I WOULD LIKE YOU to come and debate this guy,not because of the asian black thing but other issues he brings up.I DO NOT AGREE WITH everything you say,but you have certain points that need to be heard,asome OTHER things(really not).
check this out and tell us what you think.I GOT THIS from another forum i tend to go to.Do you still believe that asian blacks or most of them are still africans? do you still believe that they are there own population group now?
Another question do you tend to believe that native americans are there own population group too and not east asian anymore?or in you view they are still east asian?
Ancient African kings of India Ancient African Kings Of India
By
Dr. Clyde Winters
Ethiopians have had very intimate relations with Indians. In fact, in antiquity the Ethiopians ruled much of India. These Ethiopians were called the Naga. It was the Naga who created Sanskrit.
A reading of ancient Dravidian literature which dates back to 500 BC, gives us considerable information on the Naga. In Indian tradition the Naga won central India from the Villavar (bowmen) and Minavar (fishermen).
The Naga were great seamen who ruled much of India, Sri Lanka and Burma. To the Aryans they described as half man and snake. The Tamil knew them as warlike people who used the bow and noose.
The earliest mention of the Naga, appear in the Ramayana , they are also mentioned in the Mahabharata. In the Mahabharata we discover that the Naga had the capital city in the Dekkan, and other cities spread between the Jumna and Ganges as early as 1300 BC. The Dravidian classic, the Chilappathikaran made it clear that the first great kingdom of India was Naganadu.
The Naga probably came from Kush-Punt/Ethiopia. The Puntites were the greatest sailors of the ancient world. In the Egyptian inscriptions there is mention of the Puntite ports of Outculit, Hamesu and Tekaru, which corresponds to Adulis, Hamasen and Tigre.
In Sumerian text, it is claimed that the Puntites traded with the people of the Indus Valley or Dilmun. According to S.N. Kramer in The Sumerians, part of Punt was probably called Meluhha, and Dilmun was probably the ancient name of the Indus Valley. (Today some scholars maintain that Oman, where we find no ancient cities was Dilmun and the Indus Valley may have been Meluhha).
Ancient Ethiopian traditions support the rule of Puntites or Ethiopians of India. In the Kebra Nagast, we find mention of the Arwe kings who ruled India. The founder of the dynasty was Za Besi Angabo. This dynasty according to the Kebra Nagast began around 1370 BC. These rulers of India and Ethiopia were called Nagas. The Kebra Nagast claims that ” Queen Makeda “had servants and merchants; they traded for her at sea and on land in the Indies and Aswan”. It also says that her son Ebna Hakim or Menelik I, made a campaign in the Indian Sea; the king of India made gifts and donations and prostrated himself before him”. It is also said that Menalik 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 empre ruled by the Naga, corresponds to the Naga colonies in the Dekkan, and on the East coast between the Kaviri and Vaigai rivers.
The presence of Meluhhaites/ Puntites in India may expain the Greek tradition of Kusites ruling India up to the Ganges. It would also explain the Aryan traditions of Mlechchas ( Sanskrit name for some of the non-Aryan people) as one of the aboriginal groups of India. Many scholars associate the name Mlechchas with Meluhha.
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 major gift of the Naga to India was the writing system: 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.
William Jones, explained that the Ethiopian origin of Sanskrit 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 Indians taught writing to the Ethiopians, yet the name Nagari for Sanskrit betrays the Ethiopia origin of this form of writing. Moreover, it is interesting to note that Sanskrit vowels: a,aa,’,I,u,e,o, virama etc., are in the same order as Geez.
The Ethiopian script has influenced many other writing systems. 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. Dravidian literature indicate that the Naga may have introduced worship of Kali, the Serpent, Murugan and the Sun or Krishna. It is interesting to note that a god called Murugan is worshipped by many people in East Africa.
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.
Â
Kumarinadu
The Naga or Ethiopians were defeated by Dravidian speaking people from 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 Dravidian 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 the Pandyans worshipped the goddess Kumari Amman. This Amman, 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”.
____________________________________________- here are some replies to thread.The reason i bring this up because i just read a post someone posted on this forum.
[QUOTE=Forza Kimono;55921529]Some people here do need to study human genetics a little bit more. There is more to humanity than meets the ordinary eye.
If some body puts up a Negerito or Andamanese picture here on Skyscrapercity, they look exactly like relatives of sub-Saharan groups. Some people here would even conclude that they are Africans
But the beauty of recent genetic advancements is that it tells the stories that we can not see using the naked eye!:cheers:
Those "Negro" looking south Asians for the most part have nothing in common with any group of Africans genetically.
Some of the Negeritos in India are actually genetic cousins to some of the "White" Indians and sub-Saharan Africans actually share closer genetic distances with Whites, Arabs and East Asians ahead of the Negeritos who "look most like them"
Infact the greatest genetic distances of ALL humankind is between sub-Saharan Africans and those "black"/"Negro" looking people
Just because somebody has very dark skin colour and curly hair does not mean that they are Africans lost in Asia
I mean "Africans lost in Asia"?:lol::nuts:[/QUOTE]
________________________________________
[QUOTE=Forza Kimono;55921563]I dont think so. Looks can be deceiving^^
I have been one of those on skyscrapercity who would always say that the way nature works sometimes is that the person who you share the least in common with: genetically, culturally etc might actually look the most like you.
Skin colour is not an indication of commonality
Its sometimes hard to believe that some of the groups that migrated from our continent much more recently like Europeans and Arabs look far more different from us than the earliest groups to spread out to East Asia
You could never tell by looking at them
Nature and Genetics is awe-inspiring!![/QUOTE]
___________________________________________ [QUOTE=specialEd;55928727]im not too sure about all this genetics nonsense because all of a sudden when comparing africans to people outside of africa when trying to find an obvious link we are all lump together but then when genetic studies are done in africa we all of a sudden become the most diverse people on the planet that doesnt make sense. most likely if you do a test with an unmixed pigmy or another isolated african group and then test one of a similar group outside of africa you will find links. these said groups that are said to be more closely related to the whiter skinned groups may have intermarried with them more recently than say the pygmy groups of asia. but if you find a group from that area with less admixture you will find a different result. thats why i dont trust these genetic studies.[/QUOTE]
_________________________________________________ [QUOTE=specialEd;55928771]and the people in that picture above are more recent migrants to the indian sub-continent.[/QUOTE]
__________________________________________
[QUOTE=Forza Kimono;55938159]I mean the Negeritos and the Andamanese. They look like Africans but have actually the least connection to Africans among humanity. Looks does not determine genetic similarities or closeness. The case of the human genome project and other recent scientific research proves that.
And somebody having white skin, does not indicate that he is genetically distant from people with darker skin. He may share closer genetic ties with than another group with dark skin than between two groups of people with dark skin
It has nothing to do with intermarriage. A lot of the darker skinned groups migrated out of the African continent before whites and others did hence the greater genetic distance[/QUOTE]
_____________________________________________
[QUOTE=Forza Kimono;55938687]My point is people should stop going around Asia and saying that the people there are "Africans" lost in Asia" just because they have dark skin and curly hair. There is no biological or scientific basis for that. Some of these dark skinned people in Southern Asia have resided in Asia longer than the Japanese, Koreans and Chinese have. Are these groups all Africans lost in Asia too? They have been in Asia longer than Irish, Italians and Dutch have been in Europe. Are these groups also Africans lost in Europe? Are Arabs Africans lost in the Middle East?
If we are going to make a sweeping statement like "Africans lost in Asia" let us have some scientific proof to go along with it.
If science has proven anything, it is that most of the "Negro" looking people ie The "black" people of Malaysia, Negeritos etc have little to nothing in common genetically to Africans
Contrast that with the case of Berbers, who despite having "white" skin, actually share the indigenous haplotype that the rest of Africans share. (Heck some people here find it hard to believe that Berbers are Africans at all)
My larger point is that somebody having white skin does no indicate that he/she is not closer genetically to Africans more than some other dark skinned group.
Skin colour and hair does not tell the full human story[/QUOTE]
______________________________________________
[QUOTE=ProudArabian;55941191]^ but i heard that gene for dark skin is one, so there has to some link even small to africa for these dark people in asia[/QUOTE]
____________________________________________
[QUOTE=aceone;55941689]Exactly!!! People say we are thinking Westernized because we see the connections between all African descended people but then they go to Western science to say that we are nothing alike. :nuts:
Africans traveled and traded with the entire world before we became an oppressed people while others try to say we only traveled as slaves to justify them enslaving us and stealing our history.[/QUOTE]
________________________________________________
[QUOTE=specialEd;55943965]@aceone. i know nonsense. firstly for amamanese or negritos to have left africa there would have had to have someone they were related to on the continent. with a continent of over a billion people are these scientists trying to say there is not one group of people linked to these groups and that they have tested them all? i dont believe it, otherwise it refutes the whole idea that they came from africa in the first place and that all modern man can be traced back to africa. there is something missing from all this. the missing links to be exact.
berbers by the way are not just fair skinned there are many probably more that are darkskinned.[/QUOTE]
____________________________________________
here is the thread that started it all,maybe you could add your two cents in there and here.
thanks.
Ancient African kings of India THREAD I got your info from. for the rest of the replies. read.
posted
quote- The C-Group was a culture in ancient Nubia. It was named by George A. Reisner. With no central site, and no written evidence about what these people called themselves, Reisner assigned it a letter. The C-Group arose after Reisner's A-Group and B-Group cultures around the time the Old Kingdom was ending in Egypt. ________________________-
It seems the c- group people of nubia came after the a/b-group of nubia at the end of the old kingdom. the civilization of india started around 2500 b.c. Dravidians most likely came to india not recently. of course all blacks came from africa in origin,and i will leave it at that.
So I HAVE NO PROBLEM with you saying blacks of asia are originally from africa.
I think the main thing is if they became there own group later or not.
So this brings up another issue you just mention that i did not recall,if they are from the c-group. I DO NOT REALLY BELIEVE so since my interest is more nubia here then egypt.So i have a pretty good idea.
I THINK THEY came to india way before the c-group and may have developed certain characteristics in asia.
The QUESTION is if they are there own group or could still be called africans,that was my question.
Anyway i will look at your links later or watch much as i can Dr. winters.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There were several Black groups in India before the dravidian speaking people. The Dravidian people originated in Africa and belonged to the C-Group people, a fact proven by Dravidian archaeology, anthropology and linguistics.
The C-Group did not originate in Nubia, they formerly lived in the Sahara especially the highlands.
The inhabitants of the Fezzan were round headed Africans. (Jelinek, 1985,p.273) The cultural characteristics of the Fezzanese were analogous to C-Group culture items and the people of Ta-Seti . The C-Group people occupied the Sudan and Fezzan regions between 3700-1300 BC (Jelinek 1985).
I call the ancient people of the Sahara Proto- Saharans.
The inhabitants of Libya were called Tmhw (Temehus). The Temehus were organized into two groups the Thnw (Tehenu) in the North and the Nhsj (Nehesy) in the South. (Diop 1986) A Tehenu personage is depicted on Amratian period pottery (Farid 1985 ,p. 84). The Tehenu wore pointed beard, phallic-sheath and feathers on their head.
The Temehus are called the C-Group people by archaeologists.(Jelinek, 1985; Quellec, 1985). The central Fezzan was a center of C-Group settlement. Quellec (1985, p.373) discussed in detail the presence of C-Group culture traits in the Central Fezzan along with their cattle during the middle of the Third millennium BC. The Temehus or C-Group people began to settle Kush around 2200 BC. The kings of Kush had their capital at Kerma, in Dongola and a sedentary center on Sai Island. The same pottery found at Kerma is also present in Libya especially the Fezzan.
The C-Group founded the Kerma dynasty of Kush. Diop (1986, p.72) noted that the "earliest substratum of the Libyan population was a black population from the south Sahara". Kerma was first inhabited in the 4th millennium BC (Bonnet 1986). By the 2nd millennium BC Kushites at kerma were already worshippers of Amon/Amun and they used a distinctive black-and-red ware (Bonnet 1986; Winters 1985b,1991). Amon, later became a major god of the Egyptians during the 18th Dynasty.
As you can see by the time the C-Group founded Kerma, the Dravidians, Sumerians and Mande were already firmly settled in India and West Asia.
Reference:
Bonnet,C. (1986). Kerma: Territoire et Metropole. Cairo: Instut Francais D'Archeologie Orientale du Caire. This is a fine examination of the Kerma culture of Nubia which existed in Nubia before the Egyptians established rule in this area.
Diop.Anta.(1986). "Formation of the Berber Branch". In Libya Antiqua. (ed.) by Unesco,(Paris: UNESCO) pp.69-73. In this article Diop explains that the original inhabitants of Libya were Blacks.
Jelinek,J. (1985). "Tillizahren,the Key Site of the Fezzanese Rock Art". Anthropologie (Brno),23(3):223-275. This paper gives a stimulating account of the rock art of the Sahara and the important role the C-Group people played in the creation of this art.
Quellec,J-L le. (1985). "Les Gravures Rupestres Du Fezzan(Libye)". L'Anthropologie, 89 (3):365-383. This text deals comprehensively with the dates and spread of specific art themes in the ancient Sahara.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The c- group was only located in lower nubia,kerma was founded by the same folks who found pre-kerma. pre-kerma was founded in 5000 b.c.it was a city before the city we call kerma now.
So it could not be found by the c-group, the kermans existed before the c group. kerma was found in 2500 b.c.
Anyway,the c-group maybe WERE from the a-group,but both group disappeared BY THE TIME OF THE END OF THE NEW KINGDOM OF EGYPT.
So this is one of things i disagree with about and alot of that other stuff you just posted,that's why i did not bring it up and i think you my view on that.
I agree that the inhabitants of Fezzan first were black,so need need to convince me of that.
We are off the topic however.
_________________________________________________
LET'S FOCUS.
THE main question is do you believe that the Dravidian,oceanic folks etc are african or not? and should they be called africans even if they are black.
Just a simple yes and no, and if you believe they are still african even if recent dna says they are more asian, why would you say they are still aftican or could be call africoid.
DO you believe that basic phenotype is more important then dna? i do to a point,but the asian blacks are much more less african in dna then any other group tested.
In other words do you believe what Runoko Rashidi believes in?.since we know OF WHAT WE thought of asian blacks is OUTSIDE OF SOUTHWEST ASIA IS outdated.
Please do not bring up the c-group stuff and other stuff up.
let's just stick to dna and phenotype for the blacks of south asia and southeast asia and australia.
Until recently i still called asian blacks of asia really africans.To a point i still feel that way and sometimes i question the dna testing of these groups in asia because of the divide tactics of the west,so i get it,but recent dna says they are not african,BUT they still COULD BE ALLIES OF AFRICANS IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.
ANOTHER POINT -it will be calling aliens that look black from outer space, africans.I did not want to go that far to make the point but you know what mean ABOUT that has well.
LOOK I AM AFRO-CENTRIC but if recent new info comes out,it is hard to stick will the old stuff,and it seem many afro-CENTRIC types do not want to easy go with the new info becausse they do not trust mainstream science all the way,i do not blame them of course to a point,but if there is too much new evidence,then you got roll with it,no matter how hard it is to swallow.
Of course we know dna testing is not perfect,and may not get it right all the time.There is alot of folks NOT GETTING TESTED because of that.
They are waiting for this science to be much better in the future.
_____________________________________________ I BELIEVE when it come to the asian blacks of asia your views are closer to the man below and he seems to not trust.
The other question is that do you trust the recent dna evidence for blacks of south asia and south east asia,and if so do you still see them has africans,and phenotype is still much more important even in this case? ______________________________ Runoko Rashidi do you agree with him-
Runoko Rashidi is a late-20th c. historian, researcher, writer, world traveler, and public lecturer based in Los Angeles. Runoko Rashidi focuses on the African presence globally and what he claims to be the African foundations of world civilizations. He is particularly drawn to the African presence in Asia, Australia, and the Pacific Islands, and has coordinated historic educational group tours to India, Aboriginal Australia, the Fiji Islands and Southeast Asia as well as Egypt and Brazil. His academic focus is in "the Black foundations of world civilizations". He has conducted research into the Black presence in Asia.
Rashidi has dedicated his entire adult life to the African people. Rashidi has three goals: to uplift the way Africoids view their race, to uplift the way the world views Africa and to reunite the separated Africoid race.
Countering Eurocentrism
Rashidi rejects the claims by European anthropologists that the Negritos, Australoids, Negroids and Arabian Mediterraneans are separate races. He claims that they are all "Africoid" or "Black". He believes European anthropologists have used "unscientific" and "invalid" methods and that their work was "racially motivated" to divide people who were clearly Africoid in race. He cites Cheikh Diop's statement on race.
A racial classification is given to a group of individuals who share a certain number of anthropological traits, which is necessary so that they not be confused with others...It is the physical appearance which counts...Now, every time these relationships are not favorable to the Western cultures, an effort is made to undermine the cultural consciousness of Africans by telling them, "We don't even know what a race is."...It is the phenotype which as given us so much difficulty throughout history, so it is this which must be considered in these relations.
Blacks in India Rashidi claims that the Dravidians and Siddi of India are part of the black race He claims that until 500 years ago the Dravidians had a technologically advanced society that was well-known in the ancient world.[3] These black Dravidians portrayed their gods as blacks and portrayed evil beings with white skin. He claims the Aryans were "barbarian" whites who enslaved the indigenous black Dravidians in the caste system after they stole the advanced technology of the Dravidians 500 years ago.
_________________________________________________
yes or no? do you still call or would call most southeast and southern asian blacks, african or not?even if if the dna test say they are not africans.
JUST GIVE A SIMPLE explanation about this recent dna test,and if you consider native americans still asian OR now they are their own population group today because of dna changing over time like most asian blacks? yes or no?
JUST GIVE YOUR IDEAS ABOUT THESE TWO GROUPS and if in your view are they thier own population groups because of the recent dna testing.
Just give you basic view about them ,not a history lesson,I know the basic history.
That's all,and we could call it a day.If you do not want to answer,that's fine with me too.
posted
I do not know if i could post this link from the other website,but just found and read the comments. IT's interesting how others feel about the subject,and i am trying to do more research and see how others think,that's all.
I will attempt to address your answers. You want a yes or no answer to your questions. This is not easy because migrations and racism plays an important role in understanding ancient history.
After my first year working towards my PhD, my advisor said I had to decide what type of researcher I was. I chose falsification. A falsificationist believes that there is no such these as complete proof for any theory. To a falsificationist a theory can either be confirmed or disconfirmed. I also learned that good hypotheses are self generating and will usually remain valid over time.
It has been well established that Africans colonized Asia after 4000 BC. This view has been maintained by Afrocentric scholars since the turn of the 19th century into the 20th. Having said this I will now address your questions.
quote:
THE main question is do you believe that the Dravidian,oceanic folks etc are african or not? and should they be called africans even if they are black.
Just a simple yes and no, and if you believe they are still african even if recent dna says they are more asian, why would you say they are still aftican or could be call africoid.
Yes the Dravidians are Africans , the same as the people who live in New Zealand and North America and Canada are Europeans since this is where their ancestors came from.
The Oceanic people like the Fijians are recent Africans who spread to the area after 2000 BC. Some came from the mainland, must expanded during Lapita times.
The Adamanese are very old Asians. They may be the result of a migration out of Africa around 100kya.
The lowland Oceanians are of recent African origin. The Highland Oceanians are of Australian origin and probably go back to the first OOA exit 60kya.
The Munda and Negritos probably date back to the Anu migration out of Africa 10-12 kya. They are descendants of the pygmies.
quote:
DO you believe that basic phenotype is more important then dna? i do to a point,but the asian blacks are much more less african in dna then any other group tested.
I do not believe that phenotype alone can define a Negro or African Black in Asia. I believe that craniometrics and certain facial features betry Negro origins. Just because an Asian has Black complexion in Asia does not mean they are of African origin.
quote:
The other question is that do you trust the recent dna evidence for blacks of south asia and south east asia,and if so do you still see them has africans,and phenotype is still much more important even in this case?
There is no dna published on Blacks in Southeast Asia, unless they are of Dravidian origin. The majority of South East Asia Dai Viet people who conquered the Khmer and Champa Blacks hundreds of years ago.
The dna for Blacks in South Asia is another matter. The Hindutva, are trying to make it appear that Aryans have always lived in India so they are making it appears as if Dravidians are not related to Africans this is false.
quote:
yes or no? do you still call or would call most southeast and southern asian blacks, african or not?even if if the dna test say they are not africans.
Yes, in relation to Dravidians we know they are of African origin by linguistics, history, archaeology , anthropology and genetics. Therefore they are Africans, just like Europeans in the United States, Canada, Argintina are Americans and New Zealanders are Asians of European origin.
Researchers have not collected any dna of the small isolated population of Blacks in Southeast Asia.
quote:
JUST GIVE A SIMPLE explanation about this recent dna test,and if you consider native americans still asian OR now they are their own population group today because of dna changing over time like most asian blacks? yes or no?
Yes, the Native Americans are Asian. They are as American as the Europeans in the United States are American. Also I don’t believe that the Native Americans have been found to carry any unique genes.Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic