamarinadu is suppose to have formerly existed as a large Island in the India ocean ocean whic whichh conn connec ecte tedd Indi Indiaa with with East East Afri Africa ca.. This This land landma mass ss is ment mentio ione nedd in the the Silappadikaram,
which said that Kamarinadu was made up of seven Nadus or regions. The
Dravdian scholars Adiyarkunallar and Nachinaar wrote about the ancient principalities of Tamilaham, which existed on Kamarinadu. Kumarinadu was ruled ruled by the Pandyans/Pandians Pandyans/Pandians at Madurai before it sunk beneath the sea. The greatest king of Kumarinadu was Sengoon. According to Dravidian scholars that Pandyans worshipped the goddess Kumari Amman. This Aman, probably corresponds to the ancient ancient god Amon Amon of the Kushites. Kushites. The The Kalittokai 104, makes it clear that after the Pandyans were forced to migrate off their Island home into South India, "to compensate for the area lost to the great waves of the sea, King Pandia without tiresome moved to the other countries and won them. Removing the emblems of tiger (Cholas) and bow (Cheras) he, in their place inscribed his reputed emblem fish (Pandia's) and valiantly made his enemies bow to him".
67
68 In Figure 1a, we compare Ethiopic, Sanskrit and the Vai writing. It is obvious that these writing system share many common symbols. It is obvious that Sanskrit and Ethiopic share symbols and it supports the view that the Ethiopians introduced writing to the IndoEuropean speaking Indians. The excavation of inscribed pottery from South India make it clear that the Dravidians already possessed writing before the rise of Brahmi . The major gift of the Naga to India was the writing system: Deva-Nagari . Nagar i is the name for the Sanskrit script. script. Over a hundred years ago Sir William Jones, Jones, pointed out that the ancient ancient Ethiopic and Sanskrit Sanskrit writing are one and the same. same. He explained that this was supported by the fact that both writing systems the writing went from left to right and the vowels were annexed to the consonants. Today Eurocentric scholars teach that the Indians taught writing to the Ethiopians, yet the name Nagari for Sanskrit betrays the Ethiopia origin of this form of writing. In Geez, the term
nagar means
‘speech, to speak’.
Thus we have in Geez, with the addition of pronouns: nagara ‘he spoke,
nagarat ‘she
spoke’ and nagarku ‘I spoke’. Moreover, it is interesting to note that Sanskrit vowels: a,aa,',i,u,e,o, virama etc., are in the same order as Geez. Y.M. Kobishnor, in the Unesco History of Africa, maintains that Ethiopic was used as the model for Armenian writing, as was many of the Transcaucasian scripts. The Naga introduced worship of Kali, the Serpent, Murugan and the Sun or Krishna. It is interesting that Krishna, who was associated with the Sun, means Black, this is analogous to the meaning of Khons of the Kushites. Kushites. Homer, described Hercules as follows: follows: "Black he stood as night his bow uncased, his arrow string for flight". This mention of arrows identifies the Kushites as warriors who used the bow, a common weapon of the Kushites and the Naga.
69 Overtime the Nagas were absorbed into the Dravidian population. Today the Naga, are recognized by some researchers as Dravidians. D ravidians. Recently, Dr. K. Loganathan ,has begun to reconstruct the Tamil and Sumerian origin of many Sanskrit terms. Controversy surrounds the work of Dr. Loganathan because it is claimed that Sanskrit is a representative of the ancestral Indo-Aryan language and has been in pristine shape since Panini. Coulson maintains that “Panini is obeyed and bypassed”4. Sanskrit is not genetically related to the Indo-European family of languages as many researchers have assumed. As a result, Coulson notes that “the syntax of Classical Sanskrit in many major respects bears little resemblance to the syntax of any other Indo-European language (leaving aside similarities in certain kinds of Middle Indo-Aryan writing”5. This view is untenable. W.D. Whitney, in in Sanskrit Grammar (1889) observed “of linguyistic history there is next to nothing in it all [Classical Sanskrit]; but only a history of style, and this for the most part showing a gradual depravation, an increase of artificiall artificiallyy and intensifi intensification cation of certain certain more undesirable undesirable features features of the language such as the use of passive construction and of particles instead of verbs, and the substitution of compou compound ndss [i.e [i.e.,., aggl agglut utin inati ation on]] for for sent senten ence ces” s”.. Prof Profes esso sorr Wh Whititne neyy found found this this charact characteri eristi sticc strange strange becaus becausee aggluti agglutinat nation ion is associ associate atedd with with non non-In -Indodo-Eur Europe opean an languages like Dravidian. The Sanskrit language has been under constant change since its creation as various grammarians took liberty with Sanskrit to make it conform to the popular colloquial language forms of the grammarian. As a result, Sanskrit writers have made numerous 4 5
Coulson, p.xxii. Ibid, pp.xxii.
