1

An Unofficial History of Dravidian Writing

By

Clyde Winters, Ph.D

Uthman dan Fodio Institute

Chicago, Illinois 60643

 2

Abstract

The recent discovery of inscribed pottery in South India indicate that the history of

writing among the Dravidian people did not begin with the introduction of Brahmi

writing to South India. In this paper we review the epigraphic evidence that indicate that

a continuity of script existed from Harappan down to the South Indian Megalithic period

and beyond.
 3

An Unofficial History Dravidian Writing

The Dravidian people originated in Middle Africa. From here Dravidian speaking

people went on to settle parts of Europe and Asia.

The original inhabitants of the Sahara where the Egyptian or Kemitic civilization

originated were not Berbers or Indo-Europeans (Winters 1985b). This was the ancient

homeland of the Dravidians, Egyptians, Sumerians, Niger-Kordofanian-Mande and

Elamite speakers is called the Fertile African Crescent (Anselin 1989, p.16, 1992;

Winters 1981,1985b,1989, 1991,1994). The inhabitants of this area lived in the highland

regions of the Fezzan in modern Libya and Hoggar until after 4000 B.C. We call these

people the Proto-Saharans (Winters 1985b, 1991). The generic term for this group is

Kushite.

The Proto-Saharans were called Ta-Seti and Tehunu by the Egyptians. In the

archaeological literature they were called A-Group and C-Group respectively. Farid

(1985, p.82) noted that:

We can notice that at the beginning of the neolithic stage in Egypt on the edge of the

Western Desert corresponds with expansion of the Saharan Neolithic culture and the

growth of its population .

The Fertile Saharan Crescent is an arc shaped series of highland regions in the Saharan

zone of Africa. The Saharan zone is bounded on the north by the Atlas mountains, the

Atlantic Ocean in the West, the tropical rain forest in the south and the Red Sea in the

East. It was here that the ancestors of the founders of the river valley civilizations in
 4

Africa, the Middle East, China and Indus Valley developed their highly organized and

technological societies (Winters 1983a, 1985b).

The Original homeland of the Dravidian speaking people was the Saharan zone of

Middle Africa. We call the ancestors of the Dravidians the Proto-Saharans. The homeland

of the Proto-Saharans was the Libyan and Sudanese deserts. It was in this region between

9000-6000 BC, that the elements of Proto-Dravidian culture were created (Winters 1985).

Ethically the Proto-Dravidians were round-headed Mediterraneans of the ancient

variety. Around 7000 BC, Mediterraneans of a fairly tall stature not devoid of negroid

characteristics appear in the Sahara at Capsa (now called Cafsa) (Desanges

1981:424-25) . These Mediterraneans are called Capsians. This group flourished in an

area extending from the western most borders of north Africa, into the southern Sahara.

Skeletons of the Mediterranean type have been found throughout Middle Africa,

Southeast Asia, Mesopotamia, the Indo-Pakistan region and even Central Asia. It is no

secret that the founders of ancient Egypt, Elam, Sumer and the Indus Valley were all of

the Mediterranean type. In the ancient inscriptions many Proto-Saharans were called

KUSHITES. These Kushites were also called Saka, Kushana, Kutians, Kus and Qus

(Lacouperie 1886:28-29; Winters 1982).

In the primary center of Proto-Dravidian settlement in Middle Africa, they used a

common black-and-red ware (BRW) and herded cattle, sheep and goats. They also

possessed wheat and millet. (Winters 1985a) This supports Kohl's (1988:596) hypothesis

that millet was introduced into Inner Asia from Africa. The Dravidians migrated out of

the Sahara, due to population pressure and the search for sources of new metal reserves.
 5

Agricultural Terms

grain cotton rice land of cultivation ║

Dravidian valci pani,panchi uri,ari kalan ║

'husked rice' ║

Sumerian se ga(n) ║

Manding se fani,fande maro ga ║

Domesticated Animals ║

dog horse cattle,cow sheep ║

Dravidian ori pari,iyuli naku,gonde 'bull' kuri,koor║

Sumerian ur paru, 'mule' gud zar,sar ║

Manding wuru bari,wolo gunga, kongo sara ║

Below are some of the cognate terms Dravido- African

terms for agriculture and domesticated animals.There is

abundant evidence that African millets were cultivated in

the Indus Valley during Harappan times (Weber, 1998;

Winters,1981a,1981b). Weber (1998) maintains that

Indian agriculture was "greatly influenced" by these

millets from ancient to modern times (p.267).

It would appear from the archaeological evidence

that local millets were cultivated before the 3rd

 6

millenium B.C. (Weber, 1998; Winters, 1981b). But by

the founding of the Harappan civilization and rise of

civilization in Gujarat the African millets were

integrated into a well established South Asian

subsistence pattern (Weber,1998).

Controversy surrounds the transportation pattern

for African millets to India (Weber, 1998). Yet it

would appear that millets arrive in South Asia, both

in the 3rd and 2nd millennium B.C. It is interesting

to note that where the African millets represent the

dominate cereal grain, rice was also a major

domesticate(Weber,1998).

The Dravidian terms for millet are listed in the

Dravidian Etymological Dictionary at 2359, 4300 and

2671. A cursory review of the linguistic examples

provided below from the Dravidian, Mande and Wolof

languages show a close relationship between these

language. These terms are outlined below:

Kol sonna --- ---

----

Wolof(AF.) suna --- ----

---

Mande (AF) suna bara, baga de-n, doro

koro
 7

Tamil connal varaga tinai

kural

Malayalam colam varaku tina

Kannanda --- baraga, baragu tene

korale,korle

*sona *baraga *tenä

*kora

Below we will compare other Dravidian and African

agricultural terms. These terms come from the Mande

languages (Malinke, Kpelle, Bambara, Azer, Soninke),

West Atlantic (Wolof, Fulani), Afro-Asiatic (Oromo,

Galla), Somali, Nubian and the ancient Egyptian.

The Paleo-Dravido-Africans came from a sedentary

culture that domesticated cattle and grew numerous

crops including wheat and millet. The Egyptian term

for cultivation is 0 b j(w) #. Egyptian

0 b j(w) # corresponds to many African terms for

cultivation:

Galla baji 'cultivated field'

Tulu (Dravidian language) bey, benni

Nubian ba, bat 'hoe up ground'

Malinke be
 8

Somali beer

Wolof mbey, ambey, bey

Egyptian b j(w)

Sumerian buru, bur 'to root up'

These terms for cultivate suggest that the

Paleo-African term for cultivate was *be.

The Egyptian term for grain is 0 sa #. This

corresponds to many African terms for seed,grain:

Galla senyi

Malinke se , si

Sumerian se

Egyptian sen 'granary'

Kannanda cigur

Bozo sii

Bambara sii

Daba sisin

Somali sinni

Loma sii

Susu sansi

Oromo sanyi

Dime siimu

Egyptian ssr 'corn'

id. ssn 'lotus plant'

 9

id. sm 'herb, plant'

id. isw 'weeds'

The identification of a s>0/#_________e pattern for

'seed,grain' in the above languages suggest that these

groups were familiar with seeds at the time they

separated into distinct Supersets. The fact that

Sumerian Ø se # and Egyptian Ø sen #, and Malinke

Ø se # are all separated both in time and geographical

area highlight the early use of seeds * se , by

Paleo-Dravido-Africans.

The Paleo-Dravido-Africans used the hoe to

cultivate their crops. The Egyptian terms for hoe are

Ø hbs # and Ø wb #, which mean 'to open up' in

Egyptian. These Egyptian terms are analogous to Black

African and Dravidian terms for hoe:

Tamil parai

Malayalam para

Kannanda pare

Nubia bat

Malinke daba

Egyptian per 'to plough'

Hausa fartanya

Swahili palile

Egyptian hbs
 10

Galla buqis 'root up'

Sumerian buru 'to root up'

It would appear that contrast exist between b and

(f)_______p.

This indicates that in Paleo-Dravido-African that b <

p. The Paleo-Dravido-African term for hoe was probably

*ba(r)/pa(r).

The Paleo-Dravido-Africans also possessed other

terms for hoe:

Malayalam kuntali

Tamil kuntali 'pickaxe'

Nubian Kadid

Wolof konko

Malinke kope, daba

Galla doma

Hausa garma

Kod guddali

Kannanda guddali

Kpelle kali

This evidence suggest that t > d. The phonological

contrast between t =/= d, highlight the alternation

patterns of many Paleo-Dravido African consonants for

hoe the including:

 11

b =/= p

l =/= r

g =/= k.

B.B. Lal (1963) proved conclusively that the Dravidians were genetically related to

the C-group of Nubia, given the fact that both groups used 1) a common BRW, 2) a

common burial complex incorporating megaliths and circular rock enclosures and 3) a

common type of rock cut sepulchre. The BRW industry diffused from Nubia, across West

Asia into Rajastan, and thence to East Central and South India (Rao 1972:34).

The Proto-Dravidians lived on hillocks or slopes near water. But some Capsians lived

on plains which featured lakes and marshes. Their way of life continued from the

neolithic era up to the time of the Garamante ( a group of Manding speakers) that

remained in the Fezzan region of Libya until Roman times (Winters

1983a:210,1983b:15).

Terms of Civilizing Elements ║

arrow city house writing boat ║

Dravidian kakam ur,uru lon carru kalam║

Sumerian kak ur,bar mu,u Ru,sar kalam║

Manding kala furu lu,nu sebe kulu║

 12

The ancestors of the Dravidians, Manding and Sumerians were organized into a

federal system during the neolithic subpluvial. These early Proto- Saharans made

adequate uses of local game and plant life and they established permanent and seasonal

settlements around well stocked fishing holes. They lived on plains, punctuated by

mountains and numerous points of inundation due to the frequency of rain in the ancient

Sahara.

Terms Denoting Social Class ║

Chief High Officials male lord ║

Dravidian Ca, Cira gasa(n) kenton mannan ║

Sumerian Sar gana gi manus ║

Manding Sa gana ke mansa ║

The Proto-Saharans claimed descent from the Maa or Fish Confederation. The Maa

Confederation includes the Egyptians, Elamites, Dravidians, Manding, and Sumerians. In

honor of this great ancestor Maa, they worshipped a god called :Amun, Amon or Amma.

In addition to pay homage to Ma, the descendants of the Proto-Saharans use the term

Ma, to denote greatness or highness, e.g., Manding:Maga, and Dravidian:Ma. Other

Proto-Saharan tribes claimed direct descent from the great Maa, founder of the Fish

Confederation. For example, the Manding call themselves Ma-nde (the children of Maa)

and the Sumerian called themselves Mah-Gar-ri ( exalted God's children).

 13

The Proto-Saharans also had their own writing system. This writing system was used

by the Dravidians in the Indus Valley, the Manding in the Western Sahara, and the early

Egyptians.

Due to the richness of the flora and fauna in the Sahara 8000 BP (before the present),

ethnic groups in Middle Africa were semi-sedentary hunter-fisher gatherers who engaged

in the exploitation of their habitat.In the early period the Proto -Saharans may have had a

limited interest in the domestication of plants and animals. But it was not until the return

of an arid climate to the Sahara between 12000-7000 BC, that the Proto -Saharans were

forced to domesticate cattle and goats to ensure a reliable source of food.

Pastoralism and fishing proceeded food production in the Saharan Proto-Dravidian

homeland. It appears that a hunter-gatherer group specializing in the hunting of animals

became cattle herders. They were keenly aware of the habits of game and therefore made

the shift from hunter-fisher-gatherer to animal husbandry rapidly once the climatic

conditions in the Sahara made it impossible to collect grains. Due to the origin of the

Dravidians and other African groups in the Sahara they share many terms for flora and

fauna (Winters, 1999a, 1999b,2000).

Due to the richness of the flora and fauna in the Sahara 8000 BP,ethnic groups in

Middle Africa were forced to domesticate cattle. Once climatic conditions improved food

surpluses led to the rise of towns and cities,complex political organization, social ranking

of individuals in society, and craft specialization as certain clans and ethnic groups

became more sedentary. This is supported by the numerous hearths and remains of cattle

found in Chad and Libya (Wendorf, Close, & Schild 1985).

 14

Often wild ass, Barbary sheep, hyena and hare were associated with wild cattle in the

Sahara. Bones of domesticated cattle have come from the Uan Muhuggiag site situated

in the Sahara. Between 7500 and 10,000 BC we discover that in addition to these remains

archaeologist have found evidence of slab-lined storage pits. At this time the houses had

large stones situated around the perimeter (Wendorf,Close, & Schild 1985).

Aridity arrived in the Sahara around 5900 BC. In 5800 BC settled life returned to the

Sahara. During this period goat were domesticated and emmer wheat was cultivated. The

farmers also cultivated millet and barley (Wendorf, Close, & Schild 1985).

The ability to produce surplus food led to an increase in population, changes in social

organization and class distinctions . Naturally, population increases forced the ancestors

of the Proto-Saharans to spill over into more marginal areas. This population pressure

probably forced many Proto-Saharan clans to domesticate plants and animals to preserve

traditional levels of food production.

The Proto-Dravidians used a common black-and-red ware that has been found from

the Sudan, across Southwest Asia and the Indian Subcontinent all the way to China

(Singh 1982:xxiv) .The earliest use of this BRW was during the Amratian period

(c.4000-3500 BC). The users of the BRW were usually called Kushites.

The Proto-Dravidian migrations were not spontaneous in nature, their colonization of

Central Asia was formalized. The Proto-Dravidian colonists of inner Asia were motivated

by both curiosity and the need for metals. Metallurgy was important to man in the 3rd

Millennium BC. At this time man was already mining metals to be fabricated into tools,

jewelry and cooking utensils. Most scholars speculated that by 2000 BC properties of

many common metals were understood and the location of ores were known. The
 15

Dravidians probably early knew basic smelting and fabricating techniques and the basic

alloy compositions.

Terms Relating to Mining

blacksmithing gold steel copper hole

Dravidian inumu, irumbu kaani urukku uruttiram tulai

Sumerian gush-kin urudu dul,tul

Manding umu,numu saani tuufa kura,kuta du,tyolo

The metals were carried on both land and sea by Proto -Saharan merchants especially,

the Manding and Dravidian speakers of Asia. Boats were used for water transportation

while the horse or ass may have been used to carry goods along overland routes. Cattle

were often used to pull carts loaded with goods.

