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.


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.


Agricultural Terms grain Dravidian valci cotton rice land of cultivation ║ kalan ║ ║ ga(n) ║ fani,fande maro ga ║ ║ Domesticated Animals dog Dravidian Sumerian Manding ori ur wuru horse cattle,cow ║ sheep ║

pani,panchi uri,ari 'husked rice'

Sumerian se Manding se

pari,iyuli naku,gonde 'bull' kuri,koor║ paru, 'mule' bari,wolo gud zar,sar ║ sara ║

gunga, kongo

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; that these

Winters,1981a,1981b). Indian millets agriculture from was



maintains by

"greatly to

influenced" times




It would appear from the archaeological evidence that local millets were cultivated before the 3rd

6 millenium the B.C. of in into (Weber, the 1998; Winters, 1981b). and But rise by of


Harappan the

civilization African

civilization integrated subsistence

Gujarat a well

millets South

were Asian


pattern surrounds to the

(Weber,1998). transportation 1998). pattern Yet it both

Controversy for would in to the note African appear 3rd millets that and


(Weber, in



South It is



millennium the African rice


interesting the



millets was

represent a






domesticate(Weber,1998). The Dravidian terms for millet are listed in the Dravidian 2671. A Etymological cursory below show Dictionary of the at 2359, 4300 and

review the close terms

linguistic Mande

examples and Wolof these below: ---

provided languages language. Kol ---Wolof(AF.) --Mande

from a


relationship are


These sonna

outlined ---









doro koro

7 Tamil connal varaga tinai kural Malayalam Kannanda --colam baraga, varaku baragu tina tene

korale,korle *sona *baraga *tenä *kora




compare These

other terms

Dravidian come

and the

African Mande

agricultural languages West


from Azer,




Soninke), (Oromo, Egyptian. sedentary numerous term

Atlantic Somali,

(Wolof, Nubian

Fulani), and the

Afro-Asiatic ancient from and The a grew

Galla), The

Paleo-Dravido-Africans that including cultivation b j(w) # domesticated wheat is and 0 to

came cattle millet. b many

culture crops for 0

Egyptian #.


Egyptian terms for



cultivation: Galla Tulu Nubian Malinke baji (Dravidian ba, bat 'cultivated language) 'hoe bey, up field' benni ground' be

8 Somali Wolof Egyptian Sumerian buru, These Paleo-African The Egyptian to terms term term many bur for for for mbey, b 'to cultivate root suggest that ambey, beer bey j(w) up' the *be. This

cultivate is terms 0 for

was sa #.


corresponds Galla Malinke Sumerian Egyptian Kannanda


seed,grain: senyi



si se


'granary' cigur

Bozo Bambara Daba Somali Loma Susu Oromo Dime Egyptian id. ssn ssr 'lotus

sii sii sisin sinni sii sansi sanyi siimu 'corn' plant'

9 id. id. The identification in the of sm isw a s>0/#_________e languages seeds suggest at the The #, 'herb, plant' 'weeds' pattern that time fact and for these they that

'seed,grain' groups were




separated Sumerian Ø

into se #

distinct and

Supersets. Ø sen



Ø se # are all separated both in time and geographical area highlight the early use of seeds * se , by

Paleo-Dravido-Africans. The cultivate Ø hbs # their and These and Ø Paleo-Dravido-Africans crops. wb The #, Egyptian mean are used terms 'to the for open hoe hoe up' to to are in

which terms

Egyptian. African Tamil Malayalam Kannanda Nubia Malinke Egyptian Hausa Swahili Egyptian


analogous for

Black hoe: parai para pare bat daba





plough' fartanya palile hbs

10 Galla Sumerian It would buqis buru appear that 'to contrast exist 'root root between b up' up' 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 terms Malayalam Tamil Nubian Wolof Malinke Galla Hausa Kod Kannanda Kpelle This evidence suggest t that d, t > d. The the kope, kuntali Paleo-Dravido-Africans for also possessed other hoe: kuntali 'pickaxe' Kadid konko daba doma garma guddali guddali kali phonological alternation for

contrast patterns hoe

between of many


highlight African

Paleo-Dravido the



11 b l g =/= =/= =/= p r 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


Terms of Civilizing Elements arrow city house writing ║ Dravidian Sumerian Manding kakam kak kala ur,uru ur,bar furu lon mu,u lu,nu carru Ru,sar