70 innovations in writing Sanskrit. Coulson wrote that “The syntax of Classical Sanskrit In many major respects bears little resemblance to the syntax of any other Indo-European lang langua uage ge (lea (leavi ving ng asid asidee simi simila lari ritities es in cert certai ainn kind kindss of Midd Middle le Indo Indo-A -Ary ryan an writing”(p.xxii). Dr. Coulson adds that “Furthermore, because of the long history of the language andt the varied sources from which it drew its vocabulary, many Sanskrit words have a number of meanings; and this feature, too, is much augmented by compounding (e.g., because it literally means ‘twice born’, the word dvijah can signify ‘brahmin’, ‘bird’ or ‘tooth’ (p.xxiv). The diverse origin of Sanaskrit encouraged grammarians and authors of Sanskrit literature literature to make innovations innovations in writing writing the language that according according to Coulson led to “Panin “Pa nini… i…[be [being ing]] obeyed obeyed and bypassed bypassed”” (p.xxi (p.xxii) i).. As a result result,, San Sanskr skritit is a learne learnedd language that has been modified over time by numerous poets writing in Sanskrit and thus we see innovations not in conformity with Paninis grammar by Aśvaghosa, and Kalidasa (Samkara)6. Conclusion The epigraphic evidence from India make it clear that there were two traditions of writing in India. The first tradition of writing began with the introduction of Indus Valley writing by Dravidians in the Indus Valley . This tradition of writing was maintained by the Dravidian people who used this writing to engrave South Indian pottery and make the punch marked coins. The second tradition of writing was introduced to the Indo-Aryan speaking people of North India, by the Naga, or Ethiopians who once ruled much of India. The Naga invented the Brahmi/Sanskrit
6
Coulson, p.xx-xxi.
writing to
71 give the diverse speaking people of North India a lingua franca. This writing was used by the Indo-Aryans to record the Vedas and other IndoAryan oral traditions. These writings make it clear that the IndoAryans were nomadic people, who lacked their own writing system
when
they entered India or began to socialize with the more culturally advanced Dravidian speaking people. We must conclude from the epigraphic evidence that continuity exist between the Indus Valley writing and the so-called Brahmi-Tamilli writing dating back to 1000 BC. This is supported by the numerous examples of engraved pottery the Tamili-Brahmi inscriptions found on the
mudhumakkal thaazhi (urns of the ancient)
recovered from South
Indian archaeological sites dating back to 1200-1000 BC; and the Punch Marked coins that date back to 600 BC. The pottery writing has been dated back to 1500-500 BC, as evidenced by the thermo-luminescence dating of the Adhichanallur site. The epigraphic evidence is clear, the Harappan writing was written in a Dravidian language similar to Tamil. See my paper: http://us.share.geocities.com/olmec982000/HarWRITE.pdf This paper provides a grammar and dictionary of the Harappan writing. This decipherment provides insight into the mind and culture of the Harappans. The goal of the Harappans was the “realizing of God”. The Harappan seals and copper plates are amulets or talismans. They are messages addressed to the Dravidian gods requesting their support and assistance in obtaining aram (benevolence). A superior Harappan was the man or woman who “realizes God”. See: http://geocities.com/olmec982000/IndusInspiration.pdf The Indus seals make it clear that the Harappans were seeking the avoidance of all mental
evils, viz.,jealousy, covetousness and etc.
72 Thus the Harappans felt that if they lived a benevolent life so that they might obtain pukal (fame) for their “right doing”. The search by the Harappans for aram,
is seen in a two sided
seal found in the Indus Valley (see the attached picture). On one side of the seal we have a forest scene and two bulls with short horns. On the other side, we have four signs.
Two sided Indus Valley seal The interpretation of these signs can be found in my Indus Valley Dictiona Dictionary ry the number number of the signs is placed placed in parenthes parenthesis is
( ).The
forest scene can probably be interpreted interpreted as Ka Siva “ [Oh] Siva Shelter (Me). The signs signs on the opposite opposite side side of the seal seal are a min (277), (277),
tu
ga vey (136), Uss (123) tu tu (165 reduplication of the term tu). The translat translation ion of these these signs signs is: “ Make virtue and glowing glowing admiration admiration [my]
Fate
[and]
abundant
virtue”.
Understanding the Harappan script allows us to read the TamiliBrahmi Brahmi inscrip inscription tions s from from the ancient ancient urns found in
Tamil Tamil Nadu. Nadu. For
example, example, one of the inscriptio inscriptions ns was written written inside inside one of the urns
73 found at Adhichanallur, near Tirunelveli in Tamil Nadu. The signs on the urn were read by Dr. Salyamurthy of the Archaeological Survey of India as : Ka ri a ra va [na] ta. If we read the signs, using my decipherment, we read Tanaka I tata Uss vey gbe or “Tanaka, give him greatness, open (up for his) Fate Righteousness”.
The reading of the Adhichanallur Adhichanallur inscription is tentative. tentative. This epigraphic epigraphic finding finding and others others is is
making it it clear that the the history history of
writing in India must be re-written. re-written. The epigraphic evidence from South India and the Punch Marked coins, is making it clear that the Indian writin writing g
syste systems ms
of
the the
Drav Dravidi idian an
speak speaking ing
peopl people e
has
a
conti continuo nuous us
history, history, spanning spanning from from the Indus Valley Valley times, times, down to South South Indian Indian pottery
Tamili-Brahmi
writing
writing among the Dravidian speaking people.
and
contemporary
74
References Anselin,A. (1992). Samba, Gaudeloupe: Editions de L'Unirag. Appiah,K.A.(1993). Europe upside down:Fallacies of the new Afrocentrism.Sapina Newsletter: A Bulletin of the Society for African Philosophy in North America,5(1), 1-8.
Agr Agrawal, al,D.P., P.,S.Kus Kusumg umgar. ar.1974 974.PR .PREHISTORIC RADIOCARBON DATING IN INDIA. New Delhi.