Geographical Terms

road mountain deluge

Dravidian calai kunru amaru

Sumerian sila kur maari

Manding sila kuru mara 'zone of pond'

The bronze Age Civilizations of Europe were founded by non- Indo-European speakers.

Mellaart 1981) The Sino-Tibetan (S-T) and Thai speakers fought the Kushite culture

bearers until the end of the Bronze Age (Gafurov 1980).

In the ancient literature the Proto-Dravidians are called Kushites. Using boats the

Kushites moved down ancient waterways many now dried up, to establish new towns in

Asia and Europe after 3500 BC. The Kushites remained supreme around the world until
 16

1400-1200 BC. During this period the Hua (Chinese) and Indo-European (I-E) speakers

began to conquer the Kushites whose cities and economies were destroyed as a result of

natural catastrophes which took place on the planet between 1400-1200 BC. Later, after

500 AD, Turkish speaking people began to settle parts of Central Asia. This is the reason

behind the presence of the K-s-h element in many place names in Asia e.g., Kashgar,

HinduKush, and Kosh. The HinduKush in Harappan times had lapis lazuli deposits.

This linguistic evidence further supports the reality of Lycian and Dravidian existing

as cognate languages given the established close relationship between Caucasian ,

Dravidian and Lycian.

In summary the Dravidian people influenced many aspects of Anatolian civilization.

Most importantly, the Lycians were probably a colony of the Dravidian speaking people

who settle the area after the Proto-Dravidians left the Fertile African Crescent to colonize

Europe.

The archaeological evidence suggest a widespread dispersal of of Proto-Saharan tribes

between 3800-2500 BC. This explains the common arrowheads at Harappan sites, and

sites in Iran, Egypt, Minoan Crete and early Heladic Greece. In addition, linguist have

found a very close relationship between Lycian and Tamil (Winters 1989c).

The I-E and S-T speakers followed two methods of penetration into former Dravidian

areas. First, between 2000-1650 BC they settled in areas of Dravidian occupation in small

numbers, and were partly assimilated into Kushite society. Between 1650-1250 BC as the

.
The Caucasian speakers were probably Kushites. N. Lahovary, in Dravidian Origins and
the West,(Delhi 1963,p.39)
is sure that the Caucasian speakers are descendants of the Egyptian colony at the Colchis.
This would explain the close relationship between Dravidian-Lycian and Caucasian, and
Caucasian and African languages including Egyptians as discussed by Lahovary in his
book.
 17

I-E and S-T speakers reached a numerical majority in or near a Kushite town they would

join forces to militarily overthrow the original inhabitants and take political power, this

typified the second form of I-E and S-T invasion in their respective areas of occupation.

The Sumerian writing was deciphered by Col. Rawlinson. Until the Germans

created the Aryan model of History, the Sumerians were said to have come from Africa.

This is why Rawlinson used Oromo and Ge'ez to decipher the Sumerian writing.

Researchers today claim they don't know the origin of the Sumerians to deny their

African origin.

The major proponent of the ancient model was Col. Rawlinson the decipherer of the

cuneiform script. Using the classical literature and linguistics Col. Rawlinson said the

founders of ancient civilization were the Scythes. He made it clear that these Scythes

had nothing to do with the contemporary people called Scythians because according to

Rawlinson they came from Africa and were also known as Kushites. He called

these people Hamites, based on the Bible identification of the children of Ham: Kush,

Misraim (Egypt), Nimrud (Sumer-Elam) and Canaan were Scythic.

As you can see the ancient Scythians had nothing to do with the Turks. Granted there

is a relationship between the Turkish language and Dravidian but this is the result of the

Dravidian people who formerly occupied all of Central Asia when the Turks migrated

into there present habitation area. Moreover, we know that the Sumerians had keen

relations with Dilmun which was the Indus valley.

The Dravidians early colonized the Indus Valley and Iran. Although the Dravidian

speakers form a solid block of related languages in South India, the territorial domains of

the Dravidians once extended into the Indus Valley, and Iran. This view is supported by
 18

(1) the evidence of Dravidian loan words in Sanskrit, and (2) the presence of Dravidian

speakers in North India. Moreover, the recent decipherment of the Indus Valley script

proves the Dravidian presence in the Indus Valley (Winters 1984b).

Gafurov (1980), discussed the possible influence of the Indus Valley culture on the

interior of Central Asia. Since many Indus Valley dwellers were of Dravidian origin we

know that they spoke an aspect of Dravidian (Nayar 1977;Winters 1990) .

Menges (1966), using linguistic data "assumed an earlier habitat of the Dravidians far

to the northwest on the plateau of Iran...an area extending still a little bit more to the

north into what has become Turkistan". This view is now confirmed by archaeological

evidence of an Indus culture in Inner Asia (Brentjes 1983; Winters 1990).

The Dravidians settled in Asia between 3000-2800 BC. (Winters 1985) From here the

Dravidians spread into Central Asia, China, South and Southwest Asia. It was probably

from Iran that bronze working radiated into Central and Southeast Asia. (Winters 1985b)

The epicenter for the Dravidian dispersals in Asia was Iran. The motivation behind

Dravidian dispersals was agro-pastoralism in the region and the search for new sources of

metals for trade with Mesopotamia, the Indus valley and beyond (Winters

1985a,1985b) .This would explain the close relationship between Dravidian and Elamite

on the one hand, and Dravidian, Manding , and Elamite on the other (Winters

1985c,1989b).

The Elamites lived in the Fars and the Bakhtiar valleys. This mountain area was

named Elimaid in ancient times.

 19

The Elamites called themselves:Khatan. The capital city of the Elamites Susa ,was

called: Khuz by the Indo-European speakers, and Kussi by the Elamites. The Chinese

called the Elamites Kashti. The Armenians called the eastern Parthia: Kushana.

The BMAC cultures in Central Asia originated after the decline of the Harappan site

of Shortughai (c.2400-2200 BC) on the Oxus river. The pottery of these people was quite

diverse, some of the pottery was dark brown on a greenish-white or reddish pink slip.

Some researchers have noted the existence of strong Elamite affinities among the

Bactrian aristocracy (see: Ligue & Salvatori (Ed.), Bactria: an ancient oasis civilization

from the sands of Afghanistan (1989), p. 137). In addition the Altyn depe ruins have

terracotta statuettes with Proto Elamite and Proto-Sumerian script (see: P.A. Kohl (Ed.),

The Bronze Age civilization of Central Asia (1981) p.112).

The major Kushite group from Mesopotamia to northern India were the Kassites. The

Kassites, who occupied the central Zagros were called Kashshu. This name agrees with

Kaska, the name of the Hattians. P.N. Chopra,in The History of South India, noted that

the Kassite language bears unmistakable affinity to the Dravidian group of languages. It

was probably the Kassites who introduced worship of the gods Indra and Varuna to the

Indo-Aryan speaking people.

Similar pottery was used in West Asia. The pottery from Susa in Iran and Eridu in

Mesopotamia of the fifth millennium BC are identical. Between 3700 and 3100 BC, Elam

was under the influence of Uruk, as indicated by the shared art found at these sites during

this period.

By the end of the 4th millennium BC , we see the beginnings of distinctive Elamite

culture in the western Fars, at the Kur Valley. Here at Tel-i-Malyan we see the first
 20

Proto-Elamite tablets written in the Proto-Saharan script. Other Proto-Elamite writings

soon appear at Susa.

The authors of the Proto-Elamite tablets were of Proto-Saharan origin. Malyan and

Susa soon became the kingdoms of Anshan and Susa. These Proto-Elamites soon spread

to Tepe Sialk and Tepe Yahya which was reoccupied after being abandoned earlier due to

ecological decay.

The Proto-Saharans in Elam shared the same culture as their cousins in Egypt, Sumer,

Elam and the Indus Valley. Vessels from the IVBI workshop at Tepe Yahya

(c.2100-1700 BC), have a uniform shape and design. Vessels sharing this style are

distributed from Soviet Uzbekistan, to the Indus Valley. In addition, as mentioned earlier

we find common arrowheads at sites in the Indus Valley ,Iran, Egypt, Minoan Crete and

early Heladic Greece.

There was a large migration of people into Central Asia during the 4th millennium BC

.In Turkmenia these settlers occupied the Etek plain and the Tedzen delta. In

Baluchistan's Hilmand region we find the inhabitants practicing intensive agriculture.

Other farmers began to establish themselves on the steppes near the Amu Darya (i.e, the

Oxus) and Zeravshan rivers.

Archaeologists believe that in the 3rd millennium BC people living from Iran to

Sogdiana, and the Indus Valley to the Capsian sea shared a common culture.(Ligabue &

Salvatori 1989) Here the people practiced intensive irrigation agriculture . This was

especially true on the Shortughai plain where we find the Amu Darya river and its

tributaries the Kokcha and the Qizilsu.

 21

This region had rich and fertile soils. It was here that we find Indus Valley type

artifacts at the Harappan site of Shortughai. The Harappan settlement of Shortughai dates

between 2400 and 2200 BC. Other Harappan artifacts have been found at Dashly and

Balkhab which are also situated in Bactria.

In addition to BRW on Proto-Dravidian sites in Asia, there is a clear association of

irrigation agriculture and mining operations on the Shortughai plains settled by the

Harappans. At Shortughai archaeologists have found industrial sites where lapis lazuli

was worked. In other oases and steppe areas the Dravidians practiced a sedentary pastoral

economy centered on irrigation agriculture.

Shortughai was an important center for processing lapis lazuli. Situated along the

Kokcha river, Shortughai controlled access to the mines of Sar-i-Sang in Badakshan.

Other lapis lazuli mines were established in the Chagai massif, near Harappan sites on the

Hilmand and Indus rivers.

Other Proto-Dravidians entered Turkmenia. As in the rest of Asia, the Dravidians

spread over the region by watercraft. This is one of the reasons why the Indus Valley

culture, as well as Sumerian civilization were established along rivers.

Central Asia was early occupied mainly by the Kushana tribes. The Kushana ruled

Turkestan until the 8th century A.D., when the Uighurs invaded the area. The Uighurs

destroyed both the Kucha and Karasahr empires which were founded by the Kushana

(Bagchi 1955).

In conclusion to this section of the paper, Dravidian colonists from Iran or

Afghanistan probably sailed along the Tedjan river to settle parts of southern

Turkmenia/Turkmenistan.This is supported by the discovery of imported Indus seals at

 22

Altyn-Depe (Masson 1981). Altyn-Depe was a large ceremonial complex in southern

Turkmenia.

Archaeological evidence also indicates that colonists from southern Turkmenia

probably took food - producing culture to the borders of Xinjiang,China in the 3rd

millennium BC.(Kohl 1981) Other culture elements including the wheel and cattle were

taken to China by the Elamites and Proto-Dravidians in the 3rd millennium BC.

(Fairservis 1975).

The languages of the Dravidians, Elamites, Sumerians and Manding are genetically

related (Winters 1985d, 1989b, 1994). N. Lahovary (1957) noted structural and

grammatical analogies of Dravidian, Sumerian and Elamites. K.L. Muttarayan (1975)

provides hundreds of lexical correspondences and other linguistic data supporting the

family relationship between Sumerian and Dravidian. C. A. Winters (1980, 1985d,

1989b, 1994) and L. Homburger (1951) have provided evidence of a genetic relationship

between the Dravidian languages and the Manding Superset of languages. Dr.

Homburger has also proven that the Manding and Coptic languages are closely related.

The discovery of Intercultural style vessels from Susa (in Iran),Sumerian, Egyptian and

Indus Valley sites suggest a shared ideological identity among these people (Kohl 1978).

In fact the appearance of shared iconographic symbols and beliefs within diverse areas

suggest cultural and ethnic unity among the people practicing these cultures. The

common naturalistic motifs shared by the major civilizations include, writing (symbols),

combatant snakes , the scorpion, bull and etc. This evidence of cultural unity is explained

by the origin of these people in the Proto-Sahara (Winters 1985a, 1989).

 23

The Proto-Saharans or Kushites used similar terms for writing. In general the term for

writing was formed by the labial stops /p/ and /b/. For example:

Dravidian par 'write'

Manding bo, bu 'make a stroke', sebe 'write'

Elamite tipu 'to write'

Galla tafa 'to write'

There are also other corresponding terms for 'mark', or 'draw' that begin with velar stops:

Dravidian kiri, kuri 'write, draw, mark'

Egyptian hti 'carve'

Manding kiri, kiti 'mark'

In Egyptian we have several terms for write 0 ss #, 0 zs # , and 0 ssw #. During the Old

Kingdom writing was referred to as 0 iht # .

The Egyptian term for writing 0 ssw # is analogous to the Mande terms 0 sewe # or 0

sebe # 'writing, trace, design'. In Dravidian among other terms we have rasu 'write', and

shu 'writing' in Sumerian. The Egyptian term 0 zs # is also closely related to Sumerian 0

shu #.

Writing systems among Dravido-African people were mainly devised for two

purposes. Firstly, to help merchants keep records on the business venture they made.
 24

Secondly, the Proto-Saharan script was also used to preserve religious doctrines or write

obituaries.

The scarcity of documents, written for historical preservation among ancient

Dravido-African groups resulted from the fact that the keeping of history, was usually left

in the hands of traditional (oral) historians. These historians memorized the histories of

their nation and people for future recitation before members of their respective

communities. This oral history was often accompanied by music or delivered in poetic

verse and remains the premier source for the history of most African nations even today.

It is obvious that the first inscriptions were engraved in stone by the Proto-Saharans , or a

stylus was used to engrave wet clay (Winters 1985b). The use of the stylus or stick to

engrave clay is most evident in the pottery marks found on the pottery excavated at many

ancient sites which possess similar symbols impressed on the pottery.

This view is supported by the fact that the term for writing in Dravidian and Egyptian

include the consonants /l/, /r/ or /d/.

A "u", is usually attached to the initial consonants (Winters 1985b). For example:

Sumerian ru, shu

Elamite talu

Dravidian carru

Egyptian drf
 25

These terms agree with the Manding terms for excavate or hollow out 0 du #, 0 do #, 0

kulu #, 0 tura #, etc. The Sumerian term for writing was 0 du #. This show that the

Proto-Saharan term for writing denoted the creation of impressions on wet clay and hard

rock.

