posted
To understand the relationship between Dravidian languages and Prakrits you must understand the history of Kushites, the people of Kusha Dwipa. In the Puranas the region from Arabia to Mesopotamia and India and lands below Egypt were belonged to Kusha Dwipa.
Once you recognize the history of the Tamil in Anatolia, as represented by the Kassites, and the fact that the Hattic, Hurrian and Kaska people also belonged the C-Group (or Kushite) people who left Nubia in search of metals after 3500 BC explains why Dravidian languages are at the base of Sanskrit and the Pakrits. Although the original "Aryans" spoke languages related to the Dravidian group when they entered India they came to settle new lands in where the majority of the population lived in city-states instead of an Empire with a central administration.
The Hattic, Kaska and Kassite people desperate for land because the Hittites, the first Indo-European speakers had forced them from Anatolia sent these nationalities eastward in search of new lands. Under the Elamites and original Persians these nomadic people were unable to establish themselves in Iran, except among the hunter-gather groups which may have been composed of the Proto-Indo-Iranian speakers.The Anatolians probably intermarried with Iranian speakers and probably adopted many Elamite/Old Persian terms, and like the Elamite/ Old Persians used the term Arya to denote their Anatolian heritage as rulers and elits.
Consequently, when the Aryans (Kassite, Hurrian, Hattic,and Iranians) probably entered India and found much of the authority situated in city-states (walled villages) the Aryans (Kassites, Hattic, Hurrian and Iranian speakers) were able to concentrate their forces and easily overthrow the Dravidian City-States and thus conqueror the North. The nomadic nature of these Aryans and led to their lost of the polish and sofhistication they manifested when they were the rulers of Anatolia.
As a result, there were probably numerous attempts of the Vedic people to return to Anatolia and recapture their heritage. But over time Europeans and Gutians took control of the region and they were forced make India the center of their culture and civilization.
If this is an accurate account of the origin and spread of the Indo-Aryan people to India, it would appear that the Indo-Aryan people would have remained a significant minority in India if not for the fact the India they entered was made up of City-States , instead of an Empire with a centralized polity and military.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The original inhabitants of the Sahara where the Kemetic civilization originated were Blacks not Berbers or Indo-European speakers. These Blacks formerly lived in the highland regions of the Fezzan and Hoggar until after 4000 BC. This ancient homeland of the Dravidians, Egyptians, Sumerians, Niger-Kordofanian-Mande
and Elamite speakers is called the Fertile African Crescent. ( Anselin, 1989, p.16; Winters, 1981,1985b,1991). We call these people the Proto-Saharans (Winters 1985b,1991). The generic term for this group is Kushite. This explains the analogy between the Bafsudraalam languages outlined briefly above. These Proto-Saharans were called Ta-Seti and Tehenu by the Egyptians. Farid (1985,p.82) noted that "We can notice that the beginning of the Neolithic stage in Egypt on the edge of the Western Desert corresponds with the expansion of the Saharian Neolithic cultureand the growth of its population".
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).
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.
The linguistic, anthropological and linguistic data make it clear that these people came to India from Africa during the Neolithic and not the Holocene period.
In the sub-continent of India, there were several main groups. The traditional view for the population origins in India suggest that the earliest inhabitants of India were the Negritos, and this was followed by the Proto-Australoid, the Mongoloid and the so-called mediterranean type which represent the ancient Egyptians and Kushites (Clyde A. Winters, "The Proto-Culture of the Dravidians, Manding and Sumerians",Tamil Civilizations 3, no.1(1985), pp.1-9. (http://olmec98.net/Fertile1.pdf ). The the Proto-Dravidians were probably one of the cattle herding groups that made up the C-Group culture of Nubia Kush (K.P. Aravanan, "Physical and Cultural Similarities between Dravidian and African", Journal of Tamil Studies, no.10 (1976, pp.23-27:24. ).
B.B. Lal ("The Only Asian expedition in threatened Nubia:Work by an Indian Mission at Afyeh and Tumas", The Illustrated London Times , 20 April 1963) and Indian Egyptologist has shown conclusively that the Dravidians originated in the Saharan area 5000 years ago. He claims they came from Kush, in the Fertile African Crescent and were related to the C-Group people who founded the Kerma dynasty in the 3rd millennium B.C. (Lal 1963) The Dravidians used a common black-and-red pottery, which spread from Nubia, through modern Ethiopia, Arabia, Iran into India as a result of the Proto-Saharan dispersal.
B.B. Lal (1963) a leading Indian archaeologist in India has observed that the black and red ware (BRW) dating to the Kerma dynasty of Nubia, is related to the Dravidian megalithic pottery. Singh (1982) believes that this pottery radiated from Nubia to India. This pottery along with wavy-line pottery is associated with the Saharo-Sudanese pottery tradition of ancient Africa .
Aravaanan (1980) has written extensively on the African and Dravidian relations. He has illustrated that the Africans and Dravidian share many physical similarities including the dolichocephalic indexes (Aravaanan 1980,pp.62-263; Raceand History.com,2006), platyrrhine nasal index (Aravaanan 1980,pp.25-27), stature (31-32) and blood type (Aravaanan 1980,34-35; RaceandHistory.com,2006). Aravaanan (1980,p.40) also presented much evidence for analogous African and Dravidian cultural features including the chipping of incisor teeth and the use of the lost wax process to make bronze works of arts (Aravaanan 1980,p.41).
There are also similarities between the Dravidian and African religions. For example, both groups held a common interest in the cult of the Serpent and believed in a Supreme God, who lived in a place of peace and tranquility ( Thundy, p.87; J.T. Cornelius,"Are Dravidians Dynastic Egyptians", Trans. of the Archaeological Society of South India 1951-1957, pp.90-117; and U.P. Upadhyaya, "Dravidian and Negro-African", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 5, no.1) .
There are also affinities between the names of many gods including Amun/Amma and Murugan . Murugan the Dravidian god of the mountains parallels a common god in East Africa worshipped by 25 ethnic groups called Murungu, the god who resides in the mountains .
There is physical evidence which suggest an African origin for the Dravidians. The Dravidians live in South India. The Dravidian ethnic group includes the Tamil, Kurukh, Malayalam, Kananda (Kanarese), Tulu, Telugu and etc. Some researchers due to the genetic relationship between the Dravidians and Niger-Congo speaking groups they call the Indians the Sudroid (Indo-African) Race(RaceandHistory,2006).
Dravidian languages are predominately spoken in southern India and Sri Lanka. There are around 125 million Dravidian speakers. These languages are genetically related to African languages. The Dravidians are remnants of the ancient Black population who occupied most of ancient Asia and Europe.
Linguistic Evidence
1.1 Many scholars have recognized the linguistic unity of Black African (BA) and Dravidian (Dr.) languages. These affinities are found not only in the modern African languages but also that of ancient Egypt. These scholars have made it clear that lexical, morphological and phonetic unity exist between African languages in West and North Africa as well as the Bantu group.
1.2 K.P. Arvaanan (1976) has noted that there are ten common elements shared by BA languages and the Dr. group. They are (1) simple set of five basic vowels with short-long consonants;(2) vowel harmony; (3) absence of initial clusters of consonants; (4) abundance of geminated consonants; (5) distinction of inclusive and exclusive pronouns in first person plural; (6) absence of degrees of comparison for adjectives and adverbs as distinct morphological categories; (7) consonant alternation on nominal increments noticed by different classes; (8)distinction of completed action among verbal paradigms as against specific tense distinction;(9) two separate sets of paradigms for declarative and negative forms of verbs; and (l0) use of reduplication for emphasis.
1.3 There has been a long development in the recognition of the linguistic unity of African and Dravidian languages. The first scholar to document this fact was the French linguist L. Homburger (1950,1951,1957,1964). Prof. Homburger who is best known for her research into African languages was convinced that the Dravidian languages explained the morphology of the Senegalese group particularly the Serere, Fulani group. She was also convinced that the kinship existed between Kannanda and the Bantu languages, and Telugu and the Mande group. Dr. L. Homburger is credited with the discovery for the first time of phonetic, morphological and lexical parallels between Bantu and Dravidians
1.6 By the 1970's numerous scholars had moved their investigation into links between Dr. and BA languages on into the Senegambia region. Such scholars as Cheikh T. N'Diaye (1972) a Senegalese linguist, and U.P. Upadhyaya (1973) of India , have proved conclusively Dr. Homburger's theory of unity between the Dravidian and the Senegalese languages.
1.7 C.T. N'Diaye, who studied Tamil in India, has identified nearly 500 cognates of Dravidian and the Senegalese languages. Upadhyaya (1973) after field work in Senegal discovered around 509 Dravidian and Senegambian words that show full or slight correspondence.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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 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.
Kushites expanded into Inner Asia from two primary points of dispersal : Iran and Anatolia. In Anatolia the Kushites were called Hattians and Kaska. In the 2nd millennium BC, the north and east of Anatolia was inhabited by non-I-E speakers.
Anatolia was divided into two lands “the land of Kanis” and the “land of Hatti”. The Hatti were related to the Kaska people who lived in the Pontic mountains.
Hattians lived in Anatolia. They worshipped Kasku and Kusuh. They were especially prominent in the Pontic mountains. Their sister nation in the Halys Basin were the Kaska tribes. The Kaska and Hattians share the same names for gods, along with personal and place-names . The Kaska had a strong empire which was never defeated by the Hittites.
Singer (1981) has suggested that the Kaska, are remnants of the indigenous Hattian population which was forced northward by the Hittites. But at least as late as 1800 BC, Anatolia was basically settled by Hattians.
Anatolia was occupied by many Kushite groups,including the Kashkas and or Hatti. The Hatti , like the Dravidian speaking people were probably related
Some of the Tehenu or Kushites settled Anatolia. Some of the major Anatolian Kushite tribes were the Kaska and Hatti speakers who spoke non-IE languages called Khattili. The gods of the Hattic people were Kasku and Kusuh (< Kush).
The Hattic people, may be related to the[b] Hatiu, one of the Delta Tehenu tribes. Many archaeologist believe that the Tehenu people were related to the C-Group people. The Hattic language is closely related to African and Dravidian languages for example:
up,upper….. tufa ………..tp……………… dya, tu 'raising ground'
to stretch put… pd ………pe,……………….. bamba
o prosper …….falfat …..-- …………………..find'ya
pour ……………duq …….---………………….. du 'to dispense'
child …………..pin………,pinu………………… den
Mother ………..na-a ………--…………………….. na
lord …………….sa ………..--………………………. sa
place ………….-ka………… -ka
The languages have similar syntax Hattic le fil 'his house'; Mande a falu 'his father's house'. This suggest that the first Anatolians were Kushites, a view supported by the Hattic name for themselves: Kashka.
•Hurrians
An important group in Anantolia in addition to the Hatti, were the Hurrians. The Hurrians enter Mesopotamia from the northeastern hilly area . They introduced horse-drawn war chariots to Mesopotamia .
Hurrians penetrate Mesopotamia and Syria-Palestine between 1700-1500 BC. The major Hurrian Kingdom was Mitanni , which was founded by Sudarna I (c.1550), was established at Washukanni on the Khabur River . The Hurrian capital was Urkesh, one of its earliest kings was called Tupkish.
Linguistic and historical evidence support the view that Dravidians influenced Mittanni and Lycia . (Winters 1989a) Alain Anselin is sure that Dravidian speaking peoples once inhabited the Aegean . For example Anselin (1982, pp.111-114) has discussed many Dravidian place names found in the Aegean Sea area.
Two major groups in ancient Anatolia were the Hurrians and Lycians. Although the Hurrians are considered to be Indo-European speakers, some Hurrians probably spoke a Dravidian language.
The Hurrians lived in Mittanni. Mittanni was situated on the great bend of the Upper Euphrates river. Hurrian was spoken in eastern Anatolia and North Syria .
Most of what we know about Hurrian comes from the Tel al-Armarna letters. These letters were written to the Egyptian pharaoh. These letters are important because they were written in a language different from diplomatic Babylonian.
The letters written in the unknown language were numbered 22 and 25. In 1909 Bork, in Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatische Gesellschaft, wrote a translation of the letters.
In 1930, G.W. Brown proposed that the words in letters 22 and 25 were Dravidian especially Tamil. Brown (1930), has shown that the vowels and consonants of Hurrian and Dravidian are analogous. In support of this theory Brown (1930) noted the following similarities between Dravidian and Hurrian: 1) presence of a fullness of forms employed by both languages; 2) presence of active and passive verbal forms are not distinguished; 3) presence of verbal forms that are formed by particles; 4) presence of true relative pronouns is not found in these languages; 5) both languages employ negative verbal forms; 6) identical use of -m, as nominative; 7) similar pronouns; and 8) similar ending formations:
Dravidian Hurrian
a a
-kku -ikka
imbu impu
There are analogous Dravidian and Hurrian terms:
English Hurrian Dravidian
mountain paba parampu
lady,woman aallay ali
King Sarr,zarr Ca, cira
god en en
give tan tara
to rule irn ire
father attai attan
wife,woman asti atti
Many researchers have noted the presence of many Indo-Aryan words. In Hurrians. This has led some researchers to conclude that Indo –Europeans may have ruled the Hurrians. This results from the fact that the names of the Hurrian gods are similar to the Aryan gods:
Hurrian Sanskrit
Mi-it-va Mitra
Aru-na Varuna
In-da-ra Indra
Na-sa-at-tiya Nasatya
There are other Hurrian and Sanskrit terms that appear to show a relationship:
English Hurrian Sanskrit Tamil
One aika eka okka ‘together’
Three tera tri
Five panza panca ańcu
Seven satta sapta
Nine na nava onpatu
Other Hurrian terms relate to Indo-Aryan:
English Hurrian I-A Tamil
Brown babru babhru pukar
Grey parita palita paraitu ‘old’
Reddish pinkara pingala puuval
English Mitanni Vedic Tamil
Warrior marya marya makan, maravan
References:
Itamar Singer, Hittites and Hattians in Anatolia at the beginning of the Second Millennium B.C., Journal of Indo-European Studies, 9 (1-2) (1981), pp.119-149.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that Dravidian languages were spoken in India when the Indo-Aryans invaded the region. The Proto-Indo-Aryan(Kaska/Mitanni/ Hatti) speakers were probably descendents of the Kushites who formerly lived in Anatolia. Since Dravidians speakers also belonged to the Kushite Dwipa, like the Proto-Indo-Aryans it is only natural that the languages are related.