CHRONOLOGY
AND
Ande Anders rsso son, n,T. T.G. G. 1934 1934.. CHIL CHILDR DREN EN OF THE THE YELL YELLOW OW EART EARTH: H:ST STUD UDIE IESS IN PREHISTORIC CHINA. London. Andronov,M.S. 1963-64. LEXICOSTATISTIC ANALYSIS OF THE CHRONOLOGY OF DISIN DI SINTERG TERGRAT RATION ION OF O F PROTO PRO TO-DRAVIDI DRA VIDIAN AN. Mosco Mo scow. w. _______ ____ _____ ___. _. 196 1968. 8. TWO TWO LECT LECTUR URES ES ON THE THE HIST HISTOR ORIC ICIT ITY Y OF LANGU LANGUAG AGE E FAMILIES. Annamalai: University Press. Bagchi,P.C. 1955. INDIA AND CENTRAL ASIA. National Council of Education :Calcutta. Barath Tibor. 1973. A MAGYAR NEPEK OSTORTENTE. Montreal. ____________. 1984. EARLY HUNGARIANS. Montreal. Beauclair,Inez de. 1966. TRIBAL CULTURES OF SOUTHWEST CHINA. Taipei :The Orient Cultural Service. Bellwood,P. MAN'S CONQUEST OF THE PACIFIC. London:Oxford University Press. Bouda, K. 1955-56. DRAVIDISCH UND URALATAISCH, Lingua 5: 129-144. Brenje Brenjes,B s,B.. 198 1983. 3. "On Proto-Ela Proto-Elamit mitee Iran", Iran", CURRENT CURRENT ANTHRO ANTHROPOL POLOGY OGY,, 24(2) 24(2) : 240-243. Bynon,T. 1977. HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS. Cambridge University Press:London. Bekerie,A. (1994). The four corners of a circle:Afrocentricity as a model of synthesis, Journal of Black Studies, 25(2), 131-149. Cornelius, J. T. (1954)."The Dravidian Question", Tamil Culture 3,(2) , pages 92-102.
75 Cornelius, J. T. (1957-1957). "Are Dravidians Dynastic Egyptians",Transactions of the Archaeological Society of South India, 91-94.
Caldw Caldwel ell,l, R. 195 1957. 7. A COMPA COMPARA RATI TIVE VE GRAM GRAMMA MAR R OF THE THE DRAV DRAVID IDIA IAN N OR SOUTH INDIAN FAMILY OF LANGUAGES. Madras. Chang, K.C. 1980. SHANG CIVILIZATION. Yale University Press:New
Haven.
____ _______ _____ ___. _. 1987. 1987. THE THE ARCH ARCHAE AEOL OLOG OGY Y OF ANCI ANCIEN ENT T CHINA CHINA.. Yale Yale Univ Univ.. Press: New Haven. ___________. 1964. "Prehistoric and early historic culture horizons and traditions in South China". CURRENT ANTROPOLOGY ,5(5):359-375. Chat hatterji,S.K S.K. 1970. 70. THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF BENGALI LANGUAGE. New Delhi. David David,H. ,H.19 1955. 55. "Som "Somee Conta Contact ctss and Affi Affini nitities es betwe between en the the Egyp Egyptoto-Mi Mino noan an and and Indo(Dravido)-Sumerian Culture". TAMIL TAMIL CULTURE, 4(2)__. 4(2)__. David,T David,Thes hese. e. 1986. 1986. " Le Colloq Colloque ue Franco Franco-So -Sovie vietis tisque que sur l'Arch l'Archeol eologi ogiee de l'Asie l'Asie Centr Central alee des Orig Origin ines es a l'Ag l'Agee du Fer" Fer",, DIAL DIALOG OGUE UESS D'HI D'HIST STOI OIRE RE ANCI ANCIEN ENNE NE,, 12:481-494. Dergachev,V. Dergachev,V. 1989. "Neolith "Neolithic ic and Bronze Age Cultural Cultural Communities Communities of the Steppe Zone of the USSR". ANTIQUITY, 63:793-802. Delafosse,M Delafosse,M.. 1901. ESSAI DE MANUEL PRATIQUE PRATIQUE MANDE AU MANDINGUE. Paris. Desanges,J. 1981. "The Proto-Berbers". Proto-Berbers". In GENERAL HISTORY HISTORY OF AFRICA 2, (Ed.) G. Mokhtar. London : Heinemann Educational Books. D'iak D'iakono onov, v,I. I.M. M.19 1985. 85. "On "On the the orig origin inal al home home of the the spea speake kers rs of IndoIndo-Eu Euro rope pean an.. JOURNA JOU RNAL L OF INDO -EUROPE EUR OPEAN AN STUDIES STU DIES ,13 ,13(1&2 (1&2):92 ):92-17 -174. 4. David, H S. (1955). "Some contacts and affinities between the Egypto-Minoan and the Indo(-Dravido) Sumerian Culture",Tamil Culture 4, (2), 169-175. Delafosse, M.(1899). "Vai leur langue et leur systeme d'ecriture", L'Anthropologie 10, . Delafosse,M. (1929). La Langue Mandigue et ses dislectes, Paris: Geuthner, 1929.
76 Desplanges, L. (1906). "Notes sur les origines des populations Nigerienne", L'Anthropologie 17, 525-527. Desplanges, L.(1907). Le Plateau Central Nigerien , Paris. Diop,C. A. (1974). The African Origin of Civilization, (ed & trans) by Mercer Cook, Westport:Lawrence Hill & Company. Diop,C A.(1991).Civilization of Barbarism:An Authentic Anthropology,(trans ) by Yaa-Lengi Meema Ngemi and (ed) by H. J. Salemson and Marjoliiw de Jager, Westport:Lawrence Hill and Company.