The origin of writing among the Proto-Saharans as an activity involving the engraving of

stone is most evident in the Egyptian language. This hypothesis is supported by the

Egyptian words 0 m(w)dt #. The term 0 md t # means both '(sculptor's) chisel' and

'papyrus-roll, book'. The multiple meanings of 0 md t # makes it clear that the Egyptian,

and probably other descendants of the Proto-Saharans saw a relationship between

engraving stone and the creation of books.

 26

Other Egyptian lexical items also support the important role Proto-Saharans saw in

engraving rocks, and writing. In addition to md t we have, 0 hti # 'carve, sculpture' and 0

iht # 'writing'. The fact that iht is an Old Kingdom term for writing, almost identical to

hti, is further evidence that writing involved the engraving of stone.

POTTERY INSCRIPTIONS

The Proto-Saharan writing was first used to write characters on pottery (Winters 1980), to

give the ceramics a talismanic quality . Similar signs appear on Chinese, Harappan, South
 27

Indian Megalithic, Libyan and Cretan pottery (see figure 1). These signs were invented

by the Proto-Saharans for purposes of communication. These pottery signs agree with the

so-called linear Egyptian signs mentioned by Petrie (1921, p.83). They frequently appear

on Egyptian pottery .

Moreover Dr. J.T. Cornelius (1956-57) used epigraphic evidence to show that the

graffiti marks on the South Indian Megalithic pottery has affinity to other ancient scripts

including the Libyan, Egyptian and Cretan signs.

The pottery signs were symbols from the Proto-Saharan syllabic writing. David (1955)

was sure that the Dravidian and Cretan writings were analogous to the Egyptian pottery

script. The comparison of these pottery symbols support this view.

28
 29

The Egyptian pot marks in Upper and Lower Egypt. Petrie (1900) was the first to record

the Egyptian potmarks. These potmarks are found on pottery dated to Dynasties O to I

(van den Brink 1992). These Thinite potmarks published by van den Brink (1992) agree

almost totally with the Oued Mertoutek, Gebel Sheikh Suleiman, Harappan, Proto-

Elamite and Proto-Sumerian (see figure 3).

SYLLABIC WRITING

It is clear that a common system of record keeping was used by people in the 4th and 3rd

millennium B.C. from Saharan Africa, to Iran, China and the Indus Valley. Although the

Elamites and Sumerians abandoned the Proto-Elamite writing and the Uruk script

respectively, in favor of cuneiform writing, the Dravidians, Minoans (EteoCretans) and

Manding continued to use the Proto-Saharan script (see figure 2) (Winters 1985c).
 30

The oldest Proto-Saharan syllabic inscriptions come from Oued Mertoutek and Gebel

Sheikh Suleiman. These inscriptions are over 5000 years old (Wulsin 1941; Winters

1983a ).

The Oued Mertoutek inscription was found in the Western Sahara (see figure 4). This

inscription was found on the lower level of Oued Mertoutek and dated to 3000 B.C. by

Wulsin (1941). The Oued Mertoutek inscription like other Libyco-Berber writing is in the

Manding (Malinke- Bambara) languages.

In ancient time a major Manding group was the Garamantes, they lived in the Fezzan.

Graves (1980) claimed that the Garamantes who primarily lived in the Fezzan region of

Libya, founded Attica, and worked the mines at Laureuim and Trace in Asia Minor.

The Oued Mertoutek inscription is of a ram with syllabic characters written above the

ram, and within the outline of the ram's body (see figure 4). This inscription written in an

aspect of Manding was deciphered in 1981 (Winters 1983a).

 31

We were able to decipher the Oued Mertoutek inscription, and the Minoan Linear A,

Harappan writing and the Olmec script because of the Vai script (Winters

1984a,1984b,1984c). Winters (1977,1979) discovered that the Vai syllabary of 200

characters matched all the signs in the syllabaries of Crete, Olmec America, Oracle Bone

writing of China and the Harappan script (Winters 1979,1983b,1983c). And that due to

the genetic linguistic unity of the people who made these signs, when you gave the signs

in these diverse areas, the phonetic values of the Vai signs, but read them in the

Dravidian or Manding language you could read the ancient literature of Crete and the
 32

Indus Valley (Winters 1985b). Thus the syllables which retain constant phonetic values

can be used by different groups to write their own languages.

Many would-be decipherers have assumed that it is almost impossible to prove a

genetic linguistic relationship using data of comparatively recent time-depth. But this

view of archaeological decipherment is untenable. In fact, in the well known

decipherments of Egyptian and Cuneiform, linguistic data of a comparatively recent time-

depth was used to interpret the inscriptions. For example, Jean Champollion used Coptic

to read the ancient Egyptian writing. And Sir Henry Rawlinson, the decipherer of the

cuneiform script used Galla (a Cushitic language spoken in Africa) and Mahra ( a south

Semitic language) to interpret the cuneiform writing. This meant that we could read the

Proto-Saharan writing using recent Manding and Dravidian linguistic data.

This view is supported by the use of cuneiform writing by different groups in West Asia

and Asia Minor. The cuneiform script was used to write many distinct languages

including Akkadian, Elamite, Hurrian, Hittite and Sumerian. The key to deciphering the

world of cuneiform writing was the fact that each sign had only one value.

As a result, to read a particular cuneiform script took only the discovery of the language

written in the cuneiform script. Therefore the decipherment of the Persian cuneiform

script provided the key to the cuneiform cognate scripts. The decipherment of the ancient

Manding inscriptions using the Vai sounds, was the key to the decipherment of the Proto-

Saharan scripts: Linear A, the Oracle Bone writing, the Olmec and the Harappan writing

(Winters 1979, 1983b,1984).

 33

Indus Valley Writing

The Harappans have left us thousands of written documents. These documents are called
seals by archaeologists. The Harappan seals are written in a Dravidian language
anologous to Tamil (Winters,1990).

Contraversey surrounds the Indus Valley writing.

Recently , Steve Farmer, Richard Sproat and Michel Witzel,

in “The Collapse of the Indus-Script Thesis: The myth of

Harappan Civilization” ( Electronic Journal of Vedic

Studies, 11/2 (2004), pp.19-57) argue that the Harappan

people of the Indus Valley were illiterate. Farmer et al,

claim that the Indus Valley seals have no phonetic content.

Any theory must have internal and external validity. The

question we must ask is “Does the theorems in the Farmer et

al, article measure the content it was intended to

measure?” The answer to this question is a simple “No”.

Farmer et al make several theorems ,generally they

claim that the Indus Valley symbols must be heraldry or a

bevy of magical symbols because the inscriptions are: 1)

low sign frequency on the Indus seals (p.36) ; 2) signs to

brief to reflect phonetic encoding (pp.31-33); 3) absence

of manuscript tradition; and 4) the inability of the

Dravidian theory to lead to the decipherment of the Indus

Valley writing (p.20).

All of these theorems are easily falsified. Firstly,

 34

there is a manuscript tradition for Indus valley writing.

This is supported by the appearance of Harappan signs on

India pottery . B.B. Lal found that 89% of the graffiti

marks on the megalithic red-and-black ware had affinity to

Indus Valley signs. In addition many symbols found in the

Indus Valley writing are also found on the Indian Punch

marked coins.

The research by Lal indicated that the Indus Valley

writing should be read from right to left. This view was

later confirmed by I Mahadevan in 1986.

Secondly, Dr. Winters have pointed out elsewhere, that

the Harappan seals record “wish statements” and can be

deciphered using the Tamil/Dravidian language

(see):http://geocities.com/olmec982000/IndusInspiration.pdf

. The ability to read Indus seals using Dravidian

languages, and presentation of the grammar and

morphology of the Indus Valley writing falsifies the

variable of Farmer et al, that we are unable to

decipher the Indus Valley writing using the Dravidian

hypothesis (see:

http://us.share.geocities.com/olmec982000/HarWRITE.pdf

). Until, Farmer et al, can present linguistic

evidence to falsify Dr. Winters’ decipherment we must

reject researchers contention that Dravidian languages can

 35

not be used to read Indus inscriptions.

I point out in the above article that the sayings on the

seals, are similar to the messages recorded in the

TiruKurral. The Holy Kural contains statements that the

Dravidians used to help them attain aram, and the good life

through doing Good.

The Indus valley seals were probably worn by the

Harappans given the presence of a hole on the back of

the seals where a string could be placed to tie the

seal around an ankle or neck. If Farmer knew anything

about Dravidian culture and history he would have

known that the Dravidians have a long tradition of

wearing totems containing short messages with great

import or meanings. For example, the "thaalikkodi",

talisman on a turmeric-dyed string or gold, worn

around the neck, is the Tamil counterpart to the

Western wedding ring now. In addition,Indians continued

the practice of using a few letters to write literate

text , as indicated by the punch marked coins that

average 5 symbols.

Farmer et al, argue that the inscriptions on the

Harappan seals are too short to represent phonetic

reading . This hypothesis must also be rejected, the

research of Farmer et al lacks validity, fails to support

 36

their conclusions and is contradicted by their own

statistics. For example, Farmer et al make it clear that

the mean word length for comparable Egyptian text is 6.94

and Indus text

7.39, this shows no statistical difference and should

have alerted the researchers’ to the fallacy of their

arguments.

Farmer et al’s, contention that there is no evidence

of short text in the history of writing representing

literate text is contradicted by the history of writing in

ancient Egypt. Dr. Gunter Dryer, an Egyptologist, has found

Egyptian text with as few as two (2) symbols that are

phonetically readable ( see:

 37

http://www.archaeology.org/9903/newsbriefs/egypt.html ).

This is evidence that the literature review of the

authors does not reflect the actual knowledge base for

ancient writing. The absence of support for any of the

theorems made by Farmer et al, mean that we must reject

their hypothesis based on a content analysis of their work

and evidence and lack of validity. Internal validity

 38

relates to the ability of the content of a research

proposal to draw correct inferences from the data. In

Farmer et al the researchers state that the mean word

length for comparable Egyptian text is 6.94 and Indus

text 7.39, this shows no statistical difference, and

thus fails to support Farmer’s inference that the

short length of Indus text indicate illiteracy.

External validity arises in research when the

experimenters draw inaccurate inferences from the

sample data and apply them to external phenomena .

Farmer et al maintain that no ancient writing system

can produce literate text with just a few signs. This

theorem is falsified by the discovery of Dr. Dreyer of

readable Egyptian text with as few as 2 symbols.

Continued debate of Farmer et al is giving the

work of these authors more weigh than it deserves. An

examination of the content of Farmer et al make it

clear that the review of the literature indicate that

they did not read all of the previous research in this

area, it they had they would have found the work of

Dr. Dreyer that contradict their proposal that short

inscriptions indicate illiteracy. A cursory

examination of the content of the work proves that it

lacks content validity , and does not support the

 39

claims made by the authors regarding the literacy of

the Harappans. It makes it clear that the data

presented by Farmer et al did not accomplish the

stated purpose of their article. We have only one

recourse, rejection of the theories made by Farmer et

al.

Scholars early recognized that the Harappans may have spoken a Dravidian language.

This view was supported by 1) the fact that in the West Indus , Brahui , a Dravidian

language is spoken in Baluchistan and Afghanistan; 2) the Rig Veda is written in a form

of Dravidian called SumeroTamil; and 3) the presence of Dravidian loan words in

Sanskrit indicated that Dravidian speakers probably occupied northern India and Pakistan

before the Aryan invasion of the area after 1000 BC with their grey ware.

Over 4000 Harappan seals have been found at 60 different sites. The script incorparates

419 signs. But there are around 60-70 basic syllabic signs. The remaining 339 signs are

compound or ligature signs formed by the combination of two or more basic signs

(Winters,1987). There are also 10 ideographic signs (Winters, 1987a).

 40

Inscribed Indus Valley Objects

Harappan writing appears on both steatite seals and copper plates/tablets (Winters,
1987b). Ninety percent of the seals are square, the remaining ten percent are rectangular.
They range in size from half-an-inch to around two-and-half inches.

Harappan seals and sealings

The seals have a raised boss on the back pierced with a hole for carrying, or being placed
on parcels. These seals carry messages addressed to the gods of the Harappans requesting
support and assistanc in obtaining "aram" (benevolence) (Winters 1984a, 1984b).

The key to deciphering the Harappan script was the recognition that the Proto-Dravidians
who settled the Indus Valley had formerly lived in the Proto-Sahara were they used the
so-called Libyco-Berber writing (Winters,1985b).

Further research indicated that the Indus Valley writing was related not only to the
Libyco-Berber writing but also the Brahmi writing. Some researchers claim that the
Brahmi writing is related to Phonecian writing. But a comparison of the Brahmi vowels
and Phonecian vowels fail to show similarity.
 41

Comparison of Brahmi and Phonecian Vowels

Although we fail to see a relationship between the Brahmi and Phonecian vowels,
comparison of the Brahmi and Harappan vowels show complete correspondence.

It is clear that a common system of record keeping was used by people in the 4th and 3rd
millenium BC from Saharan Africa to Iran, China and the Indus Valley (Winters, 1985).
The best examples of this common writing were the Linear A script, Proto-Elamite, Uruk
script Indus Valley writing and the Libyco-Berber writing (Winters, 1985). Although the
Elamites and Sumerians, abandoned this writing in favor of the cuneiform script, the
Dravidians, Minoans, Mande (the creators of the Libyco-Berber writing) and Olmecs
continued to use the Proto-Saharan script.

The Sumerian, Elamite, Dravidian and Manding languages are genetically related
(Winters,1989). This is not a recent discovery by linguist and anthropologists. N.
Lahovary in Dravidian Origins and the West (Madras,1957) noted structural and
grammatical analogies of the Dravidian , Sumerian and Elamite languages. K.L.
Muttarayan provides hundreds of lexical correspondences and other linguistic data
supporting the family relationship between Sumerian and Dravidian languages. And D.
McAlpin in Proto-Elamo Dravidians: The Evidence and its Implication (Philadelphia,
1981) provides documented evidence for the family relationship between the Dravidian
languages and Elamite.