The relationship between the Dravidian languages and Prakritic languages is much more complicated than the ideas presented by Bh Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti argues that there were many Dravidians in India when the Indo-Aryans arrived; and that as a result Dravidian influenced the Indo-Aryan languages through the introduction of lexical items and (grammatical) structural features.
Due to early Dravidian settlement in Northern India there is a Dravidian substratum in Indo‑Aryan. There are Dravidian loans in the Rg Veda, even though Aryan recorders of this work were situated in the Punjab which occupied around this time by the BRW Dravidians.
There are islands of Dravidian speakers in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. There are over 300,000 Brahui speakers in Qualat, Hairpur and Hyderabad districts of Pakistan. There are an additional 40,000 Brahui in Emeneau and Burrow (1962) found 500 Dravidian loan words in Sanskrit. In addition, Indo-Aryan illustrates a widespread structural borrowing from Dravidian in addition to 700 lexical loans (Kuiper 1967; Southward 1977; Winters 1989).
Iran and several thousand along the southern border of Russia and Yugoslavia. (ISDL 1983:227)
Emeneau and Burrow (1962) have found 500 Dravidian loan words in Sanskrit. the number of Dravidian loans in Indo‑Aryan is expected to reach 750.
There are numerous examples of Indo‑Aryan structural borrowings from Dravidian. For example, the Bengali and Oriya plural suffix ‑ra is analogous to the Tamil plural suffix ‑ar. Both of these suffixes are restricted to names of intelligent beings. (Chatterji 1970:173) Oriya borrowed the ‑gura plural suffix from the Dravidians. (Mahapatra 1983:67) Some researchers believe that the syntax of the Indo‑Aryan languages is ambivalent because of the Dravidian influence on these languages. As a result, they represent both SOV and SVO traits. If my theory is correct the relationship between Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages is not the result of borrowing, it is due to the fact that the ancestors of the Vangi, Odri and Maharastri were descendents of the Kushite Anatolians.
In conclusion,the relationship between indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages are not the result, purely of contact with Dravidian speakers in India. These languages are related because the speakers of these languages formerly belonged to the C-Group or Kushite people of the region called Kusha Dwipa in the Sankritic text.
I believe that after the Hittites defeated the Hatti and Kaska and other peoples belonging to the Hurrian and Mitanni kingdoms, these people were uprooted and forced into Iran. The lost of Anatolia to the Hittites, probably forced these people to become nomads.
In Iran the Hatti, Kaska and Mitanni probably formed a significant portion of the Proto-Indo-Aryan population. Here they may have met Iranian speaking people,who may have practiced a hunter-gatherer existence, that adopted aspects of their Kushite culture , especially the religion and use of Mitanni religious terms and chariot culture. Joining forces with the Indo-Aryan (Mitannian-Hurrian-Kaska-Hatti) exiles they probably attacked Dravidian and Austronesian speaking people in India who lived in walled cities. The Austronesian and Dravidian people probably came in intimate contact during the Xia and Shang periods of China.
I have to reject the Afghanistan origin for the Indo-Aryan speaking people because the cultures there in ancient times show no affinity to Indo-European civilization. Given the Austronesian and Dravidian elements in Sanskrit and etc., I would have to date the expansion of the Indo-Aryan people sometime after 800 BC, across Iran, down into India.
This would explain why "the Vedic and Avestan mantras are not carbon copies of each other", they may have had a similar genesis, but they were nativised by different groups of Indic and Iranian speakers after the settlement of nomadic Hurrian, Kaska, Hatti and Mitanni people in Iran.
If this theory is correct the Kaska, Mittani and etc., were probably the ancestors of Prakrit speaking tribes of the Vangi, Odri and Maharastri.This view is supported by the relationship between Indo-Aryan and Mittani. H.H. Hock in Language History, Language Change, and Language Relationship , noted that Mittani “words contained in these passages are phonetically closer to the earliest attested Indo-Aryan than to Old Iranian” (p. 62).
posted
Hatti 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 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.
Proto Saharans/Kushites expanded into Inner Asia from two primary points of dispersal : Iran and Anatolia. In Anatolia the Kushites were called Hattians and Kaska. In the 2nd millennium BC, the north and east of Anatolia was inhabited by non I E speakers.
Anatolia was divided into two lands “the land of Kanis” and the “land of Hatti”. The Hatti were related to the Kaska people who lived in the Pontic mountains.
Hattians lived in Anatolia. They worshipped Kasku and Kusuh. They were especially prominent in the Pontic mountains. Their sister nation in the Halys Basin were the Kaska tribes. The Kaska and Hattians share the same names for gods, along with personal and place names (1). The Kaska had a strong empire which was never defeated by the Hittites.
Singer (1981) has suggested that the Kaska, are remnants of the indigenous Hattian population which was forced northward by the Hittites. But at least as late as 1800 BC, Anatolia was basically settled by Hattians (2)
Anatolia was occupied by many Kushite groups,including the Kashkas and or Hatti. The Hatti , like the Dravidian speaking people were probably related . The Hatti were probably members of the Tehenu tribes.
The Tehenu was composed of various ethnic groups. One of the Tehenu tribes was identified by the Egyptians as the Hatiu or Haltiu.
During the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt (2563-2423), namely during the reign of Sahure there is mention of the Tehenu people. Sahure referred to the Tehenu leader “Hati Tehenu” .(3) These Hatiu, may correspond to the Hatti speaking people of Anatolia. The Hatti people often referred to themselves as Kashkas or Kaskas.
The Hatti controlled the city state of Kussara. Kussara was situated in southern Anatolia.
The earliest known ruler of Kussara was Pitkhanas. It was his son Anitta (c. 1790-1750 BC) who expanded the Kussara empire through much of Anatolia.
Many researchers get the Hittites (Nesa) mixed up with the original settlers of Anatolia called Hatti according to Steiner “.[T]his discrepancy is either totally neglected and more or less skillfully veiled, or it is explained by the assumption that the Hittites when conquering the country of Hatti adjusted themselves to the Hattians adopting their personal names and worshipping their gods, out of reverence for a higher culture” .(4)
Neshili, was probably spoken by the Hatti, not the IE Hittite. Yet, this language is classified as an IE langauge. Researchers maintain that the Hatti spoke 'Hattili' or Khattili “language of the Hatti”, and the IE Hittites spoke "Neshumnili"/ Neshili .(5) Researchers maintain that only 10% of the terms in Neshumnili is IE. This supports the view that Nesumnili may have been a lingua franca.