Ehret,C.1988 Ehret,C.1988.. "Language change and the material material correlates correlates of language language and ethnic shift". ANTIQUITY, 62:564-74. Emen Emenea eau, u,M M. and and T. Burr Burrow ow.. 1962 1962.. DRAV DRAVIIDIAN DIAN BORRO ORROWI WING NGSS FROM FROM INDO-ARYAN. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Farid., El-Yahky.(1985) "The Sahara and Predynastic Egyptian Overview",The Journal for the Society for the Study Egyptian Antiquities 7, (1-2) , 58-65. Farid ,El-Yahky.(1984). "The Origin and Development of sanctuaries in Predynastic Egypt", Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 14, no3 (1984), pages 70-73.
Fairservis,W.A. 1975. University of Chicago.
THE
ROOTS
OF
ANCIENT
INDIA.
Chicago:
_____________. 1986. "The Harappan civilization according to to its writing:A Model for the decipherment of the the script". TAMIL CIVILIZATION, 4(3&4):103-130. 4(3&4):103-130. _______ ___________ ______. __. 198 1987. 7. "Cattl "Cattlee and the Harapp Harappan an chiefd chiefdoms oms of the Indus Valley" Valley".. EXPEDITION, 28 (2):43-50. _____________. 1991. "G.L. Possehl's and M.H. Raval's Harappan Civilization and Rodji". JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ORIENTAL SOCIETY,111(1):108-13. Franc Francef efor ort,t,He Henr nrii-Pa Paul ul.. 1987a 1987a.. "La "La Civi Civililisa satition on de l'In l'Indu duss aux aux ARCHAEOLOGIA (December):44-55.
rive rivess de l'Oxu l'Oxus" s"..
77 ____ _______ _____ _____ _____ _____ ______ ___.. 198 1987b 7b.. "Aux "Aux fron frontitier eres es de la civi civililisa satition on de l'In l'Indus dus". ". DOSSIERS HISTOIRE ET ARCHAEOLOGIE, no. 11: 80-81. ___ _____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___. _. 1985 1985.. "For "Fortitifi fica catition onss et soci societ etes es en Asie Asie Cent Centra rale le Protohistor Protohistorique". ique". DE L'INDE AUX BALKAN RECUEIL RECUEIL JEAN DESHAYES, DESHAYES, (Paris) (Paris) pp.379-388. Fu Ssu-nien. 1935. "Yi Hsia tung hsi Shuo". PAPERS PRESENTED TO MR. TS'AO YUAN PEI ON HIS SIXTY-FIFTH BIRTHDAY BIRTHDAY. Nanking:Ins Nanking:Institu titute te of History History and Philology, Academia Sinica. Gadd,C.J. 1924. A SUMERIAN READING BOOK. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gafurov,B.G.1980. "Some Problems/questions about the ethnic history of peoples of Central Asia in the most ancient period."JOURNAL OF CENTRAL ASIA 3(1):19-29. Gamkr Gamkrel elid idze ze,T. ,T.V. V. & Ivan Ivanov, ov,V. V.V. V. 199 1990. 0. "The "The early early Hist Histor oryy of languages". SCIENTIFIC SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, (9):110-116.
IndoIndo-Eu Euro rope pean an
Gardi Gardin, n, Jean Jean-C -Cla laud ude. e. 1987 1987.. "Rec "Reche herc rche hess sur sur la Bact Bactri riane ane Anci Ancienn enne" e",, DOSS DOSSIE IERS RS HISTOIRE ET ARCHAEOLOGIE, no. 12: 77-79. Gost Goston ony, y,C. C.G. G. 1975 1975.D .DIC ICTI TION ONNA NAIR IRE E D'ET D'ETYM YMOL OLOG OGIE IE GRAMMAIRE COMPAREE. Paris:De Boccard.
SUME SUMERI RIEN ENNE NE
ET
Gupt Gupta, a, S.P. S.P. 1979 1979.. ARCH ARCHAE AEOL OLOG OGY Y OF SOVI SOVIET ET CENT CENTRA RAL L ASIA ASIA AND AND THE THE INDIAN BORDERLANDS. B.R. Pub. Corp: Delphi. Vol.2. __________. 1982. "The Late Harappan: A Study in cultural cultural dynamics".IN HARAPPAN CIVILIZATION, (ed.) by G. L. Possehl,(New Delhi):5l-59. Graves, Robert.(1980). The Greek Myths, Middlesex:Penguin Books Ltd,2 vols. Hau, K.(1967). "The ancient Writing of Southern Nigeria", Bulletin de l'IFAN 29, (1-2), 150-185. Hau, K. (1973). "Pre-Islamic writing in West Africa", Bulletin de l'IFAN , series B, no1 .
Joshi,J.P. 1978. "Interlocking of Late Harappa culture and painted grey ware culture in the light of recent excavations". MAN. ENVIRON. 2:98-. Kan Yang. 1985. "The Bronze culture of Western Yunnan". BULL. OF THE ANCIENT ORIENT MUSEUM, (Tokyo) 7:47-91.
78 Kao Chih-Hsu.1986."An Introduction to to Shang and Chou Bronze nao excavated in South China". In STUDIES IN SHANG ARCHAEOLOGY,(ed.) by Chang, New Haven:Yale University Press. Kana Kanaka kasa sabh bhai ai,V ,V.. 1966 1966.. THE THE TAMI TAMILS LS EIGH EIGHTE TEEN EN HUND HUNDRE RED D YEAR YEARSS AGO. AGO. Madras. Khalopin,I. 1989. "Origins of the Bronze Age Culture Culture of South Asia". BULL. INFORM IASCCA (Moscow), no.15:74-84. Kircho,L. 1981. "The Problem of the origin of the Early Early Bronze Age Culture of Southern Turkmenia". In P.L. Kohl, THE BRONZE AGE CIVILIZATION OF CENTRAL ASIA, (pp.96-106). Armouk, N.Y.:M.E. Sharp. Kirc Kirch, h,P. P.V. V.19 1985 85.. FEAT FEATHE HERE RED D GODS GODS AND AND FISH FISH:: AN INTR INTROD ODUC UCTI TION ON TO HAWAI HAWAIIA IAN N ARCH ARCHAE AEOL OLOG OGY Y AND AND PREH PREHIS ISTO TORY RY.. Honol Honolul ulu: u:Uni Unive vers rsitityy of Hawaii Press. KiZerb KiZerbo,J o,J.. 1979. "TheCr "TheCradl adlee of Mankind" Mankind",, UNESCO UNESCO COURIER, COURIER, PP.39-43.
(AUG.(AUG.-SEPT SEPT.).)
Knoroz Kno rozov, ov,Y.V Y.V.. 1979. 197 9. PROTO PR OTO -INDICA IND ICA . Moscow Mos cow.. Kohl,P.L. Kohl,P.L. 1988. "The Northern 'Frontier' 'Frontier' of the Ancient Near East: Trans-Caucacia Trans-Caucacia and Central Asia Compared". AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY, ARCHAEOLOGY, 92:541. ____ _______ _____ __.. 1978 1978.. "The "The bala balance nce of trad tradee in Sout Southw hwes este tern rn Asia Asia in the the mid-T mid-Thi hird rd Millennium BC". CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY, 19(3):463-92. ___ _____ ____ ____ __.. 1979 1979.. (Ed. (Ed.)) THE THE BRON BRONZE ZE AGE AGE CIVI CIVILI LIZA ZATI TION ON OF CENT CENTRA RAL L ASIA. Armouk,N.Y.:M.E. Sharp. Kot Kothand handar aram aman an,R ,R.. 1988 1988.. "Com "Compl pler erss in Tam Tamil Syntax ntax". ". INTE NTERNAT RNATIO IONA NAL L JOURNAL OF DRAVIDIAN LINGUISTICS, 15(2):190-233. Kramer,S.N. 1963. THE SUMERIANS. Chicago. Kuiper,F. B.J. 1974. "The genesis of a Linguistic Area". INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DRAVIDIAN LINGUISTICS,3(1). Laco Lacoup uper erie ie,T ,T.. de. de. 1886 1886.. "The "The Kush Kushitites es-w -who ho were were they they". ". BABY BABYLO LONI NIAN AN AND AND ORIENTAL RECORD, pp.25-31. _______________. 1887. THE LANGUAGES OF CHINA BEFORE THE CHINESE. London: David Nunn.
79 _____________________. 1889. "Origin from Babylon and Elam of the early Chinese Civilization. A Summary of the Proof". BABYLONIAN AND ORIENTAL RECORD RECORD ,3 (5):97-111. Lahovary, N.(1957).Dravidian Origins and the West, Madras: Longman.
Lal,B.B. Lal,B.B. 1954-1955. 1954-1955."excava "excavations tions at Hastina Hastinapura pura and and other other exploration explorationss in the Upper Upper Ganga and Sutlej Basins 1950-52."ANCIENT INDIA,10:5-. _______.1960. "From Megalithic to to the Harappan:Tracing Harappan:Tracing back the graffiti on pottery". ANCIENT INDIA,16. ______. 1963. "The Only Asian Expedition in threatened Nubia:Work by an India Mission at Afyeh and Tumas". THE ILLUSTRATED TIMES, TIMES, 20 April. Langdon Langdon,S. ,S. 1911. 1911. SUMERI SUMERIAN AN GRAMMA GRAMMAR R AND CHREST CHRESTOMA OMATHY. THY. Paris: Paris:Paul Paul Geuthner. Li Chi. hi.1957 957. THE BEGINNING OF CHINESE CIVILIZATI ATION. Sea Seattle: University of Washington Press. Li Xueqinm. 1986. EASTERN ZHOU AND QIN CIVILIZATION. New Haven:Yale University Press. Ling Shun-Sheng.1970. A STUDY OF THE RAFT, OUTRIGGER, DOUBLE AND DECK CANOES OF ANCIENT CHINA, THE PACIFIC AND THE INDIAN OCEAN. Nankang:Taipei. Lord,R.1974. COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS. London: St.Paul's House. Ligabue,G. and Salvatori,S. (Ed.). 1989. BACTRIA. Roma:Erizzo
Editrice.
Kohl, R L.(1978). "The blance of trade in Southwest Asia in the mid-third millennium B.C.", Current Anthropology19, 463 -492. Kramer,S.N.(1963). The Sumerians, Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Mahadevan,I. 1986. "Towards a grammar of the Indus Texts: Intelligible to the Eye, If not to the Ears". TAMIL CIVILIZATION 4(3):15-30. __________.198 __________.1986b. 6b. "Dravidian "Dravidian models of deciphermen deciphermentt of the Indus Script: Script: A case study". TAMIL CIVILIZATION ,4(3):133-43.
80 Maha Mahapa pattra,B ra,B.P .P.1 .198 983. 3. "Sco "Scope pe of Indondo-Ar Aryyan Trib Tribal al Langu anguag ages es Res Resear earch". ch". INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DRAVIDIAN LINGUISTICS, 12(1):60-75. 12 (1):60-75. Mass Masson on,V ,V.M .M.. 198 1986. 6. "Anci "Ancient ent Cent Centra rall Asia Asiann Civi Civililiza zatition on trend trendss of deve develo lopm pment ent,, assimilation of Ecological Ecological niches, cultural links". BULL. INFORM.IASCCA (Moscow), no. 11:76-84. Mass Masson on,V ,V.M .M.. & T. P. Kiat Kiatki kina na.. 1981 1981.. "Man "Man at the the Dawn Dawn". ". In BRON BRONZE ZE AGE AGE CIVILIZATION OF CENTRAL CENTRAL ASIA, (ed.) by P.L. Kohl,(Armonk ,N.Y.: M. E. Sharp) pp. 107-135. Mass Masson on,V ,V.M .M.. & Tayl Taylor or,T ,T.. 1989 1989.. "Sov "Sovie iett Arch Archae aeol olog ogyy in the the Step Steppe pe Zone Zone". ". ANTIQUITY, 63:779-783. McAlpin,D.W. 1974. "Toward Proto-Elamo Dravidian", LANGUAGE 50. _______ ___________ ____.. 1981. 1981. PROTOPROTO-ELA ELAMO MO DRAVID DRAVIDIAN IAN:TH :THE E EVIDEN EVIDENCE CE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS .Trans. of the Am. Philosophical Society 71, Part 3:Philadelphia. Mellarrt,J. 1981. "Anatolia and the INDO - EUROPEAN STUDIES , 9(1/2):135-149.
Indo-Europeans".JOURNAL
OF
Meenakshisundaran,T.P. 1965. A HISTORY TAMIL LANGUAGE. Poona. Meillet,A. 1926 926.LINGUISTI STIQUE GENERALE. Paris.
HISTOR STORIIQUE
ET
LINGUIS UISTIQUE
Meng Menges es,K ,K.. 1966 1966.. "Alt Altaicaic-Dr Drav avid idiian Rel Relatio ations nshi hip" p".. THE THE INTER NTERNA NATI TION ONAL AL CONFER CON FERENC ENCE E-SEMINAR SEM INAR OF O F TAMIL TAMI L STUDIES STUD IES.. Kuala Lumpur. Muttarayan,K.L. 1975. "Sumerian,Tamil of the First Cankam". STUDIES, 7:41-61.
JOURNAL OF TAMIL
Muttarayan, K L.(1975) ."Sumerian, Tamil of the First Cankam", Journal of Tamil Studies, no7 ,41-61. Nayar, T. B.(19770 , The Problem of Dravidian Origins, Linguistic,Anthropological Approach , Madras: Madras University Press. Navarrete, C.(1976). "The Olmec rock carvings at Pijijipan, Chiapas, Mexico and other Olmec Pieces, from Chiapas and Guatemala",New World Archaeological Foundation, no35, Provo,Utah: Brigham Young University Press. Obenga, Th.(1973). L'Afrique dans l"Antiquite, Paris:Presence Africaine.
81 Petrie, F.(1900). The Making of Egypt, London:The Sheldon Press. Petrie,F.(1921). Corps of Prehistoric Pottery , London .
Parpola,A. 1975. "Tasks, methods and results in the study of the Indus script'. JOURNAL OF ROYAL ASIATIC SOCIETY, pp.178-209. ________. 1986. "The Indus ARCHAEOLOGY, 17(3):399-419.
Script:
A
challenging
Puzzle".
WORLD
Pope, Pope, Mauri Maurice. ce. 1975. 1975. THE STORY STORY OF ARCHAE ARCHAEOLO OLOGIC GICAL AL DECIPH DECIPHERM ERMENT. ENT. New York: Scribner's. Possehl,G.L Possehl,G.L.. 1990. "Revolution "Revolution in the Urban Revolution: Revolution: The Emergence Emergence of Indus Urbanization. ANNUAL REVIEW OF ANTHROPOLOGY,19:261-82. Poss Posseh ehl,l,G. G.L. L. & Rava Raval,l,M. M.H. H. 1989 1989.. HARA HARAPP PPAN AN CIVI CIVILI LIZA ZATI TION ON AND AND RODJ RODJI. I. New Delhi:Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Romaine,S.1972.SOCIO -HISTORICAL-LINGUISTICS .London: Cambridge Univ. Press. Raman,K Raman,K.V. .V. 1978. 1978. "Rock "Rock Painti Paintings ngs in Tamil Tamil Nadu". Nadu". TIMES TIMES OF INDIA,24 December, p.8. Ram Ramsey,S.R. 1987. THE LANGUAGES University Press: Princeton. Rao,B Rao,B.K .K.G .G. . Mysore.
1972 1972.TH .THE E
MEGA MEGALI LITH THIC IC
OF
CULTU CULTURE RE
CHI CHINA.
IN
Pri Princeton
SOUT SOUTH H
INDI INDIA. A.
Rawlinson,C.B Rawlinson,C.B.()."No .()."Notes tes on the early history of Babylonia". Babylonia". JOURNAL ROYAL ASIATIC SOCIETY, 15:215-259. Renfrew,C. Renfrew,C. 1987. ARCHAEOLOGY AND LANGUAGE. LANGUAGE. London:Johna London:Johnathan than Cape. ____ ______ ____ ___. _. 1988 1988. . "Arc "Archa haeo eolo logy gy and and Lang Langua uage ge:A :Aut utho hor' r's s Precis".CURRENT ANTHROPLOGY, 29(3):437-468. Rosen, Lissie von.1988. LAPIS LAZULI IN GEOLOGICAL CONTEXT AND AND IN ANCI ANCIEN ENT T WRIT WRITTE TEN N SOUR SOURCE CES. S. Paul Paul Astr Astrom oms s forl forlag ag: : Partille. Schoebe Schoebel,C l,C.18 .1853. 53.Affi Affinit nities ies des Langue Langues s Dravid Dravidien ienne ne et des langues Oural-Altaiques. CONGRESS INTERNATIONAL DES
82 ORIENTALISTES ORIENTALISTES COMPTE RENDU DE LA PREMIERE SESSION. Paris. 2 Vols. Sherratt,Andrew and Susan.1988."Archaeology of Indo-European:an Alternative view". ANTIQUITY 62:584-595. Singer, I. 1981. "Hittites in Anatolia at the beginning of the seco second nd mill millenn enniu ium" m". . JOURN JOURNAL AL OF INDO INDO -EUROPEAN -EUROPEAN STUDIES STUDIES , 9(1/2):119-134. Singh,H Singh,H.N. .N. 1982. 1982. HISTORY HISTORY AND ARCHAE ARCHAEOLO OLOGY GY OF BLACK BLACK -AND RED WARE. Delhi. Sjob Sjober erg, g,A. A.W. W. 1984 1984. . THE THE SUME SUMERI RIAN AN University Museum of Philadelphia.
DICT DICTIO IONA NARY RY. .
Vol. Vol.2. 2.
The The
Southwo Southworth rth,F. ,F.C.1 C.1977. 977. "Lexica "Lexical l eviden evidence ce for early early contac contacts ts betwe between en Indo Indo-Ar -Arya yan n and Drav Dravid idian ian". ". Proc. Proc.of of the the Conf Conf. . on Aryan and Non-Aryan Non -Aryan in India. India . Ann Arbor: UNIV. OF MICHIGAN December, 1976. _______ _________. __. 1985. 1985. "The "The Reconst Reconstruc ructio tion n of Prehist Prehistori oric c South South Asi Asian Language Con Contact ". ANNALS NEW YORK ACADE ADEMY OF SCIENCES,538:207-233. Soustelle,J. (1984). The Olmecs, New York:Doubleday & Com.,Inc. Swadash, M , The Language of the Archaeological Huastecs, Carnegie Institutions Notes on Middle American Archaeology and Ethnology, no114, Washington, D C, 1953. Ting Shan.1935."Y Shan.1935."Yu u san-tai tu-yi lun ch'i min-tsu,wen-hua". min-tsu,wen-hua". BUL BULLETIN OF THE THE INSTITU ITUTE OF HISTORY ORY AND AND PHILOLO OLOGY. Nank Nankin ing: g:In Inst stit itut ute e of Hist Histor ory y and and Phil Philol olog ogy y (Aca (Acade demi mia a Sinica), No.5:89-129. Trigger, B G.(1980) Nubia Under the Pharoahs, Boulder,Colorado: Westview Press .
Thundy,Z.P. (1983). The Egyptian osiris-Isis myth and an d th the e Dr Drav avid idia ian n Cila Cilapp ppad adik ikar aram am. . Tami Tamil l Ci Civi vili liza zati tion on, , 1(2),83-90. Tyler,S.A.1968."Dravidian and evidence".LANGUAGE, 44(4):798-811.
Uralian:the
lexical
83 Vacek,J Vacek,J.19 .1978. 78. "The "The proble problem m of the geneti genetic c relati relations onship hip of the Mongoli Mongolian an and Dravid Dravidian ian languag languages" es". . ARCHIV ARCHIV ORIENTA ORIENTALNI LNI 46:141-151. _______.1983. _______.1983. "Dravido-Alta "Dravido-Altaic: ic: The Mongoli Mongolian an and Dravidian Dravidian Verbal Bases. JOURNAL OF TAMIL STUDIES 23: 1-17. Vacek,J Vacek,J. . 1987. 1987. "The "The Dravido Dravido-Al -Altai taic c ORIENTALNI 55: 134-139.
Relati Relations onship" hip". .
ARCHIV ARCHIV
Vamos-Toth Bator. 1983. TAMANA. Honolulu. ________________. 1985. "Kodaly: A comparative Tamana study in Tamil-land, Tamil-land, Japan and the Carpathian Carpathian Basin". PROCEEDINGS INTERNA INTERNATIO TIONAL NAL SYMPOS SYMPOSIUM IUM ON ASIAN ASIAN STUDIE STUDIES,1 S,1984 984. . Hong Hong Kong: Kong: Asian Research Service. Wendorf,F.,Close,A.E.&Schild,R.1985."Prehistoric Settlements in the Nubian Desert", AMERICAN SCIENTIST 73. Weber, S.A.(1998). Out of Africa: The initial impa im pact ct of mi mill llet ets s in So Sout uth h As Asia ia. . Cu Curr rren ent t An Anth thro ropo polo logy gy, , 39(2),267-274. Wigboldus,J.S. (1996). Early presence of African mill mi llet ets s ne near ar th the e In Indi dian an Oc Ocea ean. n. In J. Re Read ade, e, Th The e In Indi dian an Ocean (pp.75-86), London: The British Museum.
Wilson,J.V.K. 1974. INDO -SUMERIAN. -SUMERIAN . Oxford. Wiener, Leo , Africa and the Discovery of America, Philadelphia: Innes and Son,1920-22, 3 vols. Williams, B The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul: Cemetery L, Chicago:Oriental Institute University of Chicago, 1987. Winters,Clyde Ahmad.(1977). "The influence of the Mande scripts on ancient American Writing systems", Bulletin l'de IFAN, T39,serie b, no2, 941-967. Winters,C.A.(1979a)."Manding Scripts in the New World", Journal of African Civilization 1, no1 , 61-97. Winters, C.A. (1980a)."The genetic unity of Dravidian and African languages and culture",Proceedings of the
84 FirstInternational Symposium on Asian Studies (PIISAS) 1979, Hong Kong:Asian Research Service. Winters, C.A.(1980b). "A Note on the Unity of Black Civilizations in Africa, IndoChina, and China",PISAS 1979, Hong Kong :Asian Research Service. Winters,C.A.(1981a) "The Unity of African and Indian Agriculture", Journal of African Civilization 3, no1,103. Winters,C.A.(1981b) "Are Dravidians of African Origin", P.Second ISAS,1980,( Hong Kong:Asian Research Service),789807. Winters,C.A.(1982). "The Harappan script Deciphered:ProtoDravidian Writing of the Indus Valley", P Third ISAS, 1981, (Hong Kong:Asian Research Service) 925-936. Winters,C.A.(1983a)."The Ancient Manding Script",In Blacks in Science:Ancient and Modern, (ed) by Ivan van Sertima, (New Brunswick:Transaction Books ) pages 208-214. Winters,C.A.(1983b). "Blacks in Ancient China,Part 1:The Founders of Xia and Shang", Journal of Black Studies (San Francisco) 1,no2 . Winters,C.A.(1984a) "The Indus Valley Writing is ProtoDravidian",Journal of Tamil Studies , no 25 (June 1984a), pp.50-64. Winters,C.A.(1984b). "A Note on Tokharian and Meroitic", Meroitic Newsletter\Bulletin d"Information Meroitiques, No23 (Juin) , 18-21. Winters, C.A.(1984c). "The Inspiration of the Harappan Talismanic Seals", Tamil Civilization 2, no1 (March ), pages 1-8. Winters, C.A.(1984d). "The Harappan Writing of the Copper Tablets", Journal of Indian History LXll, nos.1-3 ,1-5. Winters, C.A.(1985a). "The Proto-Culture of the Dravidians ,Manding and Sumerians", Tamil Civilization 3, no1 (March 1985a) ,pages 1-9.
85 Winters, C.A. (1985b). "The Indus Valley Writing and related Scripts of the 3rd Millennium BC", India Past and Present 2, no1 , pages 13-19. Winters,C.A.(1985c). "The genetic Unity between the Dravidian ,Elamite, Manding and Sumerian Languages", P Sixth ISAS ,1984, (Hong Kong:Asian Research Service) 14131425. Winters, C.A.(1986a) "The Migration Routes of the ProtoMande", The Mankind Quarterly 27, no1 , pages 77-96. Winters,C.A.(1988). "The Dravidian and Manding Substratum in Tokharian",Central Asiatic Journal 32, nos1-2,131-141. Winters,C.A.(1989a)"Tamil,Sumerian and Manding and the Genetic Model",International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 18,nol. Winters,C.A.(1989b)."Cheikh Anta Diop et le dechiffrement de l'ecriture meroitique",Cabet:Revue Martinique de Sciences Humaines et de Litterature 8, 149-152.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Review of Dr. Asko Parpolas' "The Coming of the Aryans". International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 18, no2 (1989) , pages 98-127. Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "The Dravido Harappan Colonization of Central Asia", Central Asiatic Journal 34, no1-2 (1990), pages 120-144. Winters, C.A. (1991). The Proto-Sahara. In The Dravidian encyclopaedia (Vol.1, 553-556). Trivandrum, India: International School of Dravidian Linguistics. _________.(1994c). Ancient Dravidian: And introductory grammar of Harappan with Vocabularies , Journal Tamil Studies, No.41, 1-21. _________.(1995a). Ancient Dravidian:The Harappan signs, Journal Tamil Studies, No.42, 1-23.
__________.(1995b). Ancient Dravidian: Harappan Grammar/Dictionary, Journal Tamil Studies, No.43-44, 59-130.
Winters, C.A. (1994). Afrocentrism: A valid frame of reference, Journal of Black Studies,25, (2) 170-190.
86 Winters,C.A.(1999a). ProtoDravidian terms for cattle. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 28, 91-98. Winters,C.A.(1999b). Proto-Dravidian terms for sheep and goats. PILC Journal of Dravidian Studies, 9 (2), 183-87. Winters,C.A.(2000). Proto-Dravidian agricultural terms. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 30 (1), 2328. Wulsin,F.R.(1941)The Prehistoric Archaeology of Northwest Africa, Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol 19. Young,L.M.(1982)."TheShangofAncientChina".CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY , 23(3):311-314. Zvelebil,K. 1972. "Descent of the Dravidians". INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL DRAVIDIAN LINGUISTICS, 1(2):57-63. Zoltan Zoltan Szabo. Szabo.1985 1985. . "Commo "Common n ancest ancestral ral roots roots of the Magyar Magyar and Asia Asiati tic c Lang Langua uage ges" s". . PROC PROC. . OF THE THE SIXT SIXTH H INTER INTERNA NATI TION ONAL AL SYMPOSI SYMPOSIUM UM ON ASIAN ASIAN STUDIES STUDIES 1984. 1984. Hong Hong Kong:A Kong:Asian sian Resear Research ch Service. Vol. 6.
Wesites On the Decipherment of Harappan Writing
http://geocities.com/olmec982000/grammar1.pdf http://geocities.com/olmec982000/IndusInspiration.pdf http://geocities.com/olmec982000/vbasic.pdf http://geocities.com/olmec982000/FishSign.pdf http://us.share.geocities.com/olmec982000/HarWRITE.pdf
87