Using the evidence of cognate scripts and the analogy between the Dravidian language,
and the languages spoken by peoples using cognate scripts it was able to make three
assumptions leading to the decipherment of the Harappan writing.

One, it was assumed that Harappan script was written in the Dravidian language.

Two, it was assumed that the Dravidian language shares linguistic and cultural affinities
with the Elamites, Manding and Sumerians--all of whom used a similar writing system.
 42

This led to a corollary hypothesis that the Harappan writing probably operated on the
same principles as the related scripts, due to a probable common origin.

Three, it was assumed that since the Harappan script has affinity to the Proto-Manding
writing (Libyco-Berber) and the Manding language, the Harappan script could be read by
giving these signs the phonetic values they had in the Proto-Manding script as preserved
in the Vai writing, since the northern Manding languages like Bambara and Malinke are
genetically related to Dravidian languages like Tamil. The discovery of cognition
between Vai and Harappan signs ont the one hand, and the corresponding relationship of
sign sequences in the Harappan and Vai scripts helped lead to a speedy reading and
decipherment of the Harappan signs.

This made it possible to use symbols from the Manding-Vai script to interpret Harappan
signs. The only difference, was that when interpreting the phonetic values of the
Harappan script, they were to be read using the Dravidian lexicon. The terms used to
express the translation of Harappan signs are taken from Burrow and Emeneau's,
Dravidian Etymological Dictionary. Once the seals were broken down into their syllabic
values, we then only had to determine if the Harappan term was a monosyllabic word, or
if it was a term that was made up of only one syllable.

A comparison of the Harappan signs, Brahmi and Vai writing show that the signs have
similar phonetic value. It is the similarity in phonetic value that allows us to read the
Indus Valley writing use Vai signs.

Many would-be deciphers of dead languages have assumed that you can not read ancient
language using contemporary or comparatively recent time-depth lexical material. This is
a false view of archaeological decipherment. For example, Jean Champollion used Coptic
to read the Egyptian hieroglyphics; and Sir Henry Rawlinson, used Galla ( a Cushitic
language spoken in Africa) and Mahra (a South Semitic language) to decipher the
cuneiform writing.

Moreover, we know from the history of the cuneiform writing several different languages
(Eblate, Elamite, Sumerian, Assyrian, Akkadian, etc.) were used written in the cuneiform
script. This meant that if cuneiform could be used to write different languages, why
couldn't the Proto-Saharan script used in ancient middle Africa (and later Asia and
Europe), be used to write genetically related languages like the Manding and Dravidian
groups.
 43

This decipherment Harappan seals (Winters, 1984a, 1984b, 1987a, 1985, 1987b, 1989)
shows that they do not contain the names and titles of their owners. They are talismans,
with messages addressed to the Harappan gods requesting blessings. This is in sharp
contrast to the Mesopotamian seals which were used for administrative and commercial
purposes.

The Harappan seals illustrate that the Harappan Believer wanted from his god 1) a good
fate; 2) spiritual richness; 3) virtue; 4) humility; and 5) perserverance. They were
protective amulets found in almost every room in the city of Mohenjo-Daro.
 44

A Unicorn seal, note the manger under the head of this god

The Harappan writing was read from right to left. Above we can see the average
Harappan seal and its talismanic formula: 1) depiction of Diety X (in this case Maal/Mal)
as an animal, and then the votive inscription was written above the Deity.

The manger, under the head of Maal is made up of several Harappan signs. It reads Puu-i-
Paa or " A flourishing Condition. Thou distribute (it)".

The Harappan seals were often found by archaeologists in a worn condition. The fact that
the seals often had holes drilled in the back, suggest that the seals were tied with string
and hung around the neck or from belts.

Perforated boss on the back of many seals

The importance of the Harappan seals as amulets is attested too by the popularity of
wearing totems among the Dravidians. During the Sangam period (of ancient Dravidian
history), the warriors and young maidens wore anklets with engraved designs and or
 45

totemic signs. Moreover at the turn of the century, in South India, it was common for
children to wear an image of Hanumen around their neck; while wives wore a marriage
totem around their necks as a symbol of household worship.

In the Harappan worldview animals were used in many cases to represent characteristics
human beings should exhibit. As a result the bird was recognized as a symbol of the
highest love, due to its devotion to its offspring ; and the elephant due to its strict
monogamy symbolized the right attitude towards family life and social organization.

The principal Harappan gods are all depicted on the Harappan seals. The main god of the
Harappans was the unicorn. The unicorm probably represented Maal ( Vishnu or
Kataval). This god was held in high esteem by the coherds and shepards. Other Harappan
gods were represented by the water buffalo, humped bull, elephant, rhino, tiger and
mythological animals.

Seals depicting the Harappan gods

The crescent shaped horns of the oxen or castrated bull on some Harappan seals may
represent the mother goddess "Kali". The lunar crescent shape of the oxen's curved horns
recalled the lunar crescent which was the primordial sign for the mother goddess.

Siva was probably represented by the the short horn bull. The elephant on the Harappan
seals may have represented Ganesa/Ganesha the elephant headed god of India. In the
"Laws of Manu", it is written that Ganesha is the god of the 'shudras', the aboriginal
population of India. The Tamilian name for the elephant god is 'Pillaiyar, palla and
 46

veeram'. The hunter figure on Harappan seals wearing the horned headdress and armed
with a bow and arrow may have been Muruga, the son of Uma.

Pillayar, is considered the shrewdest of animals. He is associated with Harvest time,

abundance and luck. The appearence of mythological animals on the Harappan seals may
refer to Pillayar or Ganesha in one of his many transformations.

In summary , my decipherment of the Harappan seals indicate that the seals and copper
plates/tablets are amulets or talismans. They are messages addressed to the Dravidian
gods of the Harappans, requesting for the bearer of the seal the support and assistance of
his god in obtaining aram (Benenolence). As a result, each animal figure on the seals was
probably a totemic deity, of a particular Dravidian clan or economic unit that lived in the
Harappan cities. As a result, eventhough the Harappans had different gods, each god was
seen by his follwers as 1) a god having no equal, 2) a god having neither Karma, and 3)
as a god who is the ocean of aram.

The Harappan believed that man must do good and live a benevolent life so he could

obtain Pukal (fame), for his right doing(s). Through the adoption of benevolence an

individual would obtain the reward of gaining the good things of life--the present world--

and the world beyond. In general, the Harappan seals let us know that the Harappans

sought righteousness and a spotlessly pure mind. Purity of mind was the 'sine qua non',

for happiness 'within'.

Dravidian Writing After the Decline of Indus Valley

Writing on South India Ceramics

Writing was never lost in India. The earliest writing appeared on

Indus ceramics. These signs are the same as the Indus Valley signs.

Indus Valley type signs continued to be produced throughout India,

especially South India as evidenced by the appearances of these signs

on megalithic pottery, burial urns and palm leaf manuscripts. The

 47

evidence, when we considered, the cermaic scripts, show an unbroken

history of writing from Harappan to contemporary times.

Archaeologists agree thet Black and red ware (BRW) was unearth on

many South India sites are related to Dravidian speaking people. The

BRW style has been found on the lower levels of Madurai and

Tirukkampuliyur. B.B. Lal in 1963 made it clear that

the South Indian BRW was related to Nubian ware dating

to the Kerma dynasty. This is supported by the appearance of

Harappan signs on India pottery . B.B. Lal (1963) found that

89% of the graffiti marks on the megalithic red-and-black ware had

affinity to Indus Valley signs. This research indicated that the Indus

Valley writing should be read from right to left. This view was later

confirmed by I Mahadevan in 1986.

Indus Pot from Revi Adchanallur Urn, Tamil Nadu

Singh (1982) made it clear that he believes that the BRW radiated

from Nubia through Mesopotamia and Iran southward into India.

BRW is found at the lowest levels of Harappa and Lothal dating to

2400BC. T.B. Nayar in The problem of Dravidian Origins (1977) proved

 48

that the BRW of Harappa has affinities to predynastic Egyptian and

West Asian pottery dating to the same time period.

After 1700 BC, with the end of the Harappan civilization spread BRW

southward into the Chalcolithic culture of Malwa and Central India down

to Northern Deccan and eastward into the Gangetic Basin. The BRW of the

Malwa culture occupied the Tapi Valley Pravara Godavari and the Bhima

Valleys. In addition we find that the pottery used by the at

Gilund, Rajasthan on the banks of the Bana River, was also BRW (see:

Gilund,

at:http://bestindiatours.com/archaeology/harappan/Gilund.html

). This indicates that the people at Gilund, like other people in North

India at this time were Dravidian speakers given their pottery. If this

is so, the building where the "bin" containing the cache of

BMAC seals were found probably represented a warehouse where exotic

objects imported from Central Asia were probably stored. Let's not

forget, that Central Asia was a major center for Harappan copper and

tin for hundreds of years.

S. Gurumurthy in Ceramic traditions in South India

upto 300 AD, found , like B.B. Lal before him that the graffiti on

South Indian pottery was engraved with Harappan signs. He found that

the Tamil Nadu pottery graffiti agrees with Brahmi letters dating

back to 1000BC. This further supports the view that continuity existed

between Harappan writing and Brahmi-Tamili writing discovered in South

India.

The recent discovery of a Tamil-Brahmi inscription

at Adichanallur is very interesting. It is interesting

because the site is dated between 1500-500BC by

thermo-luminescence.
 49

Dr. Satyamurthy of the Archeaological Survey of India (ASI) and

Superintending Archaeologist and Director of the excavation has dated

the inscription to 500BC. Dr. Sampath, retired Director of Epigraphy of

ASI, has tentatively read the inscription as “Ka ri a ra va

[na] ta”. This inscription is very interesting because the date for

the site would place the writing at an age hundreds of years prior to

the introduction of Brahmi writing to India.

Inscribed Pot from Adichanallur

It is no secret that the Megalithic sites of

India have yielded many inscriptions that agree with

signs associated with the Indus Valley writing.

Moreover, it is no secret that the archaeologist B.B.

Lal was able to learn the direction for the writing of

the Indus Valley script by studying cognate sites on

South Indian Pottery.

Since the date of this inscription is very early

 50

it suggest that it may be written in the Tamil of the

Indus Valley seals. I decided to test this hypothesis

by attempting to read the Adichanallur inscription

based on my decipherment of the Harappan writing.

The Adichanallur inscription has five singular

signs and two compound signs (5 & 6). We will read the

inscription from left to right.

Reading the signs from left to right we have the

following: (1) ta, (2) na, (3) ka, (4) I, (5) tata,

(6) uss vey and (7) gbe. Signs 2 and 7 are not

normally found in the corpus of Harappan signs. As a

result, I had to refer to the Vai inscriptions which I

have used over the years to find the phonemic values

of the Harappan signs. In Vai, the term gbe, means

“righteousness”.

The transliteration of the inscription therefore

reads: Ta na ka i tata uss-vey gbe. The translation

of the inscription is the following: “ Tanaka, give

him greatness, open (up for his) Fate righteousness”.

The term tata, can be read as greatness or father. So

we might also read the inscription as follows: “Thou

father Tanaka, (will have a) Fate blossoming

Righteousness”.

These readings of the Adichanallur inscription

are tentative. This epigraphic finding and others is

making it clear that the history of writing in India

must be re-written. The epigraphic evidence from South

India is making it clear that the Indian writing has a

continuous history spanning from Indus Valley times

 51

down to South Indian pottery and later Tamili writing.

Yet, the fact remains the inscriptions from this

site are older than any Brahmi inscriptions. It stands

to reasoning that these inscriptions may be read

syllabically, rather than as an alphabet. This would

explain the economy of signs used to write this

obituary. I look forward to there reading by “experts”

in this area.

The model for the geometric patterns for the Brahmi script,

was Indus writing; Eventhough Gift Siromoney and Michael Lockwood

believe the the Brahmi script was invented by one person and that

the writing system has no relation to Harappan writing.Like

Siromoney & Lockwood , Irathan Mahadevan believe there is no

relationship between Brahmi and Indus writing, because the later

sctipt in his opinion is pictorial, and Brahmi was based on

Phonecian writing.

V. Kannaiyan on the otherhand, believes that Brahmi was

borrowed from the Tamil, by Asoka and is based on the Tamil Nadu

Cave script. Mahadevan disputes this theory in Early Tamil

Epigraphy:from the earliest time to the Sixth Century AD.

Although this is Mahadevan's opinion this view is not supported

by the evidence. S. Gurumurthy in Ceramic traditions in South India

upto 300 AD, found , like B.B. Lal before him that the graffiti on

South Indian pottery was engraved with Harappan signs. He found that

the Tamil Nadu pottery graffiti agrees with Brahmi letters dating

back to 1000BC.
 52

Dr. Gurumurthy attempted to read the Indus Valley writing based

on his identification of Indus writing as a form of Brahmi.To read

the signs he uses the rebus method, for example he identified the so

called jar sign as "head of a human body". Mahadevan rejects

Gurumurthy”s decipherment because the lexical items Gurumurthy calls

Proto Dravidian include many Sanskrit terms. In addition, Mahadevan

believes that basing the Indus-Brahmi connection on "mere resemblances"

may be methodologically unsound.

Eventhough Mahadevan rejects Dr. Gurumurthy's decipherment of Indus

writing, the fact remains that as pointed out by Dr. Gurumurthy the

Brahmi signs are identical to inscriptions from Tamil Nadu. The

recent discovery of urns from Adhichanallur in Tamil Nadu, by the

Archaeological Survey of India dating back to 800 BC with Tamil-

Brahmi inscriptions make it clear that the Tamil were writing long

before the Brahmi script was popularized in India.

Poorna Chandra Jeeva , in his recent Decipherment of the Indus

Writing also used Brahmi. He believes that Tamil-Brahmi or Tamili,

is a descendant of Indus writing and that Indus writing is an

alphabetic system. He accepts the view that Brahmi-Tamil, was

influenced by the Phoenician writing.