It is clear that the Anatolians spoke many languages including:Palaic, Hatti, Luwian and Hurrian, but the people as you know mainly wrote their writings in Neshumnili. The first people to use this system as the language of the royal chancery were Hatti Itamar Singer makes it clear that the Hittites adopted the language of the Hatti .(6) Steiner wrote that, " In the complex linguistic situation of Central Anatolia, in the 2nd Millennium B.C. with at least three, but probably more different languages being spoken within the same area there must have been the need for a language of communication or lingua franca [i.e., Neshumnili), whenever commercial transactions or political enterprises were undertaken on a larger scale" .(7)
•The Hatti language which provided the Hittites with many of the terms Indo-Aryan nationalists use to claim and Aryan origin for the Indus civilization is closely related to African languages including Egyptians. For example: Big, mighty, powerful protect, help upper
Hattic ur $uh tufa Egyptian wr swh tp Malinke fara solo dya, tu ‘raising’ Head stretch (out) prosper to pour Hattic tu put falfalat duq
Egyptian tup pd Malinke tu ‘strike head’ pe, bemba fin’ya du Eye hand Place King, term of respect
The Malinke-Bambara and Hatti language share other cognates and grammatical features. For example,in both languages the pronoun can be prefixed to nouns, e.g., Hatti le ‘his’, le fil ‘his house’; Malinke-Bambara a ‘his’, a falu ‘his father’s house’. Other Hatti and Malinke- Bambara cognates include: Hattic b’la ka -ka Kaati Malinke n’ye teke -ka ka, kuntigi ‘headman’
Good hypothesis generation suggest that given the fact that the Malinke-Bambara and Hatti languages share cognate terms, Sumerian terms may also relate to Hatti terms since they were also Kushites. Below we compare a few Hatti, Sumerian and Malinke Bambara terms:
Mother father lord,ruler build, to set up Hattic na-a ša tex Malinke na baba sa te Sumerian na ‘she’ aba tu ‘to create’ To pour child,son up, to raise strength,powerful land Hatti dug pin,pinu tufa ur -ka Malinke du den dya, tu fara -ka Sumerian dub peš dul usu ki
Conclusion
In summary, the Hattic speaking people were members of the Kushite tribe called Tehenu. They were probably called Hati ( pl. Hatiu), by the Egyptians.
The language of the Hittites was more than likely a lingua franca, with Hattic, at its base. In Western Anatolia many languages were spoken including Hattic, Palaic, Luwian and Hurrian used Nesa as a lingua franca. For example, the king of Arzawa, asked the Egyptian in the Amarna Letters, to write them back in Nesumnili rather than Egyptian .(8)
Steiner notes that “In the complex linguistic situation of Central Anatolia in the 2nd Millennium B.C., with at least three, but probably more different languages being spoken within the same area there must have been the need for a language of communication or lingua franca whenever commercial transaction or political enterprises were undertaken on a larger scale” .(9)
This led Steiner to conclude that “moreover the structure of Hittite easily allowed one to integrate not only proper names, but also nouns of other languages into the morphological system. Indeed, it is a well known fact the vocabulary of Hittite is strongly interspersed with lexemes from other languages, which is a phenomenon typical of a “lingua franca” .(10)
Footnotes
1. Itamar Singer, Hittites and Hattians in Anatolia at the beginning of the Second Millennium B.C., Journal of Indo-European Studies, 9 (1-2) (1981), pp.119-149.
2 Gerd Steiner, The role of the Hittites in ancient Anatolia, Journal of Indo-European Studies, 9 (1-2) (1981), 119-149.
3 El Mosallamy,A.H.S. Libyco-Berber relations with ancient Egypt:The Tehenu in Egyptian records. In (pp.51-68) 1986, p.55; and L. Borchardt, Das Grabdenkmal des Konigs Sahure. Vol. II, Table 1.
4 Steiner, p.160.
5 I.M. Diakonoff and P.L. Kohl, Early Antiquity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.
6. Itamar Singer, Hittites and Hattians in Anatolia at the Beginning of the Second Millennium BC,Journal of Indo-European Studies, 9 (1-2) (pp.119-149).
7 Ibid., p.162.
8 Ibid., p.161.
9 Ibid., p.162
10 Ibid., p.165.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since modern European languages, the so-called Indo-European, are derived from the Indian languages of the Dravidians, plus the East Asian languages of people like the Persians, plus whatever the Aryans and other White Central Asians spoke, plus the languages of the native Black Europeans that they melded with.
Point being, that modern languages are modern combinations of ancient languages - the English language is a perfect example. Therefore a case can be made for just about any connection. [/qb][/QUOTE]The relationship between English and ancient language is mainly due to literacy, not the combination of ancient and modern languages. Speakers of the Germanic languages (which) include English) lexicalized many Greek and Roman terms as they became literate in these languages.
Blacks spread civilization around the world. As other people came in contact with these bLacks they adopted cultural traditions and the terms that came along with the new way of life introduced to Europeans by the Blacks. This is evident in the relationship between Greek, and the two major lingua francas of Central asia and South Asia: Tocharian and Sanskrit.
It is important to remember that the relationship between Indo-European and Indo-Aryan language, especially Sanskrit is via the Greek language. Greek influenced other European languages because it was recognized as a language of culture and civilization by the Romans.
It was in Pakistan that the Greek language was probably incorporated into Sanskrit. Many of the rules for Sanskrit were codified by Panini, who was born in Salatura, in Northwest Pakistan. Panini’s grammar contains 4000 rules.
When Panini wrote his grammar of Sanskrit, it was spoken by the elites in the area. Greek was also popular when Panini wrote the Sanskrit grammar. The Greeks were called Yunani or Yavana. Thus we learn from Agrawala (1953) that the Yavanani lipi (edict) was well known in Gandahara, and even Panini mentions the Yavana in his grammar . The term Yauna meant Ionian (Woodcock, 1966).
The history of Greeks in the area is quite interesting. When Alexander entered the HinduKush region in 327 B.C., Greek settlements were already in the area. By 180 BC, as the Mauryas fell into decline, the Greek Kings of Bactria took control of Western Punjab and Gandhara up to the Indus River. Under King Menander (d.130 B.C.) the Greeks had their capital at Taxila. The center of Greek culture in the area was Charsadda near Peshawar (Woodcock,1966).
Many Greek terms were probably already incorporated in the Prakrits of Northern India-Pakistan and Central Asia. Here the Greeks minted their coins with Kharoshthi, Brahmi and Greek inscriptions.
Greek was used for commercial purposes and served as a patrician lingua franca of the Kabul valley and of Gandhara. During the rule of Pushyamitra many Greeks settled in India. Due to the long history of Greeks in India, Ashoka had some of his edicts written in Greek and Aramaic bilinguals. In 44 A.D., Appolonius of Tyana when he visited Taxila found that merchants and kings learned Greek “as a matter of course” (Rahman, 2004; Woodcock,1966).
Given the popularity of Greek in the region it is not surprising that Sanskrit would show such a strong relationship to the Indic languages, since it was spoken throughout the area of a couple of hundred years. Commenting on the Greek rulers of India, Kulke and Rothermund (1998), said that “They are referred to as ‘Indo-Greeks’, and there were about forty such kings and rulers who controlled large areas of northwestern India and Afghanistan….They appear as Yavanas in stray references in Indian literature, and there are few but important references in European sources. In these distant outposts, the representatives of the Hellenic policy survived the defeat of their Western compatriots at the hands of the Parthians for more than a century” (p.70). The greatest of the Indo-Greek rulers was Menander, who is mentioned in the famous Milindapanho text. The Shakas adopted many elements of Indo-Greek culture which they perpetuated in India for over 100 years (Rahman, 2004).