║ boat ║

kalam║ kalam║

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 ║ Dravidian Ca, Cira Sumerian Manding Sar Sa gasa(n) gana gana kenton gi ke ║ 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). mannan ║ lord ║ ║

manus ║ mansa ║

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 urukku hole uruttiram tulai dul,tul kura,kuta du,tyolo

Dravidian inumu, irumbu Sumerian Manding gush-kin umu,numu


urudu saani tuufa

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 kunru kur kuru deluge amaru maari mara 'zone of pond'

Dravidian calai Sumerian Manding sila sila

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 1985c,1989b). The Elamites lived in the Fars and the Bakhtiar valleys. This mountain area was named Elimaid in ancient times. (Winters

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.


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.



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, ProtoElamite 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).


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).


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 timedepth 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 ProtoSaharan scripts: Linear A, the Oracle Bone writing, the Olmec and the Harappan writing (Winters 1979, 1983b,1984).


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.


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.


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.


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-iPaa 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

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

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.


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

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

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.

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 TamilBrahmi 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

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

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

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 punchmarked 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). “


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


'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 IndoEuropean speakers who invaded Palestine between 1500 B.C. and Arabia 900 B.C. Semitic verb root kl 'to be dark' mr 'to see' br 'to catch' dgh 'remove' kdn 'to protect' Akkadian ekelu amaru baru daqu kidin Ethiopic/S. Arabian

Soqotri okil 'to cover' Geez ammara;Tigre amara Soqotri b'r Geez dagba 'to perforate' 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 Saho la English wild cow Semitic *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 . 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".


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 IndoEuropean 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 5

Coulson, p.xxii. 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


Coulson, p.xx-xxi.

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 IndoAryan oral traditions. These writings make it clear that the IndoAryans were nomadic people, who lacked their own writing system 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 when

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.

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 TamiliBrahmi inscriptions from the ancient urns found in Tamil Nadu. For example, one of the inscriptions was written inside one of the urns

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.


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 RADIOCARBON DATING IN INDIA. New Delhi. CHRONOLOGY AND


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 LANGUAGE. New Delhi. ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF BENGALI

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. University of Chicago. THE ROOTS OF ANCIENT INDIA. 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 ARCHAEOLOGIA (December):44-55. rives de l'Oxus".

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 languages". SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, (9):110-116. Indo-European

Gardin, Jean-Claude. 1987. "Recherches sur la Bactriane Ancienne", DOSSIERS HISTOIRE ET ARCHAEOLOGIE, no. 12: 77-79. Gostony,C.G. 1975.DICTIONNAIRE D'ETYMOLOGIE GRAMMAIRE COMPAREE. Paris:De Boccard. SUMERIENNE ET

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, PP.39-43. (AUG.-SEPT.)

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". 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. INTERNATIONAL

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 University of Washington Press. Li Xueqinm. 1986. EASTERN Haven:Yale University Press. OF ZHOU CHINESE AND CIVILIZATION. Seattle: New



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-EUROPEAN STUDIES, 9(1/2):135-149. Indo-Europeans".JOURNAL OF


Menges,K. 1966. "Altaic-Dravidian Relationship". CONFERENCE-SEMINAR OF TAMIL STUDIES. Kuala


Muttarayan,K.L. 1975. "Sumerian,Tamil of the First Cankam". 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 ARCHAEOLOGY, 17(3):399-419. Script: A challenging Puzzle". WORLD

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 University Press: Princeton. Rao,B.K.G. Mysore. 1972.THE MEGALITHIC OF CHINA. IN Princeton INDIA.



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 University Museum of Philadelphia. DICTIONARY. Vol.2. The

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 evidence".LANGUAGE, 44(4):798-811. Uralian:the lexical


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 ORIENTALNI 55: 134-139. Relationship". ARCHIV