Dr. Jeeva, like Dr. Gurumurthy, claims that the jar sign is of

a head. But instead of claiming the head is human, Jeeva says it's a

cow head and gives it the sound value "aa". This does not correspond

to Tamil, "aa" does not mean cow head, or head for that matter.The

DED says that "aa" meams `ox', not cow head. This is not the only

mistake made by Jeeva in his interpretation of Indus writing if he

is reading the signs using Brahmi. Jeeva claims that he has found

diacritic marks in the Harappan writing (see:pp.253-257). The main

problem with his reading of the signs is that the sound values he
 53

gives the signs via his rebus reading of the script are inconsistent

and based on pure conjecture. Although Dr. Jeeva has not deciphered

the Indus writing he does provide numerous examples of Brahmi,

Tamili and Indus signs that are analogous.

Winters’ decipherment of the Indus writing made it clear that

Brahmi was based on the Indus writing, but he did not use Brahmi or

Tamili to read the signs, because he had discovered that the sound

values for script could be found in the Vai writing system of West

Africa. The major problem with Dr. Gurumurthy and Dr. Jeeva's use of

Brahmi to decipher the Indus writing is that they assumed that Brahmi

was modeled on Phonecians This was the worng theoretical frame work to

base their hypothesis since the Brahmi and Phonecian signs have

different sound values..

Winters’ read the Harappan signs by giving them the same sound

values as the Vai writing. I was able to do this because the Mande

languages are related to Sumerian, Elamite and Tamil. A comparison of

the sound values he gave Indus writing, when he compared Indus signs to

Brahmi signs. This test illustrated that the writing systems are

genetically related.

Winters’ decipherment of the Indus Valley writing indicate

that the Brahmi script is a descendent of the Harappan writing. Many

scholars have suggested continuity between the Harappan script and

the Brahmi semi-alphabetic writing. Hunter and Langdon believed that

there was a connection between Harappan writing and Brahmi. Moreover

Mahalingam has made it clear that the Brahmi script was probably

invented to write non-Aryan languages.

Other points supporting this view are the Boustrophedon style

of writing the Harappan signs, and the Asokan inscriptions at

 54

Yerragudi in Andhra Pradesh. Other evidence of Brahmi being written

from right to left comes from Sinhalese inscription, and early coins

from Eran.

Some scholars dispute the theory that a continuity exists

between the Harappan and Brahmi script. This is false. The Brahmi

and Old Phoenician share similar shapes, but the characters lack

phonemic agreement . The origin of the Brahmi writing is Ethiopic.

In conclusion, geometric forms of the Brahmi writing are based

on Harappan writing. Jeeva and Gurumurthy are correct in claiming a

genetic relationship between Brahmi and Harappan writing, even

though they have failed to decipher the Indus writing. Their failure

in deciphering the writing results from their inability to see a

relationship between the Harappo-Dravidians and their kin, the

Mande, Sumerian and Elamite speakers who used similar writing

systems (Proto-Sumerian, Linear Elamite and Libyco-Berber [Vai]

writing]. This failure, was compounded by the fact that Jeeva and

Gurumurthy assumed 1) Indus writing was primarially pictographic and

tried to read the writing using a rebus method without really

knowing the culture and ideology of the Harappans. They are

interpreting these signs based on their view of artifacts in the

contemporary world, as a result, we find one of the researchers

seeing the jar sign as a human head and the other recognizing the

same signs as that of a cow head.

Secondly, Dr. Jeeva and Dr. Gurumurthy read the Indus

symbols as an alphabet. The fact that the writing is syllabic, and

not alphabetic suggested that you must read the language using the

monosyllabic words associated with each sign. Moreover, the Tamili

alphabet is too limited in number to account for the over 400 signs
 55

used to write the Indus seals. This is the basic reason why Dr.

Jeeva has not provided different readings for each of the man signs

that include attached signs/ lines. Moreover, although Dr. Jeeva

reads, the man sign as "k", it would have been more logical to read

the signs as "al", since this is the monosyllabic word for `man' in

the Dravidian Etymological Dictionary (DED). Use of a rebus reading

to read all the Harappan signs unless the figure is clearly that of

something we can not dispute will always lead to the wrong

interpretation of the meaning of a sign e.g., reading the sign for

man as `k', instead of `al'.

Eventhough we can not use Brahmi or Tamili to read Indus

writing, we must reject the view of Mahadevan and Siromoney that

Brahmi was not modeled on the Indus writing. This view is supported

by the fact that the Brahmi and Indus signs have similar values to

Winters’ identification of the sound values for Indus signs. This

finding is congruent with the archaeological evidence and sound values

Winters gives Indus writing.

Punch Marked Coin Script

The Punch Marked coins of India also show the continued use of

Indus Valley signs after the decline of civilization in the Indus

Valley.Dilip Rajgor, in Punchmarked coins of Early Historic India

(2001), gives a detailed history of punchmarked coins in India dating

from 600 B.C. to the rise of Magadha around 400 B.C.

Dr. S. Kalyanaraman, in Survival of Sarasvati hieroglyphs into historical

periods (see: http://spaces.msn.com/members/sarasvati97/) provides a detailed

discussion of the relationship between the punch-marked coins of India and the

Harappan writing. Dr. Kalyanaraman wrote that : “There are remarkable parallels
 56

between the Sarasvati heiroglyphs and the symbols used on punch-marked coins and on

the sign graphs employed on Sohgaura copper plate inscription – which becomes an

explanatory Rosetta stone in two scripts: Sarasvati hieroglyphs and brahmi script.

Such a similarity has been noted by many scholars, some also suggested that the

devices on punch-marked coins are a survival of the Sarasvati (Harappan) Civilization:

Dr. Pran Nath had noticed the resemblance between the signs on punch-marked coins

and the Sarasvati epigraphs (Indus inscriptions) and had published his study of punch-

marked coins in the British Museum in: Indian Historical Quarterly, Vol. vii, 1931,

Supplement, pp. 11 f. Bhattacharya, P.N., A hoard of silver punch-marked coins from

Purnea, MASI, No. 62, pp. 5ff; Durga Prasad, Classification and significance of the

symbols on the silver punch-marked coins of ancient India, JASB, 1934, pp. 217 ff.;

Observations on different types of silver punch-marked coins, their period and locale,

JASB, 1937, pp. 322 ff.; Suryavamshi, Bhagwan Singh, Interpretation of some symbols of

the punch-marked coins, Journal of the Oriental Institute of Baroda, Vol. XII, No. 2, Dec.

1962, pp. 152 ff.; Fabri, C.L., The punch-marked coins: a survival of the Indus

civilization, JRAS, 1935, p. 307 ff.; Altekar, AS, Symbols on the copper band in the Patna

museum, JNSI, Bombay, Vol. IX, Part II, pp. 88-92. K.N. Dikshit noted in Numismatic

Society and United Provinces History Society meetings that certain metal pieces

recovered during the excavations at Mohenjo-daro agreed in shape and in weight-system

with the punch-marked coins. (Reported by KP Jayaswal in: JRAS, 1935, p. 721). “
 57

Comparison of Punch and Indus Valley Writing

Dr. Kalyanaraman continued that “Some excerpts from CL Fabri’s article which

appeared in JRAS, 1935 (pp. 307-318) are presented hereunder: “Punch-marked coins

are the earliest Indian archaeological ‘document’ that exists,” wrote Mr. EHC Walsh in

1923 in a thorough study of these interesting remains of Indian proto-historic times.

(Indian Punch-marked Coins (a Public coinage issued by Authority), in Centenary

Supplement, JRAS, 1924, pp. 175-189. At the time when he wrote his article, very litt,e if

anything, was known of the freshly discovered prehistoric civilization in the Indus Valley,

at Harappa and Mohenjo-daro…Mr. Walsh said in 1923: “Until our present sources of

information are added to, the significance of the marks on punch-marked coins must

remain the subject of speculation and surmise.”…

“The significance of these symbols, however, is of paramount importance. That they

have some meaning, no one doubts. It is obvious that a few of them are solar, lunar, and
 58

such-like symbols; but these are only a fraction of the great mass. It is not impossible

that they hold the clue to early Indian history, and if one day scholars can ‘read’ these

signs, they will be able, probably, to reconstruct a period of Indian history of which we

do not know anything at present. I am writing not to explain these symbols, but to show

that the solution of this problem is closely connected with the deciphering of the Indus

Valley script.

It is also interesting to note that K.K. Thapliyal in Studies in Ancient Indian Seals,

found that many Indian seals from the 3rd century BC to the 7th century AD , portray

animals, with an inscription above the animal ( just like in the case of the Harappan seals)

which were indicative of the religious views of the owner of the seal. This evidence

supports our finding that the Harappan seals were worn (or carried) by the Harappans to

help them remember the Harappan man's goal, to obtain guidance from his deity.

Origin of Sanskrit Writing

The Sanskrit language is highly respected in India. It carries the religion and culture of

all the people of India. A.B. Keith, in A History of Sanskrit Literature (1928), makes it

clear that Sanskrit was probably invented as early as the 6th Century BC. Although

Sanskrit is recognized as a major language controversy surrounds its origin. Some

researchers see it as language given to mankind by the Gods, while others see Sanskrit as

an artificial language created to unify the diverse Indian nationalities. Keith in

A History of Sanskrit Literature commenting on this state of affairs noted that: “ We

must not…exaggerate the activity of the grammarians to the extent of suggesting…that

Classical Sanskrit is an artificial creation, a product of the Brahmins when they sought to

counteract the Buddhist creation of an artistic literature in Pali….Nor…does Classical

 59

Sanskrit present the appearance of an artificial product; but rather admits exceptions in

bewildering profusion, showing that the grammarians were not creators, but were

engaged in a serious struggle to bring into handier shape a rather intractable material”

(p.7).

Although, this is the opinion of Keith it appears that Sanskrit is lingua franca, an

artificial language, that was used by the people of India to unify the multi-lingual people

of the India nation. This led Michael Coulson, in Teach Yourself Sanskrit (1992) to write

that “The advantage to using Sanskrit, in addition to the dignity which it imparted to the

verse, lay in its role as a lingua franca uniting the various regions of Aryan India”

(p.xviii).

As a result of its use as a lingua franca it has absorbed over the years many terms from

various Indian languages. But at the base of Sanskrit we probably have a Dravidian

language since Dravidian was spoken not only in the South, it was also the language of

many Tribal groups in the North. The view that the Dravidian languages are the

foundation of Sanskrit is supported by both Konow and Keith who noted that the

auxiliary verbs, periphrastic future, and the participial forms in Sanskrit were probably

of Dravidian origin. Stephan H. Levitt in a recent article in the International Journal of

Dravidian Linguistics, has suggested that Sanskrit may have adopted many North

Dravidian forms 1. In addition, Levitt is sure that certain Sanskrit etyma for animals and

plants that end in –l, are of Old Tamilian origin.

Due to early Dravidian settlement in Northern India there is a Dravidian substratum

in Indo-Aryan. There are Dravidian loans in the Rg Veda, even though Aryan recorders
1
S.H. Levitt, Some new Dravidian etymologies for Sanskrit
words, Internationa Journal of Dravidian Linguistics,
32(2), pp.7-22.
 60

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

Dravidians.

There are islands of Dravidian speakers in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. There are

over 300,000 Brahui speakers in Qualat, Hairpur and Hyderabad districts of Pakistan.

There are an additional 40,000 Brahui in Emeneau and Burrow (1962) found 500

Dravidian loan words in Sanskrit. In addition, Indo-Aryan illustrates a widespread

structural borrowing from Dravidian in addition to 700 lexical loans (Kuiper 1967;

Southward 1977; Winters 1989). Iran and several thousand along the southern border of

Russia and Yugoslavia (ISDL 1983:227).

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

number of Dravidian loans in Indo-Aryan is expected to reach 750.

There are numerous examples of Indo-Aryan structural borrowings from Dravidian.

For example, the Bengali and Oriya plural suffix -ra is analogous to the Tamil plural

suffix -ar. Both of these suffixes are restricted to names of intelligent beings. (Chatterji

1970:173) Oriya borrowed the -gura plural suffix from the Dravidians. (Mahapatra

1983:67) The syntax of the Indo-Aryan languages is ambivalent because of the

Dravidian influence on these languages. As a result, they represent both SOV and SVO

traits.

According to Arthur A. Macdonell in A Sanskrit Grammar for Students (1997), says

that the Sanskrit language is known by many names. It was called Nagari ‘urban writin’,

Deva-nagari ‘city writing of the gods’. V. Kanakasabhai in the Tamils Eighteen

Hundred Years Ago, says that Sanaskrit is called Deva-nagari, because it was introduced

to the Aryas by the Nagas. The characters associated with Deva-nagari are the characters
 61

used to write Sanskrit today.

The Naga were Semitic speaking people from Ethiopia. According to Macdonell the

Semitic writing was introduced to India around 700BC2 (pg.2).

The Semitic speakers of Africa founded the ancient civilization of Punt. As a result I

refer to the speakers of Ethiopian Semitic languages Puntites.

The Puntite languages are characterized by a basic vocabulary, a system of roots and

vowel patterns and the formation of derived verbs by prefixes. The South Arabian

languages: Sabaean, Minaean and Hadramautic, are slightly different from modern South

Arabic, but analogous to the Ethiopian languages. This represents the influence of the

Jectanid tribes on South Arabic.

It is clear that the Proto-Puntite speakers lived in Africa. Wolf Leslau has made it clear

that Ethiopic and South Arabic form a dialectical unity. Dialectical unity means that two or

more languages form a unified dialect.

According to Haupt, in 1878, Akkadian , Minaean and Ethiopic all belong to the same

group of Semitic languages, even though they are separated in time and by great

geographical distance. This is surprising considering the fact that Ethiopic and Akkadian

are separated by many hundreds of years. The best example of this unity is the presence

of shared archaicism . The linguistic feature of shared archaicism is the appearance of the

vowel after the first consonant of the imperfect.

For example, one of the most outstanding features of Puntite, is the presence of a vowel

following the first consonant in the verb form known as the imperfect, e.g., yi quattul

(using the hypothetical verb consonants q-t-l, yi is the person marking prefix) or yi k'ettl

2
Arthur A. Macdonell in A Sanskrit Grammar for Students. Oxford University Press,
Delhi,( 1997) p.2.
 62

'he kills'. In Southwest Semitic the form of the perfect is yu qtul-u . Here we have the same

hypothetical q-t-l form, but there is no vowel following the first consonant of the verb root.

This results from the fact that in Black African languages we rarely, if at all find words

formed with double consonants.