It is impossible to argue for a genetic relationship between Vedic and Greek languages based on the fact that speakers of these languages formerly lived in intimate contact in historical times. Secondly, we know the Dravidians were in Greece before the Indo-Europeans enter the country. These non-I-E speakers were called Pelasgians. As a result, Anna Morpurgo Davies, The linguistic evidence:Is there any?, in Gerald Cadogan, The End of the early Bronze Age in the Agean (pp.93-123), says that only 40% of Greek is of Indo-European etymology (p.105). Since only 40% of the Greek terms are of I-E origin, many of the Greek terms that agree with the Indic languages may be from the 60% of the Greek lexical items that came from non-I-E speakers which as noted by Lahovary in Dravidian origins and the West, were people who spoke either Dravidian languages, or other languages from Africa, genetically related to the Dravidian group.
In conclusion, as a result of the Greek influence in Bactria and India-Pakistan , Indians and Bactrians had to acquire "Greek Culture" to enhance their position and opportunity in North India and Bactria during Greek rule. Greek rule placed prestige on status elements introduced into the region by the Greeks, especially the Greek language. Status acquired by Bactrians and Indian-Pakistanis was thus centered around acquisition of Greek language and Greek culture. This supported by the evidence that Indian elites used Greek in business and government (Rahman, 2004). This would have inturn added pressure on the Bactrians to incorporate Greek terms into a Bactrian lingua franca (i.e., Tocharian).
Given the fact that Greek administrators in Bactria and Northern India-Pakistan ,refused to fully integrate Bactrians and Indians into the ruling elite, unless they were “well versed in Greek culture and language) led to subsequent generations of native Bactrians and Indian-Pakistanis to progressively incorporate more Greek terms into their native language. This would explain why Tocharian has many features that relate to certain IE etymologies and Panini’s Sanskrit grammar, present many terms that are associated with the Greeks, but illustrates little affinity to Indo-Iranian languages which are geographically and temporally closer to Tocharian.
Some researchers might dispute the influence of the Greek language on Sanskrit because Panini’s grammar was suppose to have been written around 400 B.C. This date for the grammar might be too early, because Rahman (2004) and Agrawala (1953) maintains that Greek was spoken in Gandahara in Panini’s time.
The influence of colonial Greeks in Central Asia would explain why the most important evidence of an I-E relationship with Sanskrit. The historical connections between the so-called Indo-European languages probably respect an areal linguistic relationship—not genetic relationship.
Here I discuss in detail the relationship between Greek and Sanskrit
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Do you think possible an African Origin of Proto-Indo-European (PIE) even though its actual birth place would be elsewhere ? The French linguist Andre Martinet had attempted to reconstruct a very early state of the PIE and found typically African consonants such as labiovelar kp and prenasalised mp. On the other hand, applying vert rigorously the comparative method to some African languages, I'm surprised to find in the reconstructed vocabulary some words very similar to PIE ones. So are you aware of other works in that direction worldwide ? Here below are a few PIE roots of negro-egyptian origin:
1) PIE *h2ent- "front", "before", "against" (hittite hanti, latin ante, greek anti). This root has no etymology in PIE itself, but taking into account the negro-egyptian root *xun-t(w)i "nose" fully explains its origin: middle egyptian xnt "nose" "front"; sango hon "nose", "front", "end"; zande hun-se "nose", hausa hanci "nose", etc.
2) PIE *demh2- "home" (latin domus "home", greek demos "department". This root is related to négro-egyptian *dIm-xI "house" (middle egyptian dmi "house", zandé dimo idem).
3) PIE *h2er "to plough" (latin arare, greek aroun idem). This root derives from negro-egyptian *xir "to work" (middle egyptian iri "to work", sango le idem).
As the PIE forms are close to middle egyptian ones, it is clear that the negro-egyptian dialects entered Europe through south-west Asia, that is why Hittite forms (including personal pronouns) are so close to middle egyptian's (I shown this extensively in my book) and this is why there is some common forms with proto-semitic.
--Jean-Claude Mboli
This is not a suprise the Proto-Indo Europeans who practiced an agro-pastoral mining civilization spoke Niger-Congo-Dravidian languages.
The first Anatolians were Kushites, a view supported by the Hattic name for themselves: Kashka.
The Hittites adopted much of Hattic culture. There were other languages spoken in Anatolia, including Palaic Luwian and Hurrian.
The languages of the Hittites: Nesa, was a lingua franca used by the Luwian and Palaic speakers.
The first recorded Indo-European language is Hittite. Many researchers get the Hittites (Nesa) mixed up with the original settlers of Anatolia called Hatti according to Steiner “.[T]his discrepancy is either totally neglected and more or less skillfully veiled, or it is explained by the assumption that the Hittites when conquering the country of Hatti adjusted themselves to the Hattians adopting their personal names and worshipping their gods, out of reverence for a higher culture” . Neshili, was probably spoken by the Hatti, not the IE Hittite. Yet, this language is classified as an IE langauge. Researchers maintain that the Hatti spoke 'Hattili' or Khattili “language of the Hatti”, and the IE Hittites spoke "Neshumnili"/ Neshili . Researchers maintain that only 10% of the terms in Neshumnili is IE. This supports the view that Nesumnili may have been a lingua franca. It is clear that the Anatolians spoke many languages including:Palaic, Hatti, Luwian and Hurrian, but the people as you know mainly wrote their writings in Neshumnili. The first people to use this system as the language of the royal chancery were Hatti Itamar Singer makes it clear that the Hittites adopted the language of the Hatti . Steiner wrote that, " In the complex linguistic situation of Central Anatolia, in the 2nd Millennium B.C. with at least three, but probably more different languages being spoken within the same area there must have been the need for a language of communication or lingua franca [i.e., Neshumnili), whenever commercial transactions or political enterprises were undertaken on a larger scale" .
The language of the Hittites was more than likely a lingua franca, with Hattic, as its base. In Western Anatolia many languages were spoken including Hattic, Palaic, Luwian and Hurrian used Nesa as a lingua franca For example, the king of Arzawa, asked the Egyptian in the Amarna Letters, to write them back in Nesumnili rather than Egyptian . Steiner notes that “In the complex linguistic situation of Central Anatolia in the 2nd Millennium B.C., with at least three, but probably more different languages being spoken within the same area there must have been the need for a language of communication or lingua franca whenever commercial transaction or political enterprises were undertaken on a larger scale” . This led Steiner to conclude that “moreover the structure of Hittite easily allowed one to integrate not only proper names, but also nouns of other languages into the morphological system. Indeed, it is a well known fact the vocabulary of Hittite is strongly interspersed with lexemes from other languages, which is a phenomenon typical of a “lingua franca” .
The Hurrians spoke a non-IE language. Formerly, linguist suggested that the Hurrians were dominated by Indic speakers. Linguist of the IE languages were fond of this theory because some of the names for the earliest Indo-Aryan gods, chariots and horsemenship are found in Hurrian.
This made the Indo-Aryan domination of Hurrians good support for an Anatolia origin for the IE speakers. This theory held high regrads until Bjarte Kaldhol studied 500 Hurrian names and found that only 5, were Indo-Aryan sounding. This made it clear that the IA people probably learned horsemenship from the Hurrians, and not the other way around.
At the base of Nesite, the language of the Hittites is Hattic. Since this language was used as a lingua franca, Nesa was probably not an IE language as assumed by IE linguist. This along with the fact that Diakonoff and Kohl never defeated the Kaska; and the Hurrians introduced horse-drawn war chariots for military purposes indicate that Anatolia probably was not a homeland for the IE speakers.
