An Unofficial History of Dravidian Writing By Clyde Winters, Ph.D Uthman dan Fodio Institute Chicago, Illinois 60643 1
Nov 13, 2014
An Unofficial History of Dravidian Writing
By
Clyde Winters, Ph.D
Uthman dan Fodio Institute
Chicago, Illinois 60643
1
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.
2
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). 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
3
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. Around 7000 BC, Mediterraneans of a fairly tall stature not devoid of negroid
characteristics appear in the Sahara at Capsa (now called Cafsa) (Desanges
1981:424-25) . These Mediterraneans are called Capsians. This group 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 of new metal reserves.
4
Agricultural Terms
grain cotton rice land of cultivation ║
Dravidian valci pani,panchi uri,ari kalan ║
'husked rice' ║
Sumerian se ga(n) ║
Manding se fani,fande maro ga ║
║
Domesticated Animals ║
dog horse cattle,cow sheep ║
Dravidian ori pari,iyuli naku,gonde 'bull' kuri,koor║
Sumerian ur paru, 'mule' gud zar,sar ║
Manding wuru bari,wolo gunga, kongo sara ║
Below are some of the cognate terms Dravido- African
terms for agriculture and domesticated animals.There is
abundant evidence that African millets were cultivated in
the Indus Valley during Harappan times (Weber, 1998;
Winters,1981a,1981b). Weber (1998) maintains that
Indian agriculture was "greatly influenced" by these
millets from ancient to modern times (p.267).
It would appear from the archaeological evidence
that local millets were cultivated before the 3rd
5
millenium B.C. (Weber, 1998; Winters, 1981b). But by
the founding of the Harappan civilization and rise of
civilization in Gujarat the African millets were
integrated into a well established South Asian
subsistence pattern (Weber,1998).
Controversy surrounds the transportation pattern
for African millets to India (Weber, 1998). Yet it
would appear that millets arrive in South Asia, both
in the 3rd and 2nd millennium B.C. It is interesting
to note that where the African millets represent the
dominate cereal grain, rice was also a major
domesticate(Weber,1998).
The Dravidian terms for millet are listed in the
Dravidian Etymological Dictionary at 2359, 4300 and
2671. A cursory review of the linguistic examples
provided below from the Dravidian, Mande and Wolof
languages show a close relationship between these
language. These terms are outlined below:
Kol sonna --- ---
----
Wolof(AF.) suna --- ----
---
Mande (AF) suna bara, baga de-n, doro
koro
6
Tamil connal varaga tinai
kural
Malayalam colam varaku tina
Kannanda --- baraga, baragu tene
korale,korle
*sona *baraga *tenä
*kora
Below we will compare other Dravidian and African
agricultural terms. These terms come from the Mande
languages (Malinke, Kpelle, Bambara, Azer, Soninke),
West Atlantic (Wolof, Fulani), Afro-Asiatic (Oromo,
Galla), Somali, Nubian and the ancient Egyptian.
The Paleo-Dravido-Africans came from a sedentary
culture that domesticated cattle and grew numerous
crops including wheat and millet. The Egyptian term
for cultivation is 0 b j(w) #. Egyptian
0 b j(w) # corresponds to many African terms for
cultivation:
Galla baji 'cultivated field'
Tulu (Dravidian language) bey, benni
Nubian ba, bat 'hoe up ground'
Malinke be
7
Somali beer
Wolof mbey, ambey, bey
Egyptian b j(w)
Sumerian buru, bur 'to root up'
These terms for cultivate suggest that the
Paleo-African term for cultivate was *be.
The Egyptian term for grain is 0 sa #. This
corresponds to many African terms for seed,grain:
Galla senyi
Malinke se , si
Sumerian se
Egyptian sen 'granary'
Kannanda cigur
Bozo sii
Bambara sii
Daba sisin
Somali sinni
Loma sii
Susu sansi
Oromo sanyi
Dime siimu
Egyptian ssr 'corn'
id. ssn 'lotus plant'
8
id. sm 'herb, plant'
id. isw 'weeds'
The identification of a s>0/#_________e pattern for
'seed,grain' in the above languages suggest that these
groups were familiar with seeds at the time they
separated into distinct Supersets. The fact that
Sumerian Ø se # and Egyptian Ø sen #, and Malinke
Ø se # are all separated both in time and geographical
area highlight the early use of seeds * se , by
Paleo-Dravido-Africans.
The Paleo-Dravido-Africans used the hoe to
cultivate their crops. The Egyptian terms for hoe are
Ø hbs # and Ø wb #, which mean 'to open up' in
Egyptian. These Egyptian terms are analogous to Black
African and Dravidian terms for hoe:
Tamil parai
Malayalam para
Kannanda pare
Nubia bat
Malinke daba
Egyptian per 'to plough'
Hausa fartanya
Swahili palile
Egyptian hbs
9
Galla buqis 'root up'
Sumerian buru 'to root up'
It would appear that contrast exist between b and
(f)_______p.
This indicates that in Paleo-Dravido-African that b <
p. The Paleo-Dravido-African term for hoe was probably
*ba(r)/pa(r).
The Paleo-Dravido-Africans also possessed other
terms for hoe:
Malayalam kuntali
Tamil kuntali 'pickaxe'
Nubian Kadid
Wolof konko
Malinke kope, daba
Galla doma
Hausa garma
Kod guddali
Kannanda guddali
Kpelle kali
This evidence suggest that t > d. The phonological
contrast between t =/= d, highlight the alternation
patterns of many Paleo-Dravido African consonants for
hoe the including:
10
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║
11
The ancestors of the Dravidians, Manding and Sumerians were organized into a
federal system during the neolithic subpluvial. These early Proto- Saharans made
adequate uses of local game and plant life and they 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-Saharan tribes claimed direct descent from the great Maa, 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).
12
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 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 and goats to ensure a reliable source of food.
Pastoralism and fishing proceeded food production in the Saharan Proto-Dravidian
homeland. It appears that a hunter-gatherer group specializing in the hunting of animals
became cattle herders. They were keenly aware of the habits of game and therefore made
the shift from hunter-fisher-gatherer to animal husbandry rapidly once the 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).
13
Often wild ass, Barbary sheep, hyena and hare were associated with wild cattle in the
Sahara. Bones of domesticated cattle have come from 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 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).
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
14
Dravidians probably early knew basic smelting and fabricating techniques and the basic
alloy compositions.
Terms Relating to Mining
blacksmithing gold steel copper hole
Dravidian inumu, irumbu kaani urukku uruttiram tulai
Sumerian gush-kin urudu dul,tul
Manding umu,numu saani tuufa 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 or ass may have been used to carry goods along overland routes. Cattle
were often used to pull carts loaded with goods.
Geographical Terms
road mountain deluge
Dravidian calai kunru amaru
Sumerian sila kur maari
Manding sila kuru mara 'zone of pond'
The bronze Age Civilizations of Europe were founded by non- Indo-European speakers.
Mellaart 1981) The Sino-Tibetan (S-T) and Thai speakers fought the 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
15
1400-1200 BC. During this period the Hua (Chinese) and 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, after
500 AD, Turkish speaking people began to settle parts of Central 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 dispersal of of Proto-Saharan tribes
between 3800-2500 BC. This explains the common arrowheads at Harappan sites, and
sites in Iran, Egypt, Minoan Crete and early Heladic Greece. In addition, linguist have
found a very close 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.
16
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 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. He made it clear that these Scythes
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), 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
17
(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 (1980), discussed the possible influence of the Indus 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 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
metals for trade with Mesopotamia, the Indus valley and beyond (Winters
1985a,1985b) .This would explain the close relationship between Dravidian and Elamite
on the one hand, and Dravidian, Manding , and Elamite on the other (Winters
1985c,1989b).
The Elamites lived in the Fars and the Bakhtiar valleys. This mountain area was
named Elimaid in ancient times.
18
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 the decline of the Harappan site
of Shortughai (c.2400-2200 BC) on the Oxus 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
Bactrian aristocracy (see: Ligue & Salvatori (Ed.), Bactria: an ancient oasis civilization
from the sands of Afghanistan (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 civilization of Central Asia (1981) p.112).
The major Kushite group from Mesopotamia to northern India were the Kassites. The
Kassites, who occupied the central Zagros were called 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
19
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 and the Indus Valley. Vessels from the IVBI workshop at Tepe Yahya
(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 Turkmenia these settlers occupied the Etek plain and the Tedzen delta. 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, and the Indus Valley to the Capsian sea shared a common culture.(Ligabue &
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.
20
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 sites in Asia, there is a clear 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 massif, near Harappan sites on the
Hilmand and Indus rivers.
Other Proto-Dravidians entered Turkmenia. As in the rest of Asia, the 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 conclusion to this section of the paper, Dravidian colonists from Iran or
Afghanistan probably sailed along the Tedjan river to settle parts of southern
Turkmenia/Turkmenistan.This is supported by the discovery of imported Indus seals at
21
Altyn-Depe (Masson 1981). Altyn-Depe was a large ceremonial complex in southern
Turkmenia.
Archaeological evidence also indicates that colonists from southern Turkmenia
probably took food - producing culture to the borders of Xinjiang,China in the 3rd
millennium BC.(Kohl 1981) Other culture elements including the wheel and cattle were
taken to China by the Elamites and Proto-Dravidians in the 3rd millennium 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).
22
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 #.
23
Writing systems among Dravido-African people were mainly devised for two
purposes. Firstly, to help merchants keep records on the business venture they made.
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 of
their nation and people for future recitation before members of their respective
communities. This oral history was often accompanied by music or 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
24
Dravidian carru
Egyptian drf
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 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. 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.
25
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
26
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 pottery symbols support this view.
27
28
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, Proto-
Elamite 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).
29
The oldest Proto-Saharan syllabic inscriptions come from Oued Mertoutek and Gebel
Sheikh Suleiman. These inscriptions are over 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 the ram's body (see figure 4). This inscription written in an
aspect of Manding was deciphered in 1981 (Winters 1983a).
30
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 values of the Vai signs, but read them in the
Dravidian or Manding language you could read the ancient literature of Crete and the
31
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 time-
depth was used to interpret the inscriptions. For example, Jean Champollion used Coptic
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 Proto-
Saharan scripts: Linear A, the Oracle Bone writing, the Olmec and the Harappan writing
(Winters 1979, 1983b,1984).
32
Indus Valley Writing
The Harappans have left us thousands of written documents. These documents are called seals by archaeologists. The Harappan seals are written 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,
33
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
. 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
34
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 their
35
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:
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
36
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
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
37
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
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). There are also 10 ideographic signs (Winters, 1987a).
38
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 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).
39
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.
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). 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. McAlpin in Proto- Elamo Dravidians: The Evidence and its Implication (Philadelphia, 1981) 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.
40
One, it was assumed that Harappan script was written in the Dravidian language.
Two, it was assumed that the Dravidian language shares linguistic and cultural affinities with the Elamites, Manding and Sumerians--all of whom used a similar writing system. 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 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 related languages like the Manding and Dravidian groups.
41
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 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.
42
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-i- Paa 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 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
43
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). 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 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
44
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). 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 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 evidence,
45
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
46
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://bestindiatours.com/archaeology/harappan/Gilund.html
). 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.
47
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
48
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
49
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.
50
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 Tamil-
Brahmi 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
51
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
52
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
53
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
between the Sarasvati heiroglyphs and the symbols used on punch-marked coins and on
54
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 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 punch-
marked 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, pp. 152 ff.; Fabri, C.L., The punch-marked coins: a survival of the 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 and United Provinces History Society meetings that certain metal 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). “
55
Comparison of Punch and Indus Valley Writing
Dr. Kalyanaraman continued that “Some excerpts from CL Fabri’s article 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 Punch-marked Coins (a Public coinage issued by Authority), in Centenary
Supplement, JRAS, 1924, pp. 175-189. At the time when he wrote his article, very 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
56
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 AD , portray
animals, with an inscription above the animal ( just like in the case of the Harappan seals)
which were indicative of the religious views of 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. A.B. 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
57
Sanskrit present the appearance of an artificial product; but rather 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 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 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
1 S.H. Levitt, Some new Dravidian etymologies for Sanskrit words, Internationa Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 32(2), pp.7-22.
58
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 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
59
used to write Sanskrit today.
The Naga were Semitic speaking people from Ethiopia. According to Macdonell the
Semitic writing was introduced to India around 700BC2 (pg.2).
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 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
2 Arthur A. Macdonell in A Sanskrit Grammar for Students. Oxford University Press, Delhi,( 1997) p.2.
60
'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 Akkadian Ethiopic/S. Arabian
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.
Cushitic English Semitic
Saho la 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.
61
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.
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
62
Ethiopian traditions.
The Ethiopians who conquered India were members of 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 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 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
3 ?. There is evidence that Menelik I may have conquered 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.
63
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 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 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 defeated by another group of Dravidian speaking people form
64
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 that
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".
65
66
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 Indo-
European 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. Nagari is
the name for the Sanskrit script. Over a hundred years 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.
67
Overtime the Nagas were absorbed into the Dravidian population. Today the Naga, are
recognized by some researchers as Dravidians.
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 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
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
4 Coulson, p.xxii.5 Ibid, pp.xxii.
68
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 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 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 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 writing to
6 Coulson, p.xx-xxi.
69
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 Indo-
Aryan oral traditions. These writings make it clear that the Indo-Aryans
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.
70
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
Dictionary the number of the signs is placed in parenthesis ( ).The
forest scene can probably be interpreted as Ka Siva “ [Oh] Siva Shelter
(Me). The signs on the opposite side of the seal are a min (277), tu ga
vey (136), Uss (123) tu tu (165 reduplication of the term tu). The
translation of these signs is: “ Make virtue and glowing admiration [my]
Fate [and] abundant virtue”.
Understanding the Harappan script allows us to read the Tamili-
Brahmi inscriptions from the ancient urns found in Tamil Nadu. For
example, one of the inscriptions was written inside one of the urns
71
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 inscription is 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 and the Punch Marked coins, is making it clear that the Indian
writing systems of the Dravidian speaking people has a continuous
history, spanning from the Indus Valley times, down to South Indian
pottery Tamili-Brahmi writing and contemporary
writing among the Dravidian speaking people.
72
ReferencesAnselin,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.
Agrawal,D.P.,S.Kusumgar.1974.PREHISTORIC CHRONOLOGY AND RADIOCARBON DATING IN INDIA. New Delhi.
Andersson,T.G. 1934. CHILDREN OF THE YELLOW EARTH:STUDIES IN PREHISTORIC CHINA. London.
Andronov,M.S. 1963-64. LEXICOSTATISTIC ANALYSIS OF THE CHRONOLOGYOF DISINTERGRATION OF PROTO - DRAVIDIAN . Moscow.
__________. 1968. TWO LECTURES ON THE HISTORICITY OF LANGUAGE 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.
Brenjes,B. 1983. "On Proto-Elamite Iran", CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY, 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.
73
Cornelius, J. T. (1957-1957). "Are Dravidians Dynastic Egyptians",Transactions of the Archaeological Society of South India, 91-94.
Caldwell, R. 1957. A COMPARATIVE GRAMMAR OF THE DRAVIDIAN OR SOUTH INDIAN FAMILY OF LANGUAGES. Madras.
Chang, K.C. 1980. SHANG CIVILIZATION. Yale University Press:New Haven.
__________. 1987. THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF ANCIENT CHINA. Yale Univ. Press: New Haven.
___________. 1964. "Prehistoric and early historic culture horizons and traditions in South China". CURRENT ANTROPOLOGY ,5(5):359-375.
Chatterji,S.K. 1970. THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF BENGALI LANGUAGE. New Delhi.
David,H.1955. "Some Contacts and Affinities between the Egypto-Minoan and Indo(Dravido)-Sumerian Culture". TAMIL CULTURE, 4(2)__.
David,These. 1986. " Le Colloque Franco-Sovietisque sur l'Archeologie de l'Asie Centrale des Origines a l'Age du Fer", DIALOGUES D'HISTOIRE ANCIENNE, 12:481-494.
Dergachev,V. 1989. "Neolithic and Bronze Age Cultural Communities of the Steppe Zone of the USSR". ANTIQUITY, 63:793-802.
Delafosse,M. 1901. ESSAI DE MANUEL PRATIQUE MANDE AU MANDINGUE. Paris.
Desanges,J. 1981. "The Proto-Berbers". In GENERAL HISTORY OF AFRICA 2, (Ed.) G. Mokhtar. London : Heinemann Educational Books.
D'iakonov,I.M.1985. "On the original home of the speakers of Indo-European. JOURNAL OF INDO - EUROPEAN STUDIES ,13(1&2):92-174.
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.
74
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. "Language change and the material correlates of language and ethnic shift". ANTIQUITY, 62:564-74.Emeneau,M. and T. Burrow. 1962. DRAVIDIAN BORROWINGS 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. THE ROOTS OF ANCIENT INDIA. Chicago: University of Chicago.
_____________. 1986. "The Harappan civilization according to its writing:A Model for the decipherment of the script". TAMIL CIVILIZATION, 4(3&4):103-130.
_____________. 1987. "Cattle and the Harappan chiefdoms of the Indus 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.
Francefort,Henri-Paul. 1987a. "La Civilisation de l'Indus aux rives de l'Oxus". ARCHAEOLOGIA (December):44-55.
75
____________________. 1987b. "Aux frontieres de la civilisation de l'Indus". DOSSIERS HISTOIRE ET ARCHAEOLOGIE, no. 11: 80-81.
____________________. 1985. "Fortifications et societes en Asie Centrale Protohistorique". DE L'INDE AUX BALKAN RECUEIL JEAN DESHAYES, (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 . Nanking:Institute of 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.
Gamkrelidze,T.V. & Ivanov,V.V. 1990. "The early History of Indo-European languages". SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, (9):110-116.
Gardin, Jean-Claude. 1987. "Recherches sur la Bactriane Ancienne", DOSSIERS HISTOIRE ET ARCHAEOLOGIE, no. 12: 77-79.
Gostony,C.G. 1975.DICTIONNAIRE D'ETYMOLOGIE SUMERIENNE ET GRAMMAIRE COMPAREE. Paris:De Boccard.
Gupta, S.P. 1979. ARCHAEOLOGY OF SOVIET CENTRAL ASIA AND THE INDIAN BORDERLANDS. B.R. Pub. Corp: Delphi. Vol.2.
__________. 1982. "The Late Harappan: A Study in 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.
76
Kao Chih-Hsu.1986."An Introduction to Shang and Chou Bronze nao excavated in South China". In STUDIES IN SHANG ARCHAEOLOGY,(ed.) by Chang, New Haven:Yale University Press.
Kanakasabhai,V. 1966. THE TAMILS EIGHTEEN HUNDRED YEARS AGO. Madras.
Khalopin,I. 1989. "Origins of the Bronze Age Culture of South Asia". BULL. INFORM IASCCA (Moscow), no.15:74-84.
Kircho,L. 1981. "The Problem of the origin of the 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.
Kirch,P.V.1985. FEATHERED GODS AND FISH: AN INTRODUCTION TO HAWAIIAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND PREHISTORY. Honolulu:University of Hawaii Press.
KiZerbo,J. 1979. "TheCradle of Mankind", UNESCO COURIER, (AUG.-SEPT.) PP.39-43.
Knorozov,Y.V. 1979. PROTO - INDICA . Moscow.Kohl,P.L. 1988. "The Northern 'Frontier' of the Ancient Near East: Trans-Caucacia and Central Asia Compared". AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY, 92:541.
_________. 1978. "The balance of trade in Southwestern Asia in the mid-Third Millennium BC". CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY, 19(3):463-92.
_________. 1979. (Ed.) THE BRONZE AGE CIVILIZATION OF CENTRAL ASIA. Armouk,N.Y.:M.E. Sharp.
Kothandaraman,R. 1988. "Complers in Tamil Syntax". INTERNATIONAL 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).
Lacouperie,T. de. 1886. "The Kushites-who were they". BABYLONIAN AND ORIENTAL RECORD, pp.25-31.
_______________. 1887. THE LANGUAGES OF CHINA BEFORE THE CHINESE. London: David Nunn.
77
_____________________. 1889. "Origin from Babylon and Elam of the early Chinese Civilization. A Summary of the Proof". BABYLONIAN AND ORIENTAL RECORD ,3 (5):97-111.
Lahovary, N.(1957).Dravidian Origins and the West, Madras: Longman.
Lal,B.B. 1954-1955."excavations at Hastinapura and other explorations in the Upper Ganga and Sutlej Basins 1950-52."ANCIENT INDIA,10:5-.
_______.1960. "From Megalithic to the 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, 20 April.
Langdon,S. 1911. SUMERIAN GRAMMAR AND CHRESTOMATHY. Paris:Paul Geuthner.
Li Chi.1957. THE BEGINNING OF CHINESE CIVILIZATION. 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.
__________.1986b. "Dravidian models of decipherment of the Indus Script: A case study". TAMIL CIVILIZATION ,4(3):133-43.
78
Mahapatra,B.P.1983. "Scope of Indo-Aryan Tribal Languages Research". INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DRAVIDIAN LINGUISTICS, 12(1):60-75.
Masson,V.M. 1986. "Ancient Central Asian Civilization trends of development, assimilation of Ecological niches, cultural links". BULL. INFORM.IASCCA (Moscow), no. 11:76-84.
Masson,V.M. & T. P. Kiatkina. 1981. "Man at the Dawn". In BRONZE AGE CIVILIZATION OF CENTRAL ASIA, (ed.) by P.L. Kohl,(Armonk ,N.Y.: M. E. Sharp) pp. 107-135.
Masson,V.M. & Taylor,T. 1989. "Soviet Archaeology in the Steppe Zone". ANTIQUITY, 63:779-783.McAlpin,D.W. 1974. "Toward Proto-Elamo Dravidian", LANGUAGE 50.
___________. 1981. PROTO-ELAMO DRAVIDIAN:THE EVIDENCE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS .Trans. of the Am. Philosophical Society 71, Part 3:Philadelphia.
Mellarrt,J. 1981. "Anatolia and the Indo-Europeans".JOURNAL OF INDO - EUROPEAN STUDIES , 9(1/2):135-149.
Meenakshisundaran,T.P. 1965. A HISTORY TAMIL LANGUAGE. Poona.
Meillet,A. 1926.LINGUISTIQUE HISTORIQUE ET LINGUISTIQUE GENERALE. Paris.
Menges,K. 1966. "Altaic-Dravidian Relationship". THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE - SEMINAR OF TAMIL STUDIES. Kuala Lumpur.
Muttarayan,K.L. 1975. "Sumerian,Tamil of the First Cankam". JOURNAL OF TAMIL STUDIES, 7:41-61.
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.
79
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 Script: A challenging Puzzle". WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY, 17(3):399-419.
Pope, Maurice. 1975. THE STORY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL DECIPHERMENT. New York: Scribner's.
Possehl,G.L. 1990. "Revolution in the Urban Revolution: The Emergence of Indus Urbanization. ANNUAL REVIEW OF ANTHROPOLOGY,19:261-82.
Possehl,G.L. & Raval,M.H. 1989. HARAPPAN CIVILIZATION AND RODJI. New Delhi:Oxford & IBH Publishing Co.
Romaine,S.1972.SOCIO - HISTORICAL-LINGUISTICS .London: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Raman,K.V. 1978. "Rock Paintings in Tamil Nadu". TIMES OF INDIA,24 December, p.8.
Ramsey,S.R. 1987. THE LANGUAGES OF CHINA. Princeton University Press: Princeton.
Rao,B.K.G. 1972.THE MEGALITHIC CULTURE IN SOUTH INDIA. Mysore.
Rawlinson,C.B.()."Notes on the early history of Babylonia". JOURNAL ROYAL ASIATIC SOCIETY, 15:215-259.
Renfrew,C. 1987. ARCHAEOLOGY AND LANGUAGE. London:Johnathan Cape._________. 1988. "Archaeology and Language:Author's Precis".CURRENT ANTHROPLOGY, 29(3):437-468.
Rosen, Lissie von.1988. LAPIS LAZULI IN GEOLOGICAL CONTEXT AND IN ANCIENT WRITTEN SOURCES. Paul Astroms forlag: Partille.
Schoebel,C.1853.Affinities des Langues Dravidienne et des langues Oural-Altaiques. CONGRESS INTERNATIONAL DES
80
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 second millennium". JOURNAL OF INDO - EUROPEAN STUDIES , 9(1/2):119-134.
Singh,H.N. 1982. HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY OF BLACK - AND RED WARE. Delhi.
Sjoberg,A.W. 1984. THE SUMERIAN DICTIONARY. Vol.2. The University Museum of Philadelphia.
Southworth,F.C.1977. "Lexical evidence for early contacts between Indo-Aryan and Dravidian". Proc.of the Conf. on Aryan and Non - Aryan in India . Ann Arbor: UNIV. OF MICHIGAN December, 1976.
_________. 1985. "The Reconstruction of Prehistoric South Asian Language Contact ". ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY 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."Yu san-tai tu-yi lun ch'i min-tsu,wen-hua". BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF HISTORY AND PHILOLOGY. Nanking:Institute of History and Philology (Academia 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 mythand the Dravidian Cilappadikaram. Tamil Civilization,1(2),83-90.
Tyler,S.A.1968."Dravidian and Uralian:the lexical evidence".LANGUAGE, 44(4):798-811.
81
Vacek,J.1978. "The problem of the genetic relationship of the Mongolian and Dravidian languages". ARCHIV ORIENTALNI 46:141-151.
_______.1983. "Dravido-Altaic: The Mongolian and Dravidian Verbal Bases. JOURNAL OF TAMIL STUDIES 23: 1-17.
Vacek,J. 1987. "The Dravido-Altaic Relationship". ARCHIV ORIENTALNI 55: 134-139.
Vamos-Toth Bator. 1983. TAMANA. Honolulu.
________________. 1985. "Kodaly: A comparative Tamana study in Tamil-land, Japan and the Carpathian Basin". PROCEEDINGS INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ASIAN STUDIES,1984. Hong 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 initialimpact of millets in South Asia. Current Anthropology,39(2),267-274.
Wigboldus,J.S. (1996). Early presence of Africanmillets near the Indian Ocean. In J. Reade, The IndianOcean (pp.75-86), London: The British Museum.
Wilson,J.V.K. 1974. INDO - 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
82
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),789- 807.
Winters,C.A.(1982). "The Harappan script Deciphered:Proto- Dravidian 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 Proto- Dravidian",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.
83
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) 1413-1425.
Winters, C.A.(1986a) "The Migration Routes of the Proto-Mande", 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.
Winters,C.A.(1999a). ProtoDravidian terms for cattle. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 28, 91-98.
84
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), 23-28.
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 Szabo.1985. "Common ancestral roots of the Magyar and Asiatic Languages". PROC. OF THE SIXTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ASIAN STUDIES 1984. Hong Kong:Asian Research 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
85
86