The fact that Southeast Semitic has shared archaicism with Puntite shows that at the time

the Akkadians and Ethiopic speakers separated these groups had dialectical unity. The lack

of this trait in Arabic and Hebrew shows that they have been influenced by the Indo-

European speakers who invaded Palestine between 1500 B.C. and Arabia 900 B.C.

Semitic verb root Akkadian Ethiopic/S. Arabian

kl 'to be dark' ekelu Soqotri okil 'to cover'

mr 'to see' amaru Geez ammara;Tigre amara

br 'to catch' baru Soqotri b'r

dgh 'remove' daqu Geez dagba 'to perforate'

kdn 'to protect' kidin Tigre kadna

Clearly Black African language forms are the base of most Semitic words. Anta Diop

recognized that in relation to Arabic words, once the first consonant was suppressed, there is

often an African root, This phenomenon was also recognized by Wiener who believed that

many African words were of Arabic origin.

The Cushitic substratum has strongly influenced the phonology, morphology, syntax and

vocabulary of the Puntite languages.

Cushitic English Semitic

Saho la wild cow *la-at

Samoli la id. id.

This supports the view of I.M. Diakonoff Hamitico-Semitica Languages. (Moscow ,

1965, p.104.) that the Semitic speakers and A-Group lived in close proximity in ancient

times.
 63

This makes it clear that Arabia, which was occupied in neolithic times by the Anu, was

probably not the original homeland of the Semitic speakers.

It also appears that Puntite speakers lived in Libya which was part of the Proto-Sahara.

As early as 2500 B.C. , Puntite people migrated into North Africa. Josephus maintained in

Antiquities, that the people of Punt founded Libya. The Bible says "...[T]he Libyans that

handle the shield" (Jeremiah 46:9); "Persia, Ethiopia and Libya with them; all of them with

shield and helmet". (Ezekiel 38:5) The Puntites are mentioned in Egyptian literature as

invading this area around 2400 B.C., according to the text of Herkhut, found at Aswan,

written during the VIth Dynasty of Egypt.

It is interesting to note that as pointed out in the West Asia unit many people of Persia

and Ethiopia originally had lived in Libya. This supports the Bible's listing of the Libyans ,

Persians and Ethiopians of analogous ethnic groups.

In the ancient literature of Kemit (Egypt) and Mesopotamia, Punt was recognized as a

sea power. From ports along the Red Sea, the people of Punt traded with of Kemit,

Arabia, West Asia and Mesopotamia.

Modern Ethiopia is part of the land known to the Egyptians "the lands of the gods". The

inhabitants of Punt, on the other hand called their country Arwe. It was from here that the

Semitic speaking nations moved northward into Arabia and Mesopotamia.

The Kemites allude to the Arwe Kingdom in a short story which tells how a good natured

serpent of great size speaks to a ship wrecked Egyptian whose life he saved:

"I am the Prince of Punt...But it shall happen when[thou]

art parted from this place ,that never shalt thou behold this island more, for it

will become water...."

This "good natured serpent" may refer to the King-Serpent that ruled Punt according to
 64

Ethiopian traditions.

The Ethiopians who conquered India were members of the Arwe civilization. According

to Ethiopian traditions the first empire was founded by Za Besi Angabo, of the Arwe line

which ruled Ethiopia for 350 years. This dynasty began in 1370 B.C. The traditions of this

dynasty are recorded in the Kebra Nagast , or "Glory of Kings".

The greatest and most famous of the rulers of Arwe was the Queen of Sheba, known as

Makeda of Tigre, and Bilkis to her subjects in South Arabia.

Za Sebado, was the grandfather of Makeda, he ruled Ethiopia from 1076-1026 B.C., his

wife was named Cares. Makeda was born in 1020 B.C., and ascended the throne in 1005

B.C., she ruled Ethiopia and South Arabia until 955 B.C. During her rule she visited King

Solomon of the Jews. Here Makeda was impregnated by Solomon.

Makeda had a son. He was named Ebna Hakim, from his descendants Hebrewism came

to Ethiopia.

Queen Makeda had a residence near Axum, but the main capital of Arwe was located

along the southern end of the African shores of the Red Sea in a district called Azab, Asabe

or Saba, which meant in the Tigrinya language of the time "the southern lands". The name

Sheba , was a variation of the name Saba or a specific designation.

When Ebna Hakim took the throne, his mother had already established colonies in

Arabia and India. Hakim took the name of Menelik I in 955 B.C. At Axum, Menelik

established his capital. The first city of Axum was at Dar'o Addit Kilte.3
Menelik I, ruled an empire extending from the Blue Nile to Eastern India. He later,

according to tradition, made the empire much larger. After Menelik the people of Arwe

worshipped either Hebrewism or the serpent Arwe.

In the Kebra Nagast, a history of the Ethiopians written by Ethiopians, we find mention
3
. There is evidence that Menelik I may have conquered
Axum, because in the Book of Aksum, it is maintained that the
city of Axum (Aksum), was founded by Aksumaw, son of Ityopis
(Ethiopia), a great grand-son of Noah.
 65

of the Arwe kings who ruled India. The founder of the dynasty was Za Besi Angabo. This

dynasty according to the Kebra Nagast began around 1370 BC. These rulers of India and

Ethiopia were called Nagas. The Kebra Nagast claims that " Queen Makeda "had servants

and merchants; they traded for her at sea and on land in the Indies and Aswan". It also says

that her son Ebna Hakim or Menelik I, made a campaign in the Indian Sea; the king of India

made gifts and donations and prostrated himself before him". It is also said that Manalik

ruled an empire that extended from the rivers of Egypt (Blue Nile) to the west and from the

south Shoa to eastern India", according to the Kebra Nagast. The Kebra Nagast

identification of an eastern Indian empire ruled by the Naga, corresponds to the Naga

colonies in the Dekkan, and on the East coast between the Kaviri and Vaigai rivers.

By the 6th Century BC, the Naga had strong kingdoms in India between the Jumma and

the Ganges river and Sri Lanka. It is interesting to note that in the fragments sculptures of

the Naga Kings, at the Government Museum , Madras from Amaravati they are

distinguished by the hood of five or seven headed serpent behind their backs. Naga

princesses had a three-headed serpent and ordinary Naga were typified with a single-headed

serpent.

The major Naga tribes were the Maravar, Eyinar, Oliyar, Oviyar, Aru-Valur and

Parathavar. The Nagas resisted the invansion of the Cholas . In the Kalittokai IV,1-5, the

Naga are described as being "of strong limbs and hardy frames and fierce looking tigers

wearing long and curled locks of hair." The Naga kings of Sri Lanka are mentioned in the:

Mahawanso, and are said to have later become Dravidians, as testified to by the names of

these people: Naganathan, Nagaratnam, Nagaraja and etc.

The Naga were defeated by another group of Dravidian speaking people form
 66

Kumarinadu. Kamarinadu is suppose to have formerly existed as a large Island in the India

ocean which connected India with East Africa. This landmass is mentioned in the

Silappadikaram, which said that Kamarinadu was made up of seven Nadus or regions. The

Dravdian scholars Adiyarkunallar and Nachinaar wrote about the ancient principalities of

Tamilaham, which existed on Kamarinadu.

Kumarinadu was ruled by the Pandyans/Pandians at Madurai before it sunk beneath the

sea. The greatest king of Kumarinadu was Sengoon. According to Dravidian scholars that

Pandyans worshipped the goddess Kumari Amman. This Aman, probably corresponds to

the ancient god Amon of the Kushites. The Kalittokai 104, makes it clear that after the

Pandyans were forced to migrate off their Island home into South India, "to compensate for

the area lost to the great waves of the sea, King Pandia without tiresome moved to the other

countries and won them. Removing the emblems of tiger (Cholas) and bow (Cheras) he, in

their place inscribed his reputed emblem fish (Pandia's) and valiantly made his enemies bow

to him".
67
 68

In Figure 1a, we compare Ethiopic, Sanskrit and the Vai writing. It is obvious that these

writing system share many common symbols. It is obvious that Sanskrit and Ethiopic share

symbols and it supports the view that the Ethiopians introduced writing to the Indo-

European speaking Indians. The excavation of inscribed pottery from South India make it

clear that the Dravidians already possessed writing before the rise of Brahmi .

The major gift of the Naga to India was the writing system: Deva-Nagari. Nagari is

the name for the Sanskrit script. Over a hundred years ago Sir William Jones, pointed out

that the ancient Ethiopic and Sanskrit writing are one and the same. He explained that this

was supported by the fact that both writing systems the writing went from left to right and

the vowels were annexed to the consonants. Today Eurocentric scholars teach that the

Indians taught writing to the Ethiopians, yet the name Nagari for Sanskrit betrays the

Ethiopia origin of this form of writing. In Geez, the term nagar means ‘speech, to speak’.

Thus we have in Geez, with the addition of pronouns: nagara ‘he spoke, nagarat ‘she

spoke’ and nagarku ‘I spoke’.

Moreover, it is interesting to note that Sanskrit vowels: a,aa,',i,u,e,o, virama etc., are in

the same order as Geez. Y.M. Kobishnor, in the Unesco History of Africa, maintains that

Ethiopic was used as the model for Armenian writing, as was many of the Transcaucasian

scripts. The Naga introduced worship of Kali, the Serpent, Murugan and the Sun or Krishna.

It is interesting that Krishna, who was associated with the Sun, means Black, this is

analogous to the meaning of Khons of the Kushites. Homer, described Hercules as follows:

"Black he stood as night his bow uncased, his arrow string for flight". This mention of

arrows identifies the Kushites as warriors who used the bow, a common weapon of the

Kushites and the Naga.

 69

Overtime the Nagas were absorbed into the Dravidian population. Today the Naga, are

recognized by some researchers as Dravidians.

Recently, Dr. K. Loganathan ,has begun to reconstruct the Tamil and Sumerian origin

of many Sanskrit terms. Controversy surrounds the work of Dr. Loganathan because it is

claimed that Sanskrit is a representative of the ancestral Indo-Aryan language and has

been in pristine shape since Panini. Coulson maintains that “Panini is obeyed and

bypassed”4.

Sanskrit is not genetically related to the Indo-European family of languages as many

researchers have assumed. As a result, Coulson notes that “the syntax of Classical Sanskrit

in many major respects bears little resemblance to the syntax of any other Indo-European

language (leaving aside similarities in certain kinds of Middle Indo-Aryan writing”5.

This view is untenable. W.D. Whitney, in Sanskrit Grammar (1889) observed “of

linguyistic history there is next to nothing in it all [Classical Sanskrit]; but only a history

of style, and this for the most part showing a gradual depravation, an increase of

artificially and intensification of certain more undesirable features of the language such

as the use of passive construction and of particles instead of verbs, and the substitution of

compounds [i.e., agglutination] for sentences”. Professor Whitney found this

characteristic strange because agglutination is associated with non-Indo-European

languages like Dravidian.

The Sanskrit language has been under constant change since its creation as various

grammarians took liberty with Sanskrit to make it conform to the popular colloquial

language forms of the grammarian. As a result, Sanskrit writers have made numerous

4
Coulson, p.xxii.
5
Ibid, pp.xxii.
 70

innovations in writing Sanskrit. Coulson wrote that “The syntax of Classical Sanskrit

In many major respects bears little resemblance to the syntax of any other Indo-European

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

writing”(p.xxii). Dr. Coulson adds that “Furthermore, because of the long history of the

language andt the varied sources from which it drew its vocabulary, many Sanskrit words

have a number of meanings; and this feature, too, is much augmented by compounding

(e.g., because it literally means ‘twice born’, the word dvijah can signify ‘brahmin’,

‘bird’ or ‘tooth’ (p.xxiv).

The diverse origin of Sanaskrit encouraged grammarians and authors of Sanskrit

literature to make innovations in writing the language that according to Coulson led to

“Panini…[being] obeyed and bypassed” (p.xxii). As a result, Sanskrit is a learned

language that has been modified over time by numerous poets writing in Sanskrit and

thus we see innovations not in conformity with Paninis grammar by Aśvaghosa, and

Kalidasa (Samkara)6.

Conclusion

The epigraphic evidence from India make it clear that there were

two traditions of writing in India. The first tradition of writing

began with the introduction of Indus Valley writing by Dravidians in

the Indus Valley . This tradition of writing was maintained by the

Dravidian people who used this writing to engrave South Indian pottery

and make the punch marked coins.

The second tradition of writing was introduced to the Indo-Aryan

speaking people of North India, by the Naga, or Ethiopians who once

ruled much of India. The Naga invented the Brahmi/Sanskrit writing to

6
Coulson, p.xx-xxi.
 71

give the diverse speaking people of North India a lingua franca. This

writing was used by the Indo-Aryans to record the Vedas and other Indo-

Aryan oral traditions. These writings make it clear that the Indo-

Aryans were nomadic people, who lacked their own writing system when

they entered India or began to socialize with the more culturally

advanced Dravidian speaking people.

We must conclude from the epigraphic evidence that continuity

exist between the Indus Valley writing and the so-called Brahmi-Tamilli

writing dating back to 1000 BC. This is supported by the numerous

examples of engraved pottery the Tamili-Brahmi inscriptions found on

the mudhumakkal thaazhi (urns of the ancient) recovered from South

Indian archaeological sites dating back to 1200-1000 BC; and the Punch

Marked coins that date back to 600 BC. The pottery writing has been

dated back to 1500-500 BC, as evidenced by the thermo-luminescence

dating of the Adhichanallur site.

The epigraphic evidence is clear, the Harappan writing was written

in a Dravidian language similar to Tamil. See my paper:

http://us.share.geocities.com/olmec982000/HarWRITE.pdf

This paper provides a grammar and dictionary of the Harappan writing.

This decipherment provides insight into the mind and culture of the

Harappans.

The goal of the Harappans was the “realizing of God”. The Harappan

seals and copper plates are amulets or talismans. They are messages

addressed to the Dravidian gods requesting their support and assistance

in obtaining aram (benevolence). A superior Harappan was the man or

woman who “realizes God”. See:

http://geocities.com/olmec982000/IndusInspiration.pdf

The Indus seals make it clear that the Harappans were seeking the

avoidance of all mental evils, viz.,jealousy, covetousness and etc.

 72

Thus the Harappans felt that if they lived a benevolent life so that

they might obtain pukal (fame) for their “right doing”.

The search by the Harappans for aram, is seen in a two sided

seal found in the Indus Valley (see the attached picture). On one side

of the seal we have a forest scene and two bulls with short horns. On

the other side, we have four signs.

Two sided Indus Valley seal

The interpretation of these signs can be found in my Indus Valley

Dictionary the number of the signs is placed in parenthesis ( ).The

forest scene can probably be interpreted as Ka Siva “ [Oh] Siva Shelter

(Me). The signs on the opposite side of the seal are a min (277), tu

ga vey (136), Uss (123) tu tu (165 reduplication of the term tu). The

translation of these signs is: “ Make virtue and glowing admiration

[my] Fate [and] abundant virtue”.

Understanding the Harappan script allows us to read the Tamili-

Brahmi inscriptions from the ancient urns found in Tamil Nadu. For

example, one of the inscriptions was written inside one of the urns
 73

found at Adhichanallur, near Tirunelveli in Tamil Nadu. The signs on

the urn were read by Dr. Salyamurthy of the Archaeological Survey of

India as : Ka ri a ra va [na] ta. If we read the signs, using my

decipherment, we read Tanaka I tata Uss vey gbe or “Tanaka, give him

greatness, open (up for his) Fate Righteousness”.

The reading of the Adhichanallur inscription is tentative. This

epigraphic finding and others is making it clear that the history of

writing in India must be re-written. The epigraphic evidence from South

India and the Punch Marked coins, is making it clear that the Indian

writing systems of the Dravidian speaking people has a continuous

history, spanning from the Indus Valley times, down to South Indian

pottery Tamili-Brahmi writing and contemporary

writing among the Dravidian speaking people.

 74

References
Anselin,A. (1992). Samba, Gaudeloupe: Editions de L'Unirag.

Appiah,K.A.(1993). Europe upside down:Fallacies of the new

Afrocentrism.Sapina Newsletter: A Bulletin of the Society
for African Philosophy in North America,5(1), 1-8.

Agrawal,D.P.,S.Kusumgar.1974.PREHISTORIC CHRONOLOGY AND

RADIOCARBON DATING IN INDIA. New Delhi.

Andersson,T.G. 1934. CHILDREN OF THE YELLOW EARTH:STUDIES IN

PREHISTORIC CHINA. London.

Andronov,M.S. 1963-64. LEXICOSTATISTIC ANALYSIS OF THE CHRONOLOGY

OF DISINTERGRATION OF PROTO-DRAVIDIAN. Moscow.

__________. 1968. TWO LECTURES ON THE HISTORICITY OF LANGUAGE

FAMILIES. Annamalai: University Press.

Bagchi,P.C. 1955. INDIA AND CENTRAL ASIA. National Council of

Education :Calcutta.

Barath Tibor. 1973. A MAGYAR NEPEK OSTORTENTE. Montreal.

____________. 1984. EARLY HUNGARIANS. Montreal.

Beauclair,Inez de. 1966. TRIBAL CULTURES OF SOUTHWEST CHINA. Taipei :The

Orient Cultural Service.

Bellwood,P. MAN'S CONQUEST OF THE PACIFIC. London:Oxford University Press.

Bouda, K. 1955-56. DRAVIDISCH UND URALATAISCH, Lingua 5: 129-144.

Brenjes,B. 1983. "On Proto-Elamite Iran", CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY, 24(2) :

240-243.

Bynon,T. 1977. HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS. Cambridge University Press:London.

Bekerie,A. (1994). The four corners of a

circle:Afrocentricity as a model of synthesis, Journal of
Black Studies, 25(2), 131-149.

Cornelius, J. T. (1954)."The Dravidian Question", Tamil

Culture 3,(2) , pages 92-102.
 75

Cornelius, J. T. (1957-1957). "Are Dravidians Dynastic

Egyptians",Transactions of the Archaeological Society of
South India, 91-94.

Caldwell, R. 1957. A COMPARATIVE GRAMMAR OF THE DRAVIDIAN OR

SOUTH INDIAN FAMILY OF LANGUAGES. Madras.

Chang, K.C. 1980. SHANG CIVILIZATION. Yale University Press:New Haven.

__________. 1987. THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF ANCIENT CHINA. Yale Univ.

Press: New Haven.

___________. 1964. "Prehistoric and early historic culture horizons and traditions in
South China". CURRENT ANTROPOLOGY ,5(5):359-375.

Chatterji,S.K. 1970. THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF BENGALI

LANGUAGE. New Delhi.

David,H.1955. "Some Contacts and Affinities between the Egypto-Minoan and

Indo(Dravido)-Sumerian Culture". TAMIL CULTURE, 4(2)__.

David,These. 1986. " Le Colloque Franco-Sovietisque sur l'Archeologie de l'Asie

Centrale des Origines a l'Age du Fer", DIALOGUES D'HISTOIRE ANCIENNE,
12:481-494.

Dergachev,V. 1989. "Neolithic and Bronze Age Cultural Communities of the Steppe
Zone of the USSR". ANTIQUITY, 63:793-802.

Delafosse,M. 1901. ESSAI DE MANUEL PRATIQUE MANDE AU MANDINGUE.

Paris.

Desanges,J. 1981. "The Proto-Berbers". In GENERAL HISTORY OF AFRICA 2, (Ed.)

G. Mokhtar. London : Heinemann Educational Books.

D'iakonov,I.M.1985. "On the original home of the speakers of Indo-European.

JOURNAL OF INDO-EUROPEAN STUDIES,13(1&2):92-174.

David, H S. (1955). "Some contacts and affinities between

the Egypto-Minoan and the Indo(-Dravido) Sumerian
Culture",Tamil Culture 4, (2), 169-175.

Delafosse, M.(1899). "Vai leur langue et leur systeme

d'ecriture", L'Anthropologie 10, .

Delafosse,M. (1929). La Langue Mandigue et ses dislectes,

Paris: Geuthner, 1929.
 76

Desplanges, L. (1906). "Notes sur les origines des

populations

Nigerienne", L'Anthropologie 17, 525-527.

Desplanges, L.(1907). Le Plateau Central Nigerien , Paris.

Diop,C. A. (1974). The African Origin of Civilization, (ed

& trans) by Mercer Cook, Westport:Lawrence Hill & Company.

Diop,C A.(1991).Civilization of Barbarism:An Authentic

Anthropology,(trans ) by Yaa-Lengi Meema Ngemi and (ed) by
H. J. Salemson and Marjoliiw de Jager, Westport:Lawrence
Hill and Company.

Ehret,C.1988. "Language change and the material correlates of language and ethnic
shift". ANTIQUITY, 62:564-74.
Emeneau,M. and T. Burrow. 1962. DRAVIDIAN BORROWINGS FROM
INDO-ARYAN. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Farid., El-Yahky.(1985) "The Sahara and Predynastic

Egyptian Overview",The Journal for the Society for the
Study Egyptian Antiquities 7, (1-2) , 58-65.

Farid ,El-Yahky.(1984). "The Origin and Development of

sanctuaries in Predynastic Egypt", Journal of the Society
for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 14, no3 (1984), pages
70-73.

Fairservis,W.A. 1975. THE ROOTS OF ANCIENT INDIA. Chicago:

University of Chicago.

_____________. 1986. "The Harappan civilization according to its writing:A Model for
the decipherment of the script". TAMIL CIVILIZATION, 4(3&4):103-130.

_____________. 1987. "Cattle and the Harappan chiefdoms of the Indus Valley".
EXPEDITION, 28 (2):43-50.

_____________. 1991. "G.L. Possehl's and M.H. Raval's Harappan Civilization and
Rodji". JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ORIENTAL SOCIETY,111(1):108-13.

Francefort,Henri-Paul. 1987a. "La Civilisation de l'Indus aux rives de l'Oxus".

ARCHAEOLOGIA (December):44-55.
 77

____________________. 1987b. "Aux frontieres de la civilisation de l'Indus".

DOSSIERS HISTOIRE ET ARCHAEOLOGIE, no. 11: 80-81.

____________________. 1985. "Fortifications et societes en Asie Centrale

Protohistorique". DE L'INDE AUX BALKAN RECUEIL JEAN DESHAYES, (Paris)
pp.379-388.

Fu Ssu-nien. 1935. "Yi Hsia tung hsi Shuo". PAPERS PRESENTED TO MR. TS'AO
YUAN PEI ON HIS SIXTY-FIFTH BIRTHDAY. Nanking:Institute of History and
Philology, Academia Sinica.

Gadd,C.J. 1924. A SUMERIAN READING BOOK. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Gafurov,B.G.1980. "Some Problems/questions about the ethnic history of peoples of

Central Asia in the most ancient period."JOURNAL OF CENTRAL ASIA 3(1):19-29.

Gamkrelidze,T.V. & Ivanov,V.V. 1990. "The early History of Indo-European

languages". SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, (9):110-116.

Gardin, Jean-Claude. 1987. "Recherches sur la Bactriane Ancienne", DOSSIERS

HISTOIRE ET ARCHAEOLOGIE, no. 12: 77-79.

Gostony,C.G. 1975.DICTIONNAIRE D'ETYMOLOGIE SUMERIENNE ET

GRAMMAIRE COMPAREE. Paris:De Boccard.

Gupta, S.P. 1979. ARCHAEOLOGY OF SOVIET CENTRAL ASIA AND THE

INDIAN BORDERLANDS. B.R. Pub. Corp: Delphi. Vol.2.

__________. 1982. "The Late Harappan: A Study in cultural dynamics".IN HARAPPAN

CIVILIZATION, (ed.) by G. L. Possehl,(New Delhi):5l-59.

Graves, Robert.(1980). The Greek Myths, Middlesex:Penguin

Books Ltd,2 vols.

Hau, K.(1967). "The ancient Writing of Southern Nigeria",

Bulletin de l'IFAN 29, (1-2), 150-185.

Hau, K. (1973). "Pre-Islamic writing in West Africa",

Bulletin de l'IFAN , series B, no1 .

Joshi,J.P. 1978. "Interlocking of Late Harappa culture and painted grey ware
culture in the light of recent excavations". MAN. ENVIRON. 2:98-.

Kan Yang. 1985. "The Bronze culture of Western Yunnan". BULL. OF THE ANCIENT
ORIENT MUSEUM, (Tokyo) 7:47-91.
 78

Kao Chih-Hsu.1986."An Introduction to Shang and Chou Bronze nao excavated in South
China". In STUDIES IN SHANG ARCHAEOLOGY,(ed.) by Chang, New Haven:Yale
University Press.

Kanakasabhai,V. 1966. THE TAMILS EIGHTEEN HUNDRED YEARS AGO.

Madras.

Khalopin,I. 1989. "Origins of the Bronze Age Culture of South Asia". BULL. INFORM
IASCCA (Moscow), no.15:74-84.

Kircho,L. 1981. "The Problem of the origin of the Early Bronze Age Culture of Southern
Turkmenia". In P.L. Kohl, THE BRONZE AGE CIVILIZATION OF CENTRAL ASIA,
(pp.96-106). Armouk, N.Y.:M.E. Sharp.

Kirch,P.V.1985. FEATHERED GODS AND FISH: AN INTRODUCTION TO

HAWAIIAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND PREHISTORY. Honolulu:University of
Hawaii Press.

KiZerbo,J. 1979. "TheCradle of Mankind", UNESCO COURIER, (AUG.-SEPT.)

PP.39-43.

Knorozov,Y.V. 1979. PROTO-INDICA. Moscow.

Kohl,P.L. 1988. "The Northern 'Frontier' of the Ancient Near East: Trans-Caucacia and
Central Asia Compared". AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY, 92:541.

_________. 1978. "The balance of trade in Southwestern Asia in the mid-Third

Millennium BC". CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY, 19(3):463-92.

_________. 1979. (Ed.) THE BRONZE AGE CIVILIZATION OF CENTRAL

ASIA. Armouk,N.Y.:M.E. Sharp.

Kothandaraman,R. 1988. "Complers in Tamil Syntax". INTERNATIONAL

JOURNAL OF DRAVIDIAN LINGUISTICS, 15(2):190-233.

Kramer,S.N. 1963. THE SUMERIANS. Chicago.

Kuiper,F. B.J. 1974. "The genesis of a Linguistic Area". INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

OF DRAVIDIAN LINGUISTICS,3(1).

Lacouperie,T. de. 1886. "The Kushites-who were they". BABYLONIAN AND

ORIENTAL RECORD, pp.25-31.

_______________. 1887. THE LANGUAGES OF CHINA BEFORE THE CHINESE.

London: David Nunn.
 79

_____________________. 1889. "Origin from Babylon and Elam of the early Chinese
Civilization. A Summary of the Proof". BABYLONIAN AND ORIENTAL RECORD ,3
(5):97-111.

Lahovary, N.(1957).Dravidian Origins and the West, Madras:

Longman.

Lal,B.B. 1954-1955."excavations at Hastinapura and other explorations in the Upper

Ganga and Sutlej Basins 1950-52."ANCIENT INDIA,10:5-.

_______.1960. "From Megalithic to the Harappan:Tracing back the graffiti on pottery".

ANCIENT INDIA,16.

______. 1963. "The Only Asian Expedition in threatened Nubia:Work by an India

Mission at Afyeh and Tumas". THE ILLUSTRATED TIMES, 20 April.

Langdon,S. 1911. SUMERIAN GRAMMAR AND CHRESTOMATHY. Paris:Paul

Geuthner.

Li Chi.1957. THE BEGINNING OF CHINESE CIVILIZATION. Seattle:

University of Washington Press.

Li Xueqinm. 1986. EASTERN ZHOU AND QIN CIVILIZATION. New

Haven:Yale University Press.

Ling Shun-Sheng.1970. A STUDY OF THE RAFT, OUTRIGGER, DOUBLE AND

DECK CANOES OF ANCIENT CHINA, THE PACIFIC AND THE INDIAN OCEAN.
Nankang:Taipei.

Lord,R.1974. COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS. London: St.Paul's House.

Ligabue,G. and Salvatori,S. (Ed.). 1989. BACTRIA. Roma:Erizzo Editrice.

Kohl, R L.(1978). "The blance of trade in Southwest Asia in

the mid-third millennium B.C.", Current Anthropology19, 463
-492.

Kramer,S.N.(1963). The Sumerians, Chicago:University of

Chicago Press.

Mahadevan,I. 1986. "Towards a grammar of the Indus Texts: Intelligible to the Eye, If
not to the Ears". TAMIL CIVILIZATION 4(3):15-30.

__________.1986b. "Dravidian models of decipherment of the Indus Script: A case

study". TAMIL CIVILIZATION ,4(3):133-43.
 80

Mahapatra,B.P.1983. "Scope of Indo-Aryan Tribal Languages Research".

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DRAVIDIAN LINGUISTICS, 12(1):60-75.

Masson,V.M. 1986. "Ancient Central Asian Civilization trends of development,

assimilation of Ecological niches, cultural links". BULL. INFORM.IASCCA (Moscow),
no. 11:76-84.

Masson,V.M. & T. P. Kiatkina. 1981. "Man at the Dawn". In BRONZE AGE

CIVILIZATION OF CENTRAL ASIA, (ed.) by P.L. Kohl,(Armonk ,N.Y.: M. E. Sharp)
pp. 107-135.

Masson,V.M. & Taylor,T. 1989. "Soviet Archaeology in the Steppe Zone".

ANTIQUITY, 63:779-783.
McAlpin,D.W. 1974. "Toward Proto-Elamo Dravidian", LANGUAGE 50.

___________. 1981. PROTO-ELAMO DRAVIDIAN:THE EVIDENCE AND ITS

IMPLICATIONS .Trans. of the Am. Philosophical Society 71, Part 3:Philadelphia.

Mellarrt,J. 1981. "Anatolia and the Indo-Europeans".JOURNAL OF

INDO-EUROPEAN STUDIES, 9(1/2):135-149.

Meenakshisundaran,T.P. 1965. A HISTORY TAMIL LANGUAGE. Poona.

Meillet,A. 1926.LINGUISTIQUE HISTORIQUE ET LINGUISTIQUE

GENERALE. Paris.

Menges,K. 1966. "Altaic-Dravidian Relationship". THE INTERNATIONAL

CONFERENCE-SEMINAR OF TAMIL STUDIES. Kuala Lumpur.

Muttarayan,K.L. 1975. "Sumerian,Tamil of the First Cankam". JOURNAL OF TAMIL

STUDIES, 7:41-61.

Muttarayan, K L.(1975) ."Sumerian, Tamil of the First

Cankam", Journal of Tamil Studies, no7 ,41-61.

Nayar, T. B.(19770 , The Problem of Dravidian Origins,

Linguistic,Anthropological Approach , Madras: Madras
University Press.

Navarrete, C.(1976). "The Olmec rock carvings at Pijijipan,

Chiapas, Mexico and other Olmec Pieces, from Chiapas and
Guatemala",New World Archaeological Foundation, no35,
Provo,Utah: Brigham Young University Press.

Obenga, Th.(1973). L'Afrique dans l"Antiquite,

Paris:Presence Africaine.
 81

Petrie, F.(1900). The Making of Egypt, London:The Sheldon

Press.

Petrie,F.(1921). Corps of Prehistoric Pottery , London .

Parpola,A. 1975. "Tasks, methods and results in the study of the Indus script'. JOURNAL
OF ROYAL ASIATIC SOCIETY, pp.178-209.

________. 1986. "The Indus Script: A challenging Puzzle". WORLD

ARCHAEOLOGY, 17(3):399-419.

Pope, Maurice. 1975. THE STORY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL DECIPHERMENT.

New York: Scribner's.

Possehl,G.L. 1990. "Revolution in the Urban Revolution: The Emergence of

Indus Urbanization. ANNUAL REVIEW OF ANTHROPOLOGY,19:261-82.

Possehl,G.L. & Raval,M.H. 1989. HARAPPAN CIVILIZATION AND RODJI.

New Delhi:Oxford & IBH Publishing Co.

Romaine,S.1972.SOCIO-HISTORICAL-LINGUISTICS.London:
Cambridge Univ. Press.

Raman,K.V. 1978. "Rock Paintings in Tamil Nadu". TIMES OF

INDIA,24 December, p.8.

Ramsey,S.R. 1987. THE LANGUAGES OF CHINA. Princeton

University Press: Princeton.

Rao,B.K.G. 1972.THE MEGALITHIC CULTURE IN SOUTH INDIA.

Mysore.

Rawlinson,C.B.()."Notes on the early history of Babylonia".

JOURNAL ROYAL ASIATIC SOCIETY, 15:215-259.

Renfrew,C. 1987. ARCHAEOLOGY AND LANGUAGE. London:Johnathan

Cape.
_________. 1988. "Archaeology and Language:Author's
Precis".CURRENT ANTHROPLOGY, 29(3):437-468.

Rosen, Lissie von.1988. LAPIS LAZULI IN GEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

AND IN ANCIENT WRITTEN SOURCES. Paul Astroms forlag:
Partille.

Schoebel,C.1853.Affinities des Langues Dravidienne et des

langues Oural-Altaiques. CONGRESS INTERNATIONAL DES
 82

ORIENTALISTES COMPTE RENDU DE LA PREMIERE SESSION. Paris. 2

Vols.

Sherratt,Andrew and Susan.1988."Archaeology of

Indo-European:an Alternative view". ANTIQUITY 62:584-595.

Singer, I. 1981. "Hittites in Anatolia at the beginning of

the second millennium". JOURNAL OF INDO-EUROPEAN STUDIES,
9(1/2):119-134.

Singh,H.N. 1982. HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY OF BLACK-AND RED

WARE. Delhi.

Sjoberg,A.W. 1984. THE SUMERIAN DICTIONARY. Vol.2. The

University Museum of Philadelphia.

Southworth,F.C.1977. "Lexical evidence for early contacts

between Indo-Aryan and Dravidian". Proc.of the Conf. on
Aryan and Non-Aryan in India. Ann Arbor: UNIV. OF MICHIGAN
December, 1976.

_________. 1985. "The Reconstruction of Prehistoric South

Asian Language Contact ". ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF
SCIENCES,538:207-233.

Soustelle,J. (1984). The Olmecs, New York:Doubleday &

Com.,Inc.

Swadash, M , The Language of the Archaeological Huastecs,

Carnegie Institutions Notes on Middle American Archaeology
and Ethnology, no114, Washington, D C, 1953.

Ting Shan.1935."Yu san-tai tu-yi lun ch'i min-tsu,wen-hua".

BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF HISTORY AND PHILOLOGY.
Nanking:Institute of History and Philology (Academia
Sinica), No.5:89-129.

Trigger, B G.(1980) Nubia Under the Pharoahs,

Boulder,Colorado: Westview Press .

Thundy,Z.P. (1983). The Egyptian osiris-Isis myth

and the Dravidian Cilappadikaram. Tamil Civilization,
1(2),83-90.

Tyler,S.A.1968."Dravidian and Uralian:the lexical

evidence".LANGUAGE, 44(4):798-811.
 83

Vacek,J.1978. "The problem of the genetic relationship of

the Mongolian and Dravidian languages". ARCHIV ORIENTALNI
46:141-151.

_______.1983. "Dravido-Altaic: The Mongolian and Dravidian

Verbal Bases. JOURNAL OF TAMIL STUDIES 23: 1-17.

Vacek,J. 1987. "The Dravido-Altaic Relationship". ARCHIV

ORIENTALNI 55: 134-139.

Vamos-Toth Bator. 1983. TAMANA. Honolulu.

________________. 1985. "Kodaly: A comparative Tamana study

in Tamil-land, Japan and the Carpathian Basin". PROCEEDINGS
INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ASIAN STUDIES,1984. Hong Kong:
Asian Research Service.

Wendorf,F.,Close,A.E.&Schild,R.1985."Prehistoric
Settlements in the Nubian Desert", AMERICAN SCIENTIST 73.

Weber, S.A.(1998). Out of Africa: The initial

impact of millets in South Asia. Current Anthropology,
39(2),267-274.

Wigboldus,J.S. (1996). Early presence of African

millets near the Indian Ocean. In J. Reade, The Indian
Ocean (pp.75-86), London: The British Museum.

Wilson,J.V.K. 1974. INDO-SUMERIAN. Oxford.

Wiener, Leo , Africa and the Discovery of America,

Philadelphia: Innes and Son,1920-22, 3 vols.

Williams, B The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul: Cemetery

L, Chicago:Oriental Institute University of Chicago, 1987.

Winters,Clyde Ahmad.(1977). "The influence of the Mande

scripts on ancient American Writing systems", Bulletin l'de
IFAN, T39,serie b, no2, 941-967.

Winters,C.A.(1979a)."Manding Scripts in the New World",

Journal of African Civilization 1, no1 , 61-97.

Winters, C.A. (1980a)."The genetic unity of Dravidian and

African languages and culture",Proceedings of the
 84

FirstInternational Symposium on Asian Studies (PIISAS)

1979, Hong Kong:Asian Research Service.

Winters, C.A.(1980b). "A Note on the Unity of Black

Civilizations in Africa, IndoChina, and China",PISAS 1979,
Hong Kong :Asian Research Service.

Winters,C.A.(1981a) "The Unity of African and Indian

Agriculture", Journal of African Civilization 3, no1,103.

Winters,C.A.(1981b) "Are Dravidians of African Origin",

P.Second ISAS,1980,( Hong Kong:Asian Research Service),789-
807.

Winters,C.A.(1982). "The Harappan script Deciphered:Proto-

Dravidian Writing of the Indus Valley", P Third ISAS, 1981,
(Hong Kong:Asian Research Service) 925-936.

Winters,C.A.(1983a)."The Ancient Manding Script",In Blacks

in Science:Ancient and Modern, (ed) by Ivan van Sertima,
(New Brunswick:Transaction Books ) pages 208-214.

Winters,C.A.(1983b). "Blacks in Ancient China,Part 1:The

Founders of Xia and Shang", Journal of Black Studies (San
Francisco) 1,no2 .

Winters,C.A.(1984a) "The Indus Valley Writing is Proto-

Dravidian",Journal of Tamil Studies , no 25 (June 1984a),
pp.50-64.

Winters,C.A.(1984b). "A Note on Tokharian and Meroitic",

Meroitic Newsletter\Bulletin d"Information Meroitiques,
No23 (Juin) , 18-21.

Winters, C.A.(1984c). "The Inspiration of the Harappan

Talismanic Seals", Tamil Civilization 2, no1 (March ),
pages 1-8.

Winters, C.A.(1984d). "The Harappan Writing of the Copper

Tablets", Journal of Indian History LXll, nos.1-3 ,1-5.

Winters, C.A.(1985a). "The Proto-Culture of the

Dravidians ,Manding and Sumerians", Tamil Civilization 3,
no1 (March 1985a) ,pages 1-9.
 85

Winters, C.A. (1985b). "The Indus Valley Writing and

related Scripts of the 3rd Millennium BC", India Past and
Present 2, no1 , pages 13-19.

Winters,C.A.(1985c). "The genetic Unity between the

Dravidian ,Elamite, Manding and Sumerian Languages", P
Sixth ISAS ,1984, (Hong Kong:Asian Research Service) 1413-
1425.

Winters, C.A.(1986a) "The Migration Routes of the Proto-

Mande", The Mankind Quarterly 27, no1 , pages 77-96.

Winters,C.A.(1988). "The Dravidian and Manding Substratum

in Tokharian",Central Asiatic Journal 32, nos1-2,131-141.

Winters,C.A.(1989a)"Tamil,Sumerian and Manding and the

Genetic Model",International Journal of Dravidian
Linguistics 18,nol.

Winters,C.A.(1989b)."Cheikh Anta Diop et le dechiffrement

de l'ecriture meroitique",Cabet:Revue Martinique de
Sciences Humaines et de Litterature 8, 149-152.

Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Review of Dr. Asko Parpolas' "The Coming of the Aryans".
International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 18, no2 (1989) , pages 98-127.

Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "The Dravido Harappan Colonization of Central Asia", Central
Asiatic Journal 34, no1-2 (1990), pages 120-144.

Winters, C.A. (1991). The Proto-Sahara. In The Dravidian

encyclopaedia (Vol.1, 553-556). Trivandrum, India:
International School of Dravidian Linguistics.

_________.(1994c). Ancient Dravidian: And introductory

grammar of Harappan with Vocabularies , Journal Tamil
Studies, No.41, 1-21.

_________.(1995a). Ancient Dravidian:The Harappan signs,

Journal Tamil Studies, No.42, 1-23.

__________.(1995b). Ancient Dravidian: Harappan

Grammar/Dictionary, Journal Tamil Studies, No.43-44, 59-130.

Winters, C.A. (1994). Afrocentrism: A valid frame of

reference, Journal of Black Studies,25, (2) 170-190.
 86

Winters,C.A.(1999a). ProtoDravidian terms for cattle.

International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 28, 91-98.

Winters,C.A.(1999b). Proto-Dravidian terms for sheep and

goats. PILC Journal of Dravidian Studies, 9 (2), 183-87.

Winters,C.A.(2000). Proto-Dravidian agricultural terms.

International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 30 (1), 23-
28.

Wulsin,F.R.(1941)The Prehistoric Archaeology of Northwest

Africa, Papers of the Peabody Museum of American
Archaeology and Ethnology, vol 19.

Young,L.M.(1982)."TheShangofAncientChina".CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY , 23(3):311-314.

Zvelebil,K. 1972. "Descent of the Dravidians".

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL DRAVIDIAN LINGUISTICS, 1(2):57-63.

Zoltan Szabo.1985. "Common ancestral roots of the Magyar

and Asiatic Languages". PROC. OF THE SIXTH INTERNATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM ON ASIAN STUDIES 1984. Hong Kong:Asian Research
Service. Vol. 6.

Wesites On the Decipherment of Harappan Writing

http://geocities.com/olmec982000/grammar1.pdf

http://geocities.com/olmec982000/IndusInspiration.pdf

http://geocities.com/olmec982000/vbasic.pdf

http://geocities.com/olmec982000/FishSign.pdf

http://us.share.geocities.com/olmec982000/HarWRITE.pdf
87