The original Kushites belonged to the C-Group. The Kaska and Hurrians were part of the Kushite people who expanded into Europe and Asia after 3000 BC .
Kushites are the base of the Niger-Congo speakers. Neshumnili and Hattic is related to the Niger-Congo-Dravidian languages. Since the Kushites in Africa, Europe and Asia spoke similar languages it was only natural that the Proto-Indo-European vocabulary items would be cognate to Niger-Congo and Negro-Egyptian terms because Africans (the Kushites) introduced civilization to Europe, see Dr N. Lahovary's, Dravidian Origins and the West.
. .
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
The word Iran is the Persian word for land/place of the Aryans
Aryan is not a racial term.
--- In Ta_Seti@yahoogroups.com, "ulagankmy" <ulagankmy@y...> wrote: Dear Dr Winters
As you are aware, the word 'aariyan' is a Tamil word, an ancient one at that and which has been borrowed by many tribes in deep past. Probably the root is Su. a and Ta. aal, to spread out, powerful, strong etc.
Sumerian a-ri-a and Tamil aariyan
The noun aal-al ( >aaRRal) which means strength, capacity and so forth is still in use in Tamil . The following note may help out to destroy the myth that Europeans were the Aryans.
Related to this is that the whole of Rig Veda and related literature in Rigkrit is another variant of SumeroTamil. As such it has nothing to do with any "Aryan' family of languages - it is a pure fiction
The word "aryan " that has acquired a racial connation has become one of the most important words to divide of Indian into Aryan and Dravidian with vrious antagonisms along racial lines. The growth of 19th century Dravidian movements in Tamil Nadu which has become political in the 20th cent. and the cultural movements to purify Tamil by cleaning it of the so-called Sanskrit terms are related to this. The replacemnt of Tamil as the language of Temple Worship among the tamils however has a different historical basis. It was something introduced by Ramanuja and on philosophical grounds. The Sanskrit literature , under the impact of Sankara became predominantly Advaitic Vedantic and hence was seen as detrimental to the growth of Bakthi and for which reason Ramaunuja installed the recitation of Thruvaymozi in the temples in place of Vedic mantras. One can see the present movement of the Saivites to give the place of honour to Tamil particularly the Thevaram corpus as something like that of Ramanuja, who incidently was a Brahamin and who wrote only in Sanskrit despite being a brilliant Tamil scholar.
At the moment and perhaps mainly due to IndoEuropean scholarship the excitment and arrogance with which the Brahmins in Tamil Nadu received this, which is mainly a hypothesis , and who started to call themseves the scions of these Aryans is that which unnderlies the Brahmin-bashing that continues to this day. I have a colletion of litwrature in Tamil towards the end of 19th ,where the Smartha brahmins called themselves Aryans and went on to criticise severely Saiva Sidddhanta and many other philosophies of the Tamils. The Dravidian identity was fostered by Bihop Caldwell with his epoch making "Comparative study of Dravidian Languages" which was well received by the Tamil scholars but vehemently challenged by the Smartha Brahmins.
This association of Tamil Brahmins with Aryanism and also Sanskrit along with it, still continues and will continue perhaps for a long time. It is certainly unfortunate for such a hatred for the TERM aryan is NOT to be met with in traditional India where the primary meaning of Aryan as used in Thevaram corpus Kamba Ramayan and so forth and perhaps also as Dhammapada did not have the racial sense at all rather that of "exceptional or brilliant individual" as in Tamil " ariyan'
In Sangam classics there are several uses of it .
1. aariyar tuvanRiya peerisai imayam: the famed Himalayas where dwell the Aryas. Here it certainly means a group of people bordering the Himalayas and in sense a generic term for all those who dwelt in the North of India
2. aariyak kuuttu: here it means a noisy kind of dance especially those like walking on ropes to the accopaniment of loud and boisterous music.
3. ariyamum tamizum: This phrase used by Appar and so forth applies to the Languages and here aariyam means certainly Sanskrit. Here we see the beginnings of the use of Aryan and Dravidian (=Tamil) in linguistic terms but without any anatogonistic emotional undertones. For both are recognised as languages founded by Siva.
Ariyan as the Brilliant , Resplendent Principle and hence another variant for Siva
We see the use of Aryan in this sense in the following verse of Tirumular
Tirumantiram 134.
puraiyaRRa paalinuL ney kalataaR pool tirai aRra cintaiyil aariyan ceppum uraiyaR RuNarvoor udambing kozitaaR karaiyaRRa cooti kalawthasat taame Meaning
BEING emerges but stands as the Unconscious in the mind that becomes unruffled by any earthly desires just like ghee being present invisibly in the pure milk. Those who transcend speech ( by transcending temporality) and LISTEN in DEEP SILENCE to the instructions on Absolute Illumination that BEING-the -Radiant instructs on (through the language of Cin Muttirai) will untie themselves from all attachments to the physical body and becoming FREE from it, plunge into Boundless Radiance and through that also become a Sat, an absolute (just like BEING)
Here Ariyan is used as anohter name for Civa, the Immensely Radiant BEING who illuminates all and helps the attainment of genuine freedom through the severances to all the bondages. The use of Aryan in the sense 'divine" that the above suggests is also available in Kampan's description of Rama as "aariya maintan". Here it may also mean the "royal, the kingly" etc.
Su. a -ri-a
The Tamil 'aariyan' that has has so many different meanings and hence possibly with different etymological roots also occurs in Sumerian in the sense "divine, royal " etc as the following line from Sulgis MutarIbuyam (Hymn B) would indicate.
11. lugal-e lugal-a-ri-a nin-e -tu-da -me-en I, the king of Royal descent, who a princess bore. Ta. uLukaLee uLugak aariya(ariya) ninnee todda maan
lu> uLu> aaLu, aaL: person. gal> kaL: great -e: -ee: the suffix that isolates that which is named ; the teeRRa eekaaram. a-ri-a> ariya (the rare) ; aariya: the royal , divine etc. nin> Nin, nan: the lofty: tu-da> todda; to bear , to give birth; me-en> maan: the person as in ceeramaan, atikaimaan etc The term" lugal-aria" is almost identical with the Tamil usage of Arya maintain such as that of Kamban. And this may be the sense in the use of Arya by Buddha in Dhammapada.
It is also interesting that in the long history of Tamil literature nowhere we come across the Brahmins being called or call themselves as Aryas. Even in Sangam epoch we have kapilar, known as a Brahamana calling himself AntaN and NOT Aryan. This term has been more in use with the royalties and as an alternative term for Siva , the Brilliant Principle, the supremely radiant BEING that illuminates all minds arising as the inner sun.
[list] [*]--- In Ta_Seti@yahoogroups.com, "ulagankmy" <ulagankmy@y...> wrote: Dear Dr Winters
As you are aware, the word 'aariyan' is a Tamil word, an ancient one at that and which has been borrowed by many tribes in deep past. Probably the root is Su. a and Ta. aal, to spread out, powerful, strong etc.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Proto-Indo-Aryan(Kaska/Mitanni/ Hatti) speakers were probably descendents of the Kushites who formerly lived in Anatolia.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The earliest Aryan tribe called Ionians spoke a dialect of East Greek called Aeolic.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The Aryan Invasion theory (AIT) is supported by archaeological, genetic, textual and linguistic data. Reich et al found that the Indians could be divided into two groups the ANIs, who speak Indo-Aryan languages; and ASI, Dravidian speakers. This is why the authors acknowledge that that ANIs are related to western Eurasians, while the ASIs do not share any similarity with the Eurasians.
