Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By
Abstract
The recent discovery of inscribed pottery in South India indicate that the history of
writing among the Dravidian people did not begin with the introduction of Brahmi
writing to South India. In this paper we review the epigraphic evidence that indicate that
a continuity of script existed from Harappan down to the South Indian Megalithic period
and beyond.
3
The Dravidian people originated in Middle Africa. From here Dravidian speaking
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
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
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
The Fertile Saharan Crescent is an arc shaped series of highland regions in the Saharan
zone of Africa. The Saharan zone is bounded on the north by the Atlas mountains, the
Atlantic Ocean in the West, the tropical rain forest in the south and the Red Sea in the
East. It was here that the ancestors of the founders of the river valley civilizations in
4
Africa, the Middle East, China and Indus Valley developed their highly organized and
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).
variety. Around 7000 BC, Mediterraneans of a fairly tall stature not devoid of negroid
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
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.
5
Agricultural Terms
'husked rice' ║
Sumerian se ga(n) ║
Domesticated Animals ║
domesticate(Weber,1998).
----
---
koro
7
kural
korale,korle
*kora
cultivation:
Malinke be
8
Somali beer
Egyptian b j(w)
Galla senyi
Malinke se , si
Sumerian se
Kannanda cigur
Bozo sii
Bambara sii
Daba sisin
Somali sinni
Loma sii
Susu sansi
Oromo sanyi
Dime siimu
Paleo-Dravido-Africans.
Tamil parai
Malayalam para
Kannanda pare
Nubia bat
Malinke daba
Hausa fartanya
Swahili palile
Egyptian hbs
10
(f)_______p.
*ba(r)/pa(r).
Malayalam kuntali
Nubian Kadid
Wolof konko
Galla doma
Hausa garma
Kod guddali
Kannanda guddali
Kpelle kali
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
1983a:210,1983b:15).
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.
The Proto-Saharans claimed descent from the Maa or Fish Confederation. The Maa
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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.
Central Asia was formalized. The Proto-Dravidian colonists of inner Asia were motivated
by both curiosity and the need for metals. Metallurgy was important to man in the 3rd
Millennium BC. At this time man was already mining metals to be fabricated into tools,
jewelry and cooking utensils. Most scholars speculated that by 2000 BC properties of
many common metals were understood and the location of ores were known. The
15
Dravidians probably early knew basic smelting and fabricating techniques and the basic
alloy compositions.
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
Geographical Terms
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
In the ancient literature the Proto-Dravidians are called Kushites. Using boats the
Kushites moved down ancient waterways many now dried up, to establish new towns in
Asia and Europe after 3500 BC. The Kushites remained supreme around the world until
16
1400-1200 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
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.
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.
17
I-E and S-T speakers reached a numerical majority in or near a Kushite town they would
join forces to militarily overthrow the original inhabitants and take political power, this
typified the second form of I-E and S-T 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,
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
The Dravidians early colonized the Indus Valley and Iran. Although the Dravidian
speakers form a solid block of related languages in South India, the territorial domains of
the Dravidians once extended into the Indus Valley, and Iran. This view is supported by
18
(1) the evidence of Dravidian loan words in Sanskrit, and (2) the presence of Dravidian
speakers in North India. Moreover, the recent decipherment of the Indus Valley script
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
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
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
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 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
Similar pottery was used in West Asia. The pottery from Susa in Iran and Eridu in
Mesopotamia of the fifth millennium BC are identical. Between 3700 and 3100 BC, Elam
was under the influence of Uruk, as indicated by the shared art found at these sites during
this period.
By the end of the 4th millennium BC , we see the beginnings of distinctive Elamite
culture in the western Fars, at the Kur Valley. Here at Tel-i-Malyan we see the first
20
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
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
Other farmers began to establish themselves on the steppes near the Amu Darya (i.e, the
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
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
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
Shortughai was an important center for processing lapis lazuli. Situated along the
Other lapis lazuli mines were established in the Chagai massif, near Harappan sites on the
spread over the region by watercraft. This is one of the reasons why the Indus Valley
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).
Afghanistan probably sailed along the Tedjan river to settle parts of 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
provides hundreds of lexical correspondences and other linguistic data supporting the
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
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:
There are also other corresponding terms for 'mark', or 'draw' that begin with velar stops:
In Egyptian we have several terms for write 0 ss #, 0 zs # , and 0 ssw #. During the Old
The Egyptian term for writing 0 ssw # is analogous to the Mande terms 0 sewe # or 0
sebe # 'writing, trace, design'. In Dravidian among other terms we have rasu 'write', and
shu 'writing' in Sumerian. The Egyptian term 0 zs # is also closely related to Sumerian 0
shu #.
Writing systems among Dravido-African people were mainly devised for two
purposes. Firstly, to help merchants keep records on the business venture they made.
24
Secondly, the Proto-Saharan script was also used to preserve religious doctrines or write
obituaries.
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
This view is supported by the fact that the term for writing in Dravidian and Egyptian
A "u", is usually attached to the initial consonants (Winters 1985b). For example:
Elamite talu
Dravidian carru
Egyptian drf
25
These terms agree with the Manding terms for excavate or hollow out 0 du #, 0 do #, 0
kulu #, 0 tura #, etc. The Sumerian term for writing was 0 du #. This show that the
Proto-Saharan term for writing denoted the creation of 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,
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
POTTERY INSCRIPTIONS
The Proto-Saharan writing was first used to write characters on pottery (Winters 1980), to
give the ceramics a talismanic quality . Similar signs appear on Chinese, Harappan, South
27
Indian Megalithic, Libyan and Cretan pottery (see figure 1). These signs were invented
by the Proto-Saharans for purposes of communication. These pottery signs agree with the
so-called linear Egyptian signs mentioned by Petrie (1921, p.83). They frequently appear
on Egyptian pottery .
Moreover Dr. J.T. Cornelius (1956-57) used epigraphic evidence to show that the
graffiti marks on the South Indian Megalithic pottery has affinity to other ancient scripts
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
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-
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
Manding continued to use the Proto-Saharan script (see figure 2) (Winters 1985c).
30
The oldest Proto-Saharan syllabic inscriptions come from Oued Mertoutek and 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
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
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
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
32
Indus Valley (Winters 1985b). Thus the syllables which retain constant phonetic values
genetic linguistic relationship using data of comparatively recent time-depth. But this
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
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
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).
marked coins.
(see):http://geocities.com/olmec982000/IndusInspiration.pdf
hypothesis (see:
http://us.share.geocities.com/olmec982000/HarWRITE.pdf
Dravidians used to help them attain aram, and the good life
average 5 symbols.
arguments.
http://www.archaeology.org/9903/newsbriefs/egypt.html ).
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
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
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.
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).
Further research indicated that the Indus Valley writing was related not only to the
Libyco-Berber writing but also the Brahmi writing. Some researchers claim that the
Brahmi writing is related to Phonecian writing. But a comparison of the Brahmi vowels
and Phonecian vowels fail to show similarity.
41
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.
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.
42
This led to a corollary hypothesis that the Harappan writing probably operated on the
same principles as the related scripts, due to a probable common origin.
Three, it was assumed that since the Harappan script has affinity to the Proto-Manding
writing (Libyco-Berber) and the Manding language, the Harappan script could be read by
giving these signs the phonetic values they had in the Proto-Manding script as preserved
in the Vai writing, since the northern Manding languages like Bambara and Malinke are
genetically related to Dravidian languages like Tamil. The discovery of cognition
between Vai and Harappan signs ont the one hand, and the corresponding relationship of
sign sequences in the Harappan and Vai scripts helped lead to a speedy reading and
decipherment of the Harappan signs.
This made it possible to use symbols from the Manding-Vai script to interpret Harappan
signs. The only difference, was that when interpreting the phonetic values of the
Harappan script, they were to be read using the Dravidian lexicon. The terms used to
express the translation of Harappan signs are taken from Burrow and Emeneau's,
Dravidian Etymological Dictionary. Once the seals were broken down into their syllabic
values, we then only had to determine if the Harappan term was a monosyllabic word, or
if it was a term that was made up of only one syllable.
A comparison of the Harappan signs, Brahmi and Vai writing show that the signs have
similar phonetic value. It is the similarity in phonetic value that allows us to read the
Indus Valley writing use Vai signs.
Many would-be deciphers of dead languages have assumed that you can not read ancient
language using contemporary or comparatively recent time-depth lexical material. This is
a false view of archaeological decipherment. For example, Jean Champollion used Coptic
to read the Egyptian hieroglyphics; and Sir 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.
43
This decipherment Harappan seals (Winters, 1984a, 1984b, 1987a, 1985, 1987b, 1989)
shows that they do not contain the names and titles of their owners. They are talismans,
with messages addressed to the Harappan gods requesting blessings. This is in sharp
contrast to the Mesopotamian seals which were used for administrative and commercial
purposes.
The Harappan seals illustrate that the Harappan Believer wanted from his god 1) a good
fate; 2) spiritual richness; 3) virtue; 4) humility; and 5) perserverance. They were
protective amulets found in almost every room in the city of Mohenjo-Daro.
44
A Unicorn seal, note the manger under the head of this god
The Harappan writing was read from right to left. Above we can see the average
Harappan seal and its talismanic formula: 1) depiction of Diety X (in this case Maal/Mal)
as an animal, and then the votive inscription was written above the Deity.
The manger, under the head of Maal is made up of several Harappan signs. It reads Puu-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.
The importance of the Harappan seals as amulets is attested too by the popularity of
wearing totems among the Dravidians. During the Sangam period (of ancient Dravidian
history), the warriors and young maidens wore anklets with engraved designs and or
45
totemic signs. Moreover at the turn of the century, in South India, it was common for
children to wear an image of Hanumen around their neck; while wives wore a marriage
totem around their necks as a symbol of household worship.
In the Harappan worldview animals were used in many cases to represent characteristics
human beings should exhibit. As a result the bird was recognized as a symbol of the
highest love, due to its devotion to its offspring ; and the elephant due to its strict
monogamy symbolized the right attitude towards family life and social organization.
The principal Harappan gods are all depicted on the Harappan seals. The main god of the
Harappans was the unicorn. The unicorm probably represented Maal ( Vishnu or
Kataval). 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.
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
46
veeram'. The hunter figure on Harappan seals wearing the horned headdress and armed
with a bow and arrow may have been Muruga, the son of Uma.
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',
Indus ceramics. These signs are the same as the Indus Valley signs.
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
affinity to Indus Valley signs. This research indicated that the Indus
Valley writing should be read from right to left. This view was later
Singh (1982) made it clear that he believes that the BRW radiated
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
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
objects imported from Central Asia were probably stored. Let's not
forget, that Central Asia was a major center for Harappan copper and
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
India.
thermo-luminescence.
49
[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
signs and two compound signs (5 & 6). We will read the
following: (1) ta, (2) na, (3) ka, (4) I, (5) tata,
(6) uss vey and (7) gbe. Signs 2 and 7 are not
“righteousness”.
Righteousness”.
in this area.
The model for the geometric patterns for the Brahmi script,
believe the the Brahmi script was invented by one person and that
Phonecian writing.
borrowed from the Tamil, by Asoka and is based on the Tamil Nadu
upto 300 AD, found , like B.B. Lal before him that the graffiti on
South Indian pottery was engraved with Harappan signs. He found that
the Tamil Nadu pottery graffiti agrees with Brahmi letters dating
back to 1000BC.
52
the signs he uses the rebus method, for example he identified the so
writing, the fact remains that as pointed out by Dr. Gurumurthy the
Brahmi inscriptions make it clear that the Tamil were writing long
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
is reading the signs using Brahmi. Jeeva claims that he has found
problem with his reading of the signs is that the sound values he
53
gives the signs via his rebus reading of the script are inconsistent
and based on pure conjecture. Although Dr. Jeeva has not deciphered
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
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
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.
Mahalingam has made it clear that the Brahmi script was probably
from right to left comes from Sinhalese inscription, and early coins
from Eran.
between the Harappan and Brahmi script. This is false. The Brahmi
and Old Phoenician share similar shapes, but the characters lack
though they have failed to decipher the Indus writing. Their failure
writing]. This failure, was compounded by the fact that Jeeva and
seeing the jar sign as a human head and the other recognizing the
not alphabetic suggested that you must read the language using the
alphabet is too limited in number to account for the over 400 signs
55
used to write the Indus seals. This is the basic reason why Dr.
Jeeva has not provided different readings for each of the man signs
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
to read all the Harappan signs unless the figure is clearly that of
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
The Punch Marked coins of India also show the continued use of
discussion of the relationship between the punch-marked coins of India and the
Harappan writing. Dr. Kalyanaraman wrote that : “There are remarkable parallels
56
between the Sarasvati heiroglyphs and the symbols used on punch-marked coins and on
the sign graphs employed on Sohgaura copper plate inscription – which becomes an
explanatory Rosetta stone in two scripts: Sarasvati hieroglyphs and brahmi script.
Such a similarity has been noted by many scholars, some also suggested that the
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,
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
with the punch-marked coins. (Reported by KP Jayaswal in: JRAS, 1935, p. 721). “
57
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
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
have some meaning, no one doubts. It is obvious that a few of them are solar, lunar, and
58
such-like symbols; but these are only a fraction of the great mass. It is not impossible
that they hold the clue to early Indian history, and if one day scholars can ‘read’ these
signs, they will be able, probably, to reconstruct a period of Indian history of which we
do not know anything at present. I am writing not to explain these symbols, but to show
that the solution of this problem is closely connected with the deciphering of the Indus
Valley script.
It is also interesting to note that K.K. Thapliyal in Studies in Ancient Indian Seals,
found that many Indian seals from the 3rd century BC to the 7th century 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.
The Sanskrit language is highly respected in India. It carries the religion and culture of
all the people of India. A.B. Keith, in A History of Sanskrit Literature (1928), makes it
clear that Sanskrit was probably invented as early as the 6th Century BC. Although
researchers see it as language given to mankind by the Gods, while others see Sanskrit as
Classical Sanskrit is an artificial creation, a product of the Brahmins when they sought to
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
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
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.
60
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
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
Emeneau and Burrow (1962) have found 500 Dravidian loan words in Sanskrit. the
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
Dravidian influence on these languages. As a result, they represent both SOV and SVO
traits.
that the Sanskrit language is known by many names. It was called Nagari ‘urban writin’,
Hundred Years Ago, says that Sanaskrit is called Deva-nagari, because it was introduced
to the Aryas by the Nagas. The characters associated with Deva-nagari are the characters
61
The Naga were Semitic speaking people from Ethiopia. According to Macdonell the
The Semitic speakers of Africa founded the ancient civilization of Punt. As a result I
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
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
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
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.
62
'he kills'. In Southwest Semitic the form of the perfect is yu qtul-u . Here we have the same
hypothetical q-t-l form, but there is no vowel following the first consonant of the verb root.
This results from the fact that in Black African languages we rarely, if at all find words
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.
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
The Cushitic substratum has strongly influenced the phonology, morphology, syntax and
1965, p.104.) that the Semitic speakers and A-Group lived in close proximity in ancient
times.
63
This makes it clear that Arabia, which was occupied in neolithic times by the Anu, was
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,
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 ,
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,
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
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:
art parted from this place ,that never shalt thou behold this island more, for it
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
The greatest and most famous of the rulers of Arwe was the Queen of Sheba, known as
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
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
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
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.
65
of the Arwe kings who ruled India. The founder of the dynasty was Za Besi Angabo. This
dynasty according to the Kebra Nagast began around 1370 BC. These rulers of India and
Ethiopia were called Nagas. The Kebra Nagast claims that " Queen Makeda "had servants
and merchants; they traded for her at sea and on land in the Indies and Aswan". It also says
that her son Ebna Hakim or Menelik I, made a campaign in the Indian Sea; the king of India
made gifts and donations and prostrated himself before him". It is also said that Manalik
ruled an empire that extended from the rivers 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
The Naga were defeated by another group of Dravidian speaking people form
66
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
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".
67
68
In Figure 1a, we compare Ethiopic, Sanskrit and the Vai writing. It is obvious that these
writing system share many common symbols. It is obvious that Sanskrit and Ethiopic share
symbols and it supports the view that the Ethiopians introduced writing to the 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
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
Overtime the Nagas were absorbed into the Dravidian population. Today the Naga, are
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.
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
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
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.
70
innovations in writing Sanskrit. Coulson wrote that “The syntax of Classical Sanskrit
In many major respects bears little resemblance to the syntax of any other Indo-European
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’,
literature to make innovations in writing the language that according to Coulson led to
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
Dravidian people who used this writing to engrave South Indian pottery
6
Coulson, p.xx-xxi.
71
give the diverse speaking people of North India a lingua franca. This
writing was used by the Indo-Aryans to record the Vedas and other Indo-
Aryan oral traditions. These writings make it clear that the Indo-
Aryans were nomadic people, who lacked their own writing system when
exist between the Indus Valley writing and the so-called Brahmi-Tamilli
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
http://us.share.geocities.com/olmec982000/HarWRITE.pdf
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
http://geocities.com/olmec982000/IndusInspiration.pdf
The Indus seals make it clear that the Harappans were seeking the
Thus the Harappans felt that if they lived a benevolent life so that
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
(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
Brahmi inscriptions from the ancient urns found in Tamil Nadu. For
example, one of the inscriptions was written inside one of the urns
73
decipherment, we read Tanaka I tata Uss vey gbe or “Tanaka, give him
India and the Punch Marked coins, is making it clear that the Indian
history, spanning from the Indus Valley times, down to South Indian
References
Anselin,A. (1992). Samba, Gaudeloupe: Editions de L'Unirag.
___________. 1964. "Prehistoric and early historic culture horizons and traditions in
South China". CURRENT ANTROPOLOGY ,5(5):359-375.
Dergachev,V. 1989. "Neolithic and Bronze Age Cultural Communities of the Steppe
Zone of the USSR". ANTIQUITY, 63:793-802.
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.
_____________. 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.
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.
Joshi,J.P. 1978. "Interlocking of Late Harappa culture and painted grey ware
culture in the light of recent excavations". MAN. ENVIRON. 2:98-.
Kan Yang. 1985. "The Bronze culture of Western Yunnan". BULL. OF THE ANCIENT
ORIENT MUSEUM, (Tokyo) 7:47-91.
78
Kao Chih-Hsu.1986."An Introduction to Shang and Chou Bronze nao excavated in South
China". In STUDIES IN SHANG ARCHAEOLOGY,(ed.) by Chang, New Haven:Yale
University Press.
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.
_____________________. 1889. "Origin from Babylon and Elam of the early Chinese
Civilization. A Summary of the Proof". BABYLONIAN AND ORIENTAL RECORD ,3
(5):97-111.
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.
Parpola,A. 1975. "Tasks, methods and results in the study of the Indus script'. JOURNAL
OF ROYAL ASIATIC SOCIETY, pp.178-209.
Romaine,S.1972.SOCIO-HISTORICAL-LINGUISTICS.London:
Cambridge Univ. Press.
Wendorf,F.,Close,A.E.&Schild,R.1985."Prehistoric
Settlements in the Nubian Desert", AMERICAN SCIENTIST 73.
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.
Young,L.M.(1982)."TheShangofAncientChina".CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY , 23(3):311-314.
http://geocities.com/olmec982000/grammar1.pdf
http://geocities.com/olmec982000/IndusInspiration.pdf
http://geocities.com/olmec982000/vbasic.pdf
http://geocities.com/olmec982000/FishSign.pdf
http://us.share.geocities.com/olmec982000/HarWRITE.pdf
87