by Clyde Winters, PhD

Copyright 2012 Clyde Winters Uthman dan Fodio Institute Chicago, Illinois 60643

Table of Contents Introduction5 Chapter 1: Theories relating to the origin of the IndoEuropean Speakers.10 Chapter 2: Kurgan People..15 Chapter 3: The Dravidian Substratum in IndoEuropean languages..19 Chapter 4: Origin of Sanskrit..21 Chapter 5: The Naga: Ancient Semitic speaking people in India..27 Chapter 6: The horse in the Indus Valley..38 Chapter 7: The Medes..39 Chapter 8: Origin of the Persians41 Chapter Nine: Origin Indo-Aryan Speakers..42 Final Words...46
4

Introduction
There is disagreement over where the Europeans originated and when they spread across Europe. Dr. M. Gimbutas maintains that Europeans had their origin in the Pontic steppe country on the north coast of the Black Sea and began to expand into Europe as Kurgan nomads after 4000 BC In 1987, Dr. C. Renfrew hypothesized that the Indo-Europeans lived in eastern Anatolia and spread into Europe around 7000 years ago with the spread of agriculture. Both of these views have little support based upon the ancestral culture terms used by the Proto-Indo-European which are predominately of non Indo-European (IE) origin. After a comparison of the linguistic, agricultural and genetic evidence researchers have found little support for both of these theories. Sokal et al, noted that: "If the IEs originated in situ by local differentiation only, there should be no significant partial correlation , since geography should fully explain the observed genetic and linguistic distances. This was not the case. If the genetics-language correlation were entirely due to the spread of populations accompanying the origin of agriculture, then the origin-of-agriculture model should suffice, or at least there should be some effect due to origin of agriculture. But we saw that origin-of-agriculture distances (OOA) cannot

reduce the partial correlations remaining after geography has been held constant."

Hypothesized Spread of the Indo-Europeans Speakers

The genetic evidence supporting the absence of an Indo-European origin in the Anatolian region is supported by the historical and archaeological evidence. The north and east of Anatolia was inhabited by non-Indo-European speakers. It appears that Indo-Europeans did not enter Anatolia until sometime between
6

2000 -1800 BC At this time we note the appearance of Indo-European (Hittite) names in the literary records of the Old Kingdom of Hatti. And at least as late as 1900 BC Anatolia was basically still Hattian. The usual method of Indo-European and Chinese invasion was two-fold. First, they settles in a country in small groups and were partly assimilated. Over a period of time their numbers increased. Once they reach a numerical majority they joined forces with other Indo-European speaking groups to militarily overthrow the original inhabitants in a specific area and take political power. Since these communities occupied by the blacks often saw themselves as residents of a city-state, they would ignored the defeat of their neighbors. This typified their second form of invasion of the countries formerly ruled by the Proto-Saharans/Kushites/Blacks. Blacks have failed even today to recognize that even though whites are highly nationalistic and engaged in numerous fratricidal wars, they will unify temporarily to defeat non-European people. As a result in case where the Blacks have been politically organized into states or Empires, rather than isolated city-states, the large political units have lasted for hundreds of years as typified by ancient Egypt, Axum, Mali and ancient Ghana.

D'iakonov on the other hand, believes that the Indo-Europeans (I-E) homeland was the Balkan-Carpathian region. He has shown that the culture terms of the IE group indicate that they made their way across forest-steppe and deciduous forest zones to settle other parts of the world. This view is highly probable. The view that these people were farmers seem unlikely, since the ideal farming areas in Europe were already settled by the Anu and people from the Fertile African Crescent as discussed in this unit. Instead of being farmers the I-E people were originally nomads. The steppes could not have been the homeland of the Indo-Europeans because it was heavily occupied by the Proto-Saharan people until after 1300 B.C.In support of an early presence of Indo-European speakers on the steppes many scholars maintain that the Andronovo cultures and wheeled vehicles are markers of Indo-European "High" culture. But this theory has been proven to be unsupportable by the archeological and linguistic data. The civilizations and economy that characterized "Old Europe" are foreign to the Indo-European culture portrayed in the Indo-Aryan literature. Many scholars use the chariot and horsemanship as an ethnic marker for the Indo-Europeans. But it can not be proven that the horse drawn chariot was an exclusive Indo-European marker. The wheeled vehicles were used in

Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley before the 3rd millennium. The presence of pre-Dynasty and early Dynasty wheeled toy animals from Egypt and elsewhere support the view that the wheel was a well known technology to the Kushites before the expansion of the Indo Europeans. This view is further supported by the fact that the IE roots for "wheel" number four. Use of a number to signify the "wheel" illustrates that this technological innovation must have come from elsewhere and was later adopted by the ProtoIndo-Europeans after there dispersal. The horse can not be a marker for the Indo-European dispersal either. It would appear that in the steppes, the horse was not intensively used until the iron age. V.M. Masson believes that horse domestication and riding developed in the 1st millennium BC, on the steppes.

Chapter One: Theories Relating to the Origin of the Indo- European Speakers

The evidence concerning the origin of Indo-Europeans is contradictory. Originally Europeans were proud of the fact that they were nomads. As a symbol of their heritage they made the creation of the wheel and the domestication of the horse as symbols of Indo-European civilization.

In the 19th Century linguist began to "reconstruct" Proto-Indo-European the imagined ancestral language of people speaking these related languages. I say that Proto-Indo-European , like my Paleo-African is imagined because we have no text supporting the Proto/Paleolanguages we reconstruct. This research suggested that Indo-Europeans may have come from the Black Sea area. The only problem with the linguistic discoveries is that much of the cultural lexical is of unknown origin.

Renfrew attempted to link the IE people to the early farmers in Anatolia and Europe. This view was rejected because there is no evidence for 10

farming playing a major role in IE civilization. Moreover, if farming terms are limited to geographically neighboring IE languages they suggest that these terms could be either innovations for this group of languages or borrowing from a a former language spoken in the area when the IE speakers arrived.

This conflicted with the popular view that the first IE speakers were Kurgan nomads . In recent years some researchers have pointed out the fact that the Kurgan people may not have even domesticated the horse. The Anatolia hypothesis had a good fit for Indo-European origin, because of Hittite. Indo-Europeanist claim that Hittite was the first IE language. The Hittite language is called Nesa. The only problem with this theory was it was later found that the earliest rulers of the land were Kaska and Hatti speakers who spoke non-IE languages called Khattili. The gods of the Hattic people were Kasku and Kusuh (< Kush).

The Hattic people, may be related to the Hatiu, one of the Delta Tehenu tribes. Many archaeologist believe that the Tehenu people were related to the C-Group people. The Hattic language is closely related to African and Dravidian languages for example:

11

Comparison of Hattic, Egyptian and Malinke Terms English Hattic Egyptian Malinke (Mande language) powerful ur wr'great,big' fara protect $uh swh solohead tup tp tu 'strike the head' up,upper tufa tp dya, tu 'raising ground' to stretch put pd pe, bamba to prosper falfat -- find'ya pour duq --- du 'to dispense' child pin,pinu den Mother na-a -- na lord sa -- sa place -ka -ka

The languages have similar syntax Hattic le fil 'his house'; Mande a falu 'his father's house'. This suggest that the first Anatolians were Kushites, a view supported by the Hattic name for themselves: Kashka.

The Hittites adopted much of Hattic culture. There were other languages spoken in Anatolia, including Palaic Luwian and Hurrian. The languages

12

of the Hittites: Nesa , was a lingua franca used by the Luwian and Palaic speakers.

The Hurrians spoke a non-IE language. Formerly, linguist suggested that the Hurrians were dominated by Indic speakers. Linguist of the IE languages were fond of this theory because some of the names for the earliest Indo-Aryan gods, chariots and horsemenship are found in Hurrian. This made the Indo-Aryan domination of Hurrians good support for an Anatolia origin for the IE speakers.

Comparison of Hurrian and Sanscrit Words Hurrian Sanscrit Mi-it-ra Mitra Aru-na Varuna In-da-ra Indra

This theory held high regrads until Bjarte Kaldhol studied 500 Hurrian names and found that only 5, were Indo-Aryan sounding. This made it

13

clear that the IA people probably learned horsemenship from the Hurrians, and not the other way around.

At the base of Nesite, the language of the Hittites is Hattic . Since this language was used as a lingua franca, Nesa was probably not an IE language as assumed by IE linguist. This along with the fact that Diakonoff and Kohl never defeated the Kaska; and the Hurrians introduced horse-drawn war chariots for military purposes indicate that Anatolia probably was not a homeland for the IE speakers.

14

Chapter Two: The Kurgan People

The early I-E were Kurgan nomadic warriors. Kurgan is a name used by archaeologist for the early Europeans.The term I-E does not refer to a racial type, because many of the ancient I-E speakers may have been black , given the fact that among the depictions of the People of the Sea on Egyptian monuments their are African people. But today the only I-E people we have are Caucasian. Evolving in the Caucasus mountains, the Kurgan folk were pastoralist. They herded cattle, pigs and sheep. The Kurgans were a very destructive people. They destroyed vast regions of forest across Europe. By the Fourth millennium BC, wide tracts of forests were gone in Europe. Upon their encounter with civilized Africoid communities, the latter were enslaved while the Kurgans adopted their culture. The Kurgan warriors used these slaves to grow grain. The Indo-Europeans remained an insignificant group until they learned the art of metal working from the Hittites of Asia Minor. This along with natural disasters that took place around the world after 1600 BC, helped the Kurgans to infiltrate civilized areas in the Aegean and Indus Valley.

15

The Kurgan people are also known as the Battle Axe/ Corded Ware Folk. By the Third millennium BC, the Kurgan were breeding horses and organized themselves into militarized chiefdoms. The symbol of the warrior class was the horned helmet common to the Sea Folk and later Vikings. Their common weapon was the double axe. The Kurgan folk in small numbers slowly migrated into the centers of civilization, first in northern Mesopotamia, then India. By 3500 BC, the Kurgans were invading the Caucasus region. Beginning in 3700 B.C., Old European settlements had walls built around them to keep out the Kurgan warriors. These early I-E people practiced human sacrifice. At the death of a man his wife was often killed and buried with him. The Kurgan people mixed with the indigenous Africoid people. Some of them were made slaves by the warrior elites. If black communities were more powerful than the Kurgans, they formed an alliance between themselves and conquered weaker groups. Once the Kurgan tribe became stronger it would knock off its former ally. The People of the Sea began to infiltrate the Aegean area after 1200 BC. These people usually wore horn helmets and used round shields

16

Pictures of these nomadic warriors are depicted in courtyard of Medinet Habu, in Egypt. These white Japhetic Philistine folk were relocated in Palestine, where two hundred years later they destroyed Sidon and Troy. This Philistine Kurgan ethnic group is called Phrs in Egyptian documents. Another group of Kurgan tribes took Crete. From bases in Crete, they invaded North Africa west of Egypt. These Kurgan tribesmen were called Rebou, by the Egyptians. This group formed the white Libyan population which occupied much of the Delta region of Egypt, before the founding of Carthage by the Phoenicians. By 1300 BC, the Dorian tribes invaded Greece and defeated the Achaeans. The Dorian conquest of Mycenae led to Crete becoming a major center of Achaean civilization. The Dorians learned the art of writing from the Phoenicians. Among the early I-E social relations were patriarchal. The hereditary warrior class controlled the best lands and large slave populations made up mainly of the native Blacks and poor Indo-European population. The landless people served as serfs for the ruling class made up of warriors. Each Indo-European ethnic group was led by a Basileus. He was military commander, judge and high priest.

17

In summary the myths , archaeological and historical evidence all indicate that Europe was not the homeland of the White race. It would appear from the evidence that the ancient Greeks were Blacks. Moreover, it is clear that these blacks taught the Europeans civilization and government and that these symbols of government and civilization can not be claimed solely as the property of Europeans. The historical, archaeological and linguistic evidence proves that contemporary ancient history text must be re-written to reflect that the blacks in Europe were not just slaves, but founders of Grecian civilization.. These new history text must, for the first time reflect of the African role in history so that black children and white children will know the truth about history, and not just false hoods that deny the existence of a native Grecian African role in the rise of ancient Greco-Roman civilization. These blacks in Greece just like African-Americans today built the culture and civilization of ancient Greece. But their efforts, unfairly have been ignored and over looked by scholars who knew the truth, but hid this truth to validate White World Supremacy.

18

Chapter Three:Dravidian Substratum in IndoEuropean languages

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 of this work were situated in the Punjab which occupied around this time by the BRW Dravidians.

There are islands of Dravidian speakers in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. There are over 300,000 Brahui speakers in Qualat, Hairpur and Hyderabad districts of Pakistan. There are an additional 40,000 Brahui in Emeneau and Burrow (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).

Dravidians today live Iran and several thousand along the southern border of Russia and Yugoslavia. (ISDL 1983:227)

Emeneau and Burrow (1962) have found 500 Dravidian loan words in Sanskrit. the number of Dravidian loans in Indo Aryan is expected to reach 750. 19

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. (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.

20

Chapter Four: Origin of Sanskrit

The Sanskrit language is highly respected in India. It carries the religion and culture of all the people of India. A.B. Keith, in A History of Sanskrit Literature (1928), makes it clear that Sanskrit was probably invented as early as the 6th 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 notexaggerate the activity of the grammarians to the extent of suggestingthat 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 Sanskrit present the appearance of an artificial product; but rathe5r admits exceptions in bewildering profusion, showing that the grammarians were not creators, but 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

21

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 future, and the participial forms in Sanskrit were probably of Dravidian origin. Stephan H. Levitt in a recent article in the International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, has suggested that Sanskrit may have adopted many North Dravidian forms . 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,

22

even though Aryan recorders of this work were situated in the Punjab which occupied around this time by the BRW Dravidians.

There are islands of Dravidian speakers in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. There are over 300,000 Brahui speakers in Qualat, Hairpur and Hyderabad districts of Pakistan. There are an additional 40,000 Brahui in Emeneau and Burrow (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 loan words 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. (Chatterji 1970:173) Oriya borrowed the gura plural suffix from the Dravidians. (Mahapatra 1983:67) The syntax of the Indo Aryan languages is ambivalent

23

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, Deva-nagari city writing of the gods. V. Kanakasabhai in the Tamils 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 used to write Sanskrit today.

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 .

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

24

language (leaving aside similarities in certain kinds of Middle Indo-Aryan writing .

This view is untenable. W.D. Whitney, in Sanskrit Grammar (1889) observed of linguistic 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 artificially and intensification of certain more undesirable features of the language such as the use of passive construction and of particles instead of verbs, and the substitution of compounds [i.e., agglutination] for sentences. Professor Whitney found this characteristic strange because agglutination is associated with non-Indo-European 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 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 language (leaving aside similarities in certain kinds of Middle Indo-Aryan writing(p.xxii). Dr. Coulson adds that Furthermore, because of the long history of the language andt the

25

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 Sanskrit encouraged grammarians and authors of Sanskrit literature to make innovations in writing the language that according to Coulson led to Panini[being] obeyed and bypassed (p.xxii). As a result, Sanskrit is a learned 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 Avaghosa, and Kalidasa (Samkara) .

Chapter Five: The Naga : Ancient Semitic Speaking Ethiopians in India

26

The Naga were Semitic speaking people from Ethiopia. According to Macdonell the Semitic writing was introduced to India around 700BC.

The Semitic speakers of Africa founded the ancient civilization of Punt. As a result I refer to the speakers of Ethiopian Semitic languages 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 Proto-Puntite speakers lived in Africa. Wolf 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

27

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 marking prefix) or yi k'ettl '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 Indo-European speakers who invaded Palestine between 1500 B.C. and Arabia 900 B.C.

Semitic verb root 28

Akkadian Ethiopic/S. Arabian[list] kl 'to be dark' ekelu Soqotri okil 'to cover' mr 'to see' amaru Geez ammara;Tigre amara br 'to catch' baru Soqotri b'r dgh 'remove' daqu Geez dagba 'to perforate' kdn 'to protect' kidin Tigre 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 origin.

The Cushitic substratum has strongly influenced the phonology, morphology, syntax and vocabulary of the Puntite languages.

Comparison of Cushitic and Semitic Words Cushitic English Semitic Saho la wild cow *la-at Samoli la id. id.

29

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.

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 Puntite speakers lived in Libya which was part of 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 and helmet". (Ezekiel 38:5) The Puntites are mentioned in Egyptian 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 to note that as pointed out in the West Asia unit many people of Persia and Ethiopia originally had lived in Libya. This supports the Bible's listing of the Libyans , Persians and Ethiopians of analogous ethnic groups.

30

In the ancient literature of Kemit (Egypt) and Mesopotamia, Punt was recognized as a sea power. From ports along the Red Sea, the people of Punt traded 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 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 Ethiopian traditions.

The Ethiopians who conquered India were members of the Arwe

31

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 of Arwe 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

32

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.

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 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 of Egypt (Blue

33

Nile) to the west and from the south Shoa to eastern India", according to the Kebra Nagast. The Kebra Nagast 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 Naga Kings, at the Government Museum , Madras from Amaravati they 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 singleheaded serpent.

The major Naga tribes were the Maravar, Eyinar, Oliyar, Oviyar, AruValur 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.

34

The Naga were defeated by another group of Dravidian speaking people form Kumarinadu. Kamarinadu is suppose to have formerly existed as a large Island in the India ocean which connected India with East Africa. This landmass is mentioned in 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 by the Pandyans/Pandians at Madurai before it sunk beneath the sea. The greatest king of Kumarinadu was Sengoon. According to Dravidian scholars tha Pandyans worshipped the goddess Kumari Amman. This Aman, probably corresponds to the ancient god Amon of the Kushites. 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".

The major gift of the Naga to India was the writing system: DevaNagari. Nagari is the name for the Sanskrit script. Over a hundred years

35

ago Sir William Jones, pointed out that the ancient Ethiopic and Sanskrit writing are one and the 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. Homer, described Hercules as 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.

36

Soon the Nagas were absorbed into the Dravidian population. Today the Naga, are recognized by some researchers as Dravidians.

Chapter Six : The Horse in Indus Valley

In India the horse appeared at Harappan sites as early as the Third Millennium BC . This put the horse in the Indus Valley centuries before the Aryan invasion. It stands to reason that if the Indo-Aryans had been

37

part of the Harappan civilization, and the horse was a major part of their society, this animal would have been depicted in the Indus Valley seals. But as evident in the hundreds ofHarappan seal found so far there have been no seals with horses engraved oon the surface. In addition, during the Indian Megalithic period the horse was extensively used by the Dravidians. Remains of horse bits have been found at Junapani, near Nagpur.

Chapter Seven:The Medes

38

West African Horsemen. and Mede Soldier

The original Proto- Saharan tribes of Central Asia were known as the Kushana, Yuehshih, Mandaga (Manda > Mande), and Kasu. The four kingdoms of Saka were the Maga (Manga), Masaka, Mansa and Mandaga (Manda). The term Saka, now used to describe a late IndoEuropean group that conquered Central Asia formerly was used to refer to the Kushites/Proto-Saharans of ancient Central Asia. The name Maga, reminds us of the Magians or Maka, of the Persian inscriptions who lived in Media.

39

The ancient Sumerian name for Medea ,was Mada. One of the six tribes of Mada,was the "Mages" or "Magu" in Persian. The name Mage signified "the great,the High". Herodotus, claimed the the Medes came from Athens. This would support a Mande origin.

Many cities of eastern Greece were early settled by the Manding speakers who presently live in West Africa. Moreover, in the Manding languages "Maga" means 'great". Moreover, the name of the King of the Soninke (Manding) speaking empire of Ghana (300 BC to AD 1100) was called Manda.

The Magians or Medians, were probably descendants of the Manding tribes which also included the Garamantes of European and Libyan fame, and in Asia under the name of Mandaga/Medians. This view is supported by linguistic, historical and cultural data.

The language of the Medes, like Elamite is genetically related to the Manding languages. In addition the term Mandaga agrees with the title of the Manding tribes: for example, Manda agrees with Mande, the name of major group of Africans, who along with the Dravidians settled many parts of Asia.

40

Chapter Eight: The Original Persians

The contemporary people of Iran are not related to the Persians of the Achaemenid Empire. The Achaemenids spoke Old Persian (Elamite) and were of Kushite origin. They were defeated by people speaking Aramaic, Pahlavi and Avestan.

These non-Kushites people adopted the term Ariya/Aryan and applied it to themselves.

The Persians had their own writing system which was similar to cuneiform of the Sumerians and Akkadians.

41

Chapter Nine: Origin of Indo-Aryan speakers

I believe that Dravidian languages were spoken in India when the Indo-Aryans invaded the region.

The Proto-Indo-Aryan(Kaska/Mitanni/ Hatti) speakers were probably descendents of the Kushites who formerly lived in Anatolia. Since Dravidians speakers also belonged to the Kushite Dwipa, like the Proto-Indo-Aryans it is only natural that the languages are related.

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 of this work were situated in the Punjab which occupied around this time by the BRW Dravidians. There are islands of Dravidian speakers in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. There are over 300,000 Brahui speakers in Qualat, Hairpur and Hyderabad districts of Pakistan. There are an additional 40,000 Brahui in Emeneau and Burrow (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)

42

Emeneau and Burrow (1962) have found 500 Dravidian loan words 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. (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.

The relationship between the Dravidian languages and Prakritic languages is much more complicated than the ideas presented by Bh Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti argues that there were many Dravidians in India when the Indo-Aryans arrived; and that as a result Dravidian influenced the IndoAryan languages through the introduction of lexical items and (grammatical) structural features.

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 of this work were situated in the Punjab which occupied around this time by the BRW Dravidians.

43

There are islands of Dravidian speakers in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. There are over 300,000 Brahui speakers in Qualat, Hairpur and Hyderabad districts of Pakistan. There are an additional 40,000 Brahui in Emeneau and Burrow (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 loan words 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. (Chatterji 1970:173) Oriya borrowed the -gura plural suffix from the Dravidians. (Mahapatra 1983:67) Some researchers believe that 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. If my theory is correct the relationship between Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages is not the result of borrowing, it is due to the fact that the ancestors of the Vangi, Odri and Maharastri were descendents of the Kushite Anatolians.

44

In conclusion,the relationship between indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages are not the result, purely of contact with Dravidian speakers in India. These languages are related because the speakers of these languages formerly belonged to the C-Group or Kushite people of the region called Kusha Dwipa in the Sankritic text.

I believe that after the Hittites defeated the Hatti and Kaska and other peoples belonging to the Hurrian and Mitanni kingdoms, these people were uprooted and forced into Iran. The lost of Anatolia to the Hittites, probably forced these people to become nomads.

In Iran the Hatti, Kaska and Mitanni probably formed a significant portion of the Proto-Indo-Aryan population. Here they may have met Iranian speaking people,who may have practiced a hunter-gatherer existence, that adopted aspects of their Kushite culture , especially the religion and use of Mitanni religious terms and chariot culture. Joining forces with the Indo-Aryan (Mitannian-Hurrian-Kaska-Hatti) exiles they probably attacked Dravidian and Austronesian speaking people in India who lived in walled cities. The Austronesian and Dravidian people probably came in intimate contact during the Xia and Shang periods of China. I have to reject the Afghanistan origin for the Indo-Aryan speaking people because the cultures there in ancient times show no affinity to Indo-European civilization. Given the Austronesian and Dravidian elements in Sanskrit and etc., I would have to date the expansion of the Indo-Aryan people sometime after 800 BC, across Iran, down into India.
45

This would explain why "the Vedic and Avestan mantras are not carbon copies of each other", they may have had a similar genesis, but they were nativised by different groups of Indic and Iranian speakers after the settlement of nomadic Hurrian, Kaska, Hatti and Mitanni people in Iran. If this theory is correct the Kaska, Mittani and etc., were probably the ancestors of Prakrit speaking tribes of the Vangi, Odri and Maharastri.This view is supported by the relationship between Indo-Aryan and Mittani. H.H. Hock in Language History, Language Change, and Language Relationship , noted that Mittani words contained in these passages are phonetically closer to the earliest attested Indo-Aryan than to Old Iranian (p. 62).

Final Word

46

It appears that after the Hittites defeated the Hatti and Kaska and other peoples belonging to the Hurrian and Mitanni kingdoms,these people were uprooted and forced into Iran. The lost of Anatolia to the Hittites, probably forced these people to become nomads. The Persians were well established in Iran so these people probably pushed into North India along with Iranian speakers.

In Iran they probably formed a significant portion of the Proto-Arya population. Here they may have met Indo-Iranian speaking people,who may have practiced a hunter-gatherer existence, that adopted aspects of their culture , especially the religion and use of Mitanni religious

47

terms and chariot culture. Joining forces with the Mitannian-Hurrian exiles they probably attacked Dravidian and Austronesian speaking people who probably lived in walled cities. The Austronesian and Dravidian people probably came in intimate contact during the Xia and Shang periods of China.

The first recorded Indo-European language is Hittite. Many researchers get the Hittites (Nesa) mixed up with the originalKushite or Black/African settlers of Anatolia called Hatti according to Steiner . [T]his discrepancy is either totally neglected and more or less skillfully veiled, or it is explained by the assumption that the Hittites when conquering the country of Hatti adjusted themselves to the Hattians adopting their personal names and worshipping their gods, out of reverence for a higher culture .

Neshili, was probably spoken by the Hatti, not the IE Hittite. Yet, this language is classified as an IE langauge. Researchers maintain that the Hatti spoke 'Hattili' or Khattili language of the Hatti, and the IE Hittites spoke "Neshumnili"/ Neshili . Researchers maintain that only 10% of the terms in Neshumnili is IE. This supports the view that Nesumnili may have been a lingua franca. It is clear that the Anatolians spoke many languages including:Palaic, Hatti, Luwian and Hurrian, but the people as

48

you know mainly wrote their writings in Neshumnili. The first people to use this system as the language of the royal chancery were Hatti Itamar Singer makes it clear that the Hittites adopted the language of the Hatti . Steiner wrote that, " In the complex linguistic situation of Central Anatolia, in the 2nd Millennium B.C. with at least three, but probably more different languages being spoken within the same area there must have been the need for a language of communication or lingua franca [i.e., Neshumnili), whenever commercial transactions or political enterprises were undertaken on a larger scale" .

The language of the Hittites was more than likely a lingua franca, with Hattic, as its base. In Western Anatolia many languages were spoken including Hattic, Palaic, Luwian and Hurrian used Nesa as a lingua franca For example, the king of Arzawa, asked the Egyptian in the Amarna Letters, to write them back in Nesumnili rather than Egyptian .

Steiner notes that In the complex linguistic situation of Central Anatolia in the 2nd Millennium B.C., with at least three, but probably more different languages being spoken within the same area there must have been the need for a language of communication or lingua franca whenever commercial transaction or political enterprises were

49

undertaken on a larger scale . This led Steiner to conclude that moreover the structure of Hittite easily allowed one to integrate not only proper names, but also nouns of other languages into the morphological system. Indeed, it is a well known fact the vocabulary of Hittite is strongly interspersed with lexemes from other languages, which is a phenomenon typical of a lingua franca .

The Old Persians ruled the Greeks. The Greeks later conquered India, and Panini mentions Greeks in his grammar of Sanskrit. This suggest that Greeks lived in large numbers in India at this time.

The fact that the Greeks, Hindus and Persians lived in intimate contact for hundreds of years naturally led to the adoption of many terms by the Greeks and Hindus of Persian origin, and later the adoption of many Greek terms by the Hindus. These states of bilingualism in North India, explains why the Indo-Iranian languages form one family , and are linked to the Indo-European languages via Greek.

The Harappans spoke a Dravidian language, Indo-Iranian probably originated after 589 BC. This is made clear by Darius in the Behistun inscription where he claims that he was the first to write in the Ariya language. Darius'- evidence for the first writing of Ariya, indicates that

50

the idea of the continuity of Hindu civilization in India is a myth. The original inhabitants of India spoke Dravidian languages. Over time, the Dravidians were forced to adopt Hindi and other Indo-Iranian languages, yet remnants of these Dravidians in North India remain. This is why we find no evidence of the Vedic language until the Naga (Ethiopians) invented Sanskrit. It also explains the variations in the Vedic and Avestan manuscripts, which in the case of the later group date back only to 1288 AD.

The tradition of writing in North India date to the Achaeminids, and may explain the origin of Brahmi. The fact that Brahmi has signs that relate to the Harappan writing may be the result of the fact that the Elamites (Old Persians) of the Achaeminid Empire were familiar with the writing system of the Dravidians, and the Naga (Ethiopians) who used a system of writing similar to Phonesian. The Dravidians have their own tradition of writing. It would appear that the Dravidians introduced writing to the Indus Valley. They continued to use this writing on their pottery in South India and later punchmarked coins. This is supported by the discovery of writing in South India dating back to before 600 BC.

The history of contact between Iranian and Indian speakers during Achaemenid rule , would explain the Indo-Iranian relationship, not the

51

existence of a Proto-Indo-Iranian homeland in India. This history of Turkic, Persian, Sumerian, Elamite, Tamil, Ethiopic (/Naga)and Hindi speaking people living in diverse North Indian communities, is the most logical explanation of the relationships that exist between and among these languages. The history of linguistic contact between the speakers of these languages make it clear that the Harappans were not IndoAryan speakers. This would place the origin of the major Vedic and Avestan text back to maybe 800 BC, and more than likely 600-500 BC not the 1200 BC or earlier date assigned these text by some researchers. Let's not forget that some researchers claim that most editions of the Aestan, date back to an original copy of this text dating only to 1288 AD.

I have to reject the Afghanistan origin for the Indo-Iranian speaking people because the cultures there in ancient times show no affinity to Indo-European civilization. Given the Austronesian and Dravidian elements in Sanskrit and etc., I would have to date the expansion of the Indo-Aryan people sometime after 800 BC, across Iran, India down into Afghanistan, since the Austronesian people probably did not begin to enter India until after the fall of the Anyang Shang Dynasty sometime after 1000 BC. This would explain why "the Vedic and Avestan mantras are not carbon copies of each other", they may have

52

had a similar genesis, but they were nativised by different groups of Indic and Iranian speakers after the settlement of nomadic Hurrian and Mitanni people in Iran. In summary India was not the homeland of the Indo-Iranian family of languages. The linguistic relationship between Persian and Greek result from the rule of these areas by the Achaeminid and later Greek rulers of India. This may explain why the Achaeminids depicted the Nubians (of Africa), the Hindus and King Darius with Africoid features. The ability to explain the relationship of Sanskrit to Greek, and the Indo-Iranian linguistic relationship due to Persian/Elamite and Hindi contact, resulting from the historical connections between the speakers of these languages and bilingualism within North-India and Afganistan. This hypothesis supports the view that the Indo-European connection to Indian languages goes back to the Greek rule of India, not some hypothetical date millennia ago.

53