AIT states that the Indo-Aryans invaded India. The genetic evidence separating the Indo-Aryan speakers into an ANI group and the Dravidians into a ASI group is congruent to the AIT.
This genetic data clearly divides the North and South Indians, and supports AIT; and the replacement of an original Dravidian speaking people in the north by the invading Indo-European speaking Vedic people.
Clyde I'm getting confused here who were the people that some theorized to have invaded India?
Were these white people?
Above you quote the word Aryan being Tamil. Then you have another thing saying proto-Aryans were probably descendents of the Kushites who formerly lived in Anatolia. Then you have something about Ionina Greeks being Aryans. And you say Indo-Aryan language speaking ANIs are related to western Eurasians, while the ASIs do not share any similarity with the Eurasians.
Who the hell are these people ???
___________________________________
Also who do ASIs have the most similarity to DNA-wise ?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The history of Aryan people is quite interesting. First lets discuss the history of yhe Aryan Invasion Theory. The AIT was formulated by the Europeans who read the Rig Veda and recognized that the ancestors of the Indo-Aryan speakers came to India as nomads, attacked Desa cities, and eventually dominated North India.
AIT was supported by the fact that many speakers of Dravidian languages remain in North India.Secondaly, we find that the original North Indians from Harappan times down to 1000BC used red-and-black pottery, Around 1000 BC, we see that populations in many North Indian urban areas were replaced by people using Plain Grey Ware. Archaeologists have assumed that the PGW people were probably Indo-Aryan speakers. The PGW people first invaded india around 1200-1000 BC. They made another invasion around 800 BC and we see the red-and- black(BRW) pottery users begin to migrate southward, into centers where the megalithic building Dravidian speakers were also using BRW.
Hittites(probably white people) forced the Kushites (Kaska , Mittani-Hurrian) into Iran. The Kushites living in Iran invaded India and founded the Indo-Aryan speakers in 1000BC. In 800 BC, nomadic people from Iran begin the domination of India and the original Indo-Aryan speaking population and mated with the original Dravidian and Munda speaking populations . It wasat this time that the white Iranians began to dominate India.
The Persians conquered India and Europe. The Persians exiled Greek (Ionians) into what is now Pakistan. Here the ionians prospered. Alaxander the Great conquered India and more Greeks entered what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan. Soon this region was made up of populations speaking Greek, Indo-Aryan dialects and Dravidian languages. To unite the people a grammarian named Pannini, wrote a grammar of a lingua franca that became Sanskrit. Because Sanskrit included elements of Greek, Indo-Aryan and dravidian languages , Europeans began to develop the idea of the Indo-Europeans.
The Indo-Europeans included the Europeans led by the Greeks and the Indo-Aryan speakers of Iran and India. The Europeans and Indo-Aryans are unified via the Sanskrit language. In reality, the European and Indo Aryan languages are not related, except through Sanskrit, which modern European linguist did not know was a lingua franca.
Now I will answer your questions.
quote: Above you quote the word Aryan being Tamil.
Yes. The term Aryan meant elite or nobel in Elamite, Tamil and Sumerian
quote: Then you have another thing saying proto-Aryans were probably descendents of the Kushites who formerly lived in Anatolia.
Yes the first Indo-Aryan speakers were Kushites forced into Iran by the Hittites. They invaded India to find a home since Indo-Aryan speakers already dominated most of Iran except for former Elamite-Persian regions in southern Iran.
quote: Then you have something about Ionina Greeks being Aryans.
The Persians deposited Ionian nationalists in Pakistan. Here the Ionians became the elites and spread the Greek language. The Greek language gained even more prominence when Alexander the Great took control of the entire region.
quote: And you say Indo-Aryan language speaking ANIs are related to western Eurasians, while the ASIs do not share any similarity with the Eurasians.
Finally, genetic research indicates that the North Indians are more related to Europeans and Central Asians than the Drabidian and Munda speakers of the rest of India.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Yes the first Indo-Aryan speakers were Kushites forced into Iran by the Hittites. They invaded India to find a home since Indo-Aryan speakers already dominated most of Iran except for former Elamite-Persian regions in southern Iran.
Clyde I don't get it. You say that Indo-Aryan speakers were Kushites. Then you say that the had to find a home because Indo-Aryan speakers were already dominating
but you just said the Kushites were Indo-Aryan speakers
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The earliest Aryan tribe called Ionians spoke a dialect of East Greek called Aeolic.
The Persians deposited Ionian nationalists in Pakistan. Here the Ionians became the elites and spread the Greek language. The Greek language gained even more prominence when Alexander the Great took control of the entire region.
You said the first Indo-Aryan speakers were Kushites. So why do you call Ionians who spoke a dialect of East Greek -Aryans?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Finally, genetic research indicates that the North Indians are more related to Europeans and Central Asians than the Drabidian and Munda speakers of the rest of India.
If North Indians are more related to Europeans and Central Asians how could that be if you said the " first Indo-Aryan speakers were Kushites... They invaded India "
That would mean the Kushites are more related to Europeans and Central Asians you said they were the ones that invaded India
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Yes the first Indo-Aryan speakers were Kushites forced into Iran by the Hittites. They invaded India to find a home since Indo-Aryan speakers already dominated most of Iran except for former Elamite-Persian regions in southern Iran.
Clyde I don't get it. You say that Indo-Aryan speakers were Kushites. Then you say that the had to find a home because Indo-Aryan speakers were already dominating
but you just said the Kushites were Indo-Aryan speakers
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The earliest Aryan tribe called Ionians spoke a dialect of East Greek called Aeolic.
The Persians deposited Ionian nationalists in Pakistan. Here the Ionians became the elites and spread the Greek language. The Greek language gained even more prominence when Alexander the Great took control of the entire region.
You said the first Indo-Aryan speakers were Kushites. So why do you call Ionians who spoke a dialect of East Greek -Aryans?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Finally, genetic research indicates that the North Indians are more related to Europeans and Central Asians than the Drabidian and Munda speakers of the rest of India.
If North Indians are more related to Europeans and Central Asians how could that be if you said the " first Indo-Aryan speakers were Kushites... They invaded India "
That would mean the Kushites are more related to Europeans and Central Asians you said they were the ones that invaded India
LOL. That means that Indo-Europeans are carrying Black genes.
I have tried to explain to you the formation of the Indo-Aryan people. I think if you take the time to think about what I wrote you will get it.
posted
Clyde, no such thing as a Black European, Blacks are NOT native to Europe no matter how much you want it to be so, NO such thing as a White Central Asian either. Sorry Whites are NOT some kind of inferior, non human serpent people like you want to believe Clyde. White people hating, White child hating, White child wanna be killing, Black racist, Black supremacist POS demon spawn of satan. White people do not carry Black genes & there is NO similarity between European & East Indian languages. Tell me Clyde what have White children ever done to you to make you hate them so & to make you want to harm them???
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CelticWarrioress: Clyde, no such thing as a Black European, Blacks are NOT native to Europe no matter how much you want it to be so, NO such thing as a White Central Asian either. Sorry Whites are NOT some kind of inferior, non human serpent people like you want to believe Clyde. White people hating, White child hating, White child wanna be killing, Black racist, Black supremacist POS demon spawn of satan. White people do not carry Black genes & there is NO similarity between European & East Indian languages. Tell me Clyde what have White children ever done to you to make you hate them so & to make you want to harm them???
Blah,blah, blah....
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde come on White child hating, White child wanna be harming, Black racist, Black supremacist answer the question. What's the matter aint got the testicular fortitude Clyde? Not man enough you cowardly little boy. BTW I'm interested to see the similarity between East Indian languages & European languages lets see that as well Clyde you little wienie.
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
What is it with you white women/men(Ralph) and your obsession with the black men's dick?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Dude come off that crap. First I have already proven more than once or twice I am a female & at least once my name is not Ralph. Second wienie has NOTHING to do with dicks moron, its another way of say COWARD, pansy, pussy, wuss, weakling, etc etc.
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CelticWarrioress: Xy-YT-hater,
Dude come off that crap. First I have already proven more than once or twice I am a female & at least once my name is not Ralph. Second wienie has NOTHING to do with dicks moron, its another way of say COWARD, pansy, pussy, wuss, weakling, etc etc.
Noun wienie (plural wienies)
(US, informal) A wiener sausage. (US, informal) The penis. (attested from 1911)
Yup, doxie definitely enjoys the blac pipe!
Posts: 117 | From: Earth | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged |
[list] [*]--- In Ta_Seti@yahoogroups.com, "ulagankmy" <ulagankmy@y...> wrote: Dear Dr Winters
As you are aware, the word 'aariyan' is a Tamil word, an ancient one at that and which has been borrowed by many tribes in deep past. Probably the root is Su. a and Ta. aal, to spread out, powerful, strong etc.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Proto-Indo-Aryan(Kaska/Mitanni/ Hatti) speakers were probably descendents of the Kushites who formerly lived in Anatolia.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The earliest Aryan tribe called Ionians spoke a dialect of East Greek called Aeolic.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The Aryan Invasion theory (AIT) is supported by archaeological, genetic, textual and linguistic data. Reich et al found that the Indians could be divided into two groups the ANIs, who speak Indo-Aryan languages; and ASI, Dravidian speakers. This is why the authors acknowledge that that ANIs are related to western Eurasians, while the ASIs do not share any similarity with the Eurasians.
AIT states that the Indo-Aryans invaded India. The genetic evidence separating the Indo-Aryan speakers into an ANI group and the Dravidians into a ASI group is congruent to the AIT.
This genetic data clearly divides the North and South Indians, and supports AIT; and the replacement of an original Dravidian speaking people in the north by the invading Indo-European speaking Vedic people.
Clyde I'm getting confused here who were the people that some theorized to have invaded India?
Were these white people?
Above you quote the word Aryan being Tamil. Then you have another thing saying proto-Aryans were probably descendents of the Kushites who formerly lived in Anatolia. Then you have something about Ionina Greeks being Aryans. And you say Indo-Aryan language speaking ANIs are related to western Eurasians, while the ASIs do not share any similarity with the Eurasians.
Who the hell are these people ???
___________________________________
Also who do ASIs have the most similarity to DNA-wise ?
I've seen quite a few debates on this Aryan invasion, on the net, and the people from India, or Indian heritage apposed this strongly.
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
[list] [*]--- In Ta_Seti@yahoogroups.com, "ulagankmy" <ulagankmy@y...> wrote: Dear Dr Winters
As you are aware, the word 'aariyan' is a Tamil word, an ancient one at that and which has been borrowed by many tribes in deep past. Probably the root is Su. a and Ta. aal, to spread out, powerful, strong etc.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Proto-Indo-Aryan(Kaska/Mitanni/ Hatti) speakers were probably descendents of the Kushites who formerly lived in Anatolia.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The earliest Aryan tribe called Ionians spoke a dialect of East Greek called Aeolic.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The Aryan Invasion theory (AIT) is supported by archaeological, genetic, textual and linguistic data. Reich et al found that the Indians could be divided into two groups the ANIs, who speak Indo-Aryan languages; and ASI, Dravidian speakers. This is why the authors acknowledge that that ANIs are related to western Eurasians, while the ASIs do not share any similarity with the Eurasians.
AIT states that the Indo-Aryans invaded India. The genetic evidence separating the Indo-Aryan speakers into an ANI group and the Dravidians into a ASI group is congruent to the AIT.
This genetic data clearly divides the North and South Indians, and supports AIT; and the replacement of an original Dravidian speaking people in the north by the invading Indo-European speaking Vedic people.
Clyde I'm getting confused here who were the people that some theorized to have invaded India?
Were these white people?
Above you quote the word Aryan being Tamil. Then you have another thing saying proto-Aryans were probably descendents of the Kushites who formerly lived in Anatolia. Then you have something about Ionina Greeks being Aryans. And you say Indo-Aryan language speaking ANIs are related to western Eurasians, while the ASIs do not share any similarity with the Eurasians.
Who the hell are these people ???
___________________________________
Also who do ASIs have the most similarity to DNA-wise ?
I've seen quite a few debates on this Aryan invasion, on the net, and the people from India, or Indian heritage apposed this strongly.
There were two Indo-Aryan migrations into India. The first waves of Indo-Aryans arrived the Indo-Iranian borderlands when ecological conditions had improved. These Indo-Aryans began to settle areas formerly occupied by Dravidian-speaking Harappans.The dravidian speakers used black-and-red ware (BRW).
As the Aryans moved southward other Dravidian-speaking groups living in isolated villages in the Punjab and Haryana, probably allowed. The Indo-Aryans used Painted Grey Ware.
Indo-Aryan tribal groups to settle in their respected urban centers.
This would explain the association of BRW with PGW in the Punjab dating between 1000-1300 B.C.( Singh 1982, p.xli). It would also explain the mention of the highly developed civilization of the non-Indo-Aryan speakers in the Rg Veda.
The second and major wave of Indo-Aryans probably entered northern India around 1000-800 B.C. This would explain why almost all the dependable PGW dates cluster around 800-350 B.C.(Agrawal & Kusumgar 1974, p.132).
By the advent of the second Indo-Aryan migration the Dravidians were weakened by drought and famine and they were easily defeated and pushed out of the Gajarat. The PGW folk appears to have pushed the Dravidians into the Dekkan.
Due to the early Dravidian presence in Northern India there is a Dravidian substratum in Indo-Aryan. There are Dravidian loan words in the Rg Veda, even though Aryan recorders of this work were situated in the Punjab, which was occupied around this time by the BRW using Dravidians.
Emeneau and Burrow (1962) have found 500 Dravidian loan words in Sanskrit. The Dravidian loans in Indo-Aryan are expected to reach 750. Indo-Aryan illustrates widespread structural borrowing from Dravidian in addition to the lexical loans. For example, Kuiper (1967) has noted the increasing frequency of Dravidian type retroflex consonants in Indo-Aryan. Southward (1977) has also recorded the Dravidian structural features borrowed by the Indo-Aryans.
A new hypothesis about Indo-Aryan has been advanced by Dr. K.Loganathan (Loga). Dr. Loganathan has presented convincing evidence that Sanskrit is really a form of Tamil, which is the base of this writing system. He has also shown a close relationship between Vedic and Sumerian, by way of Tamil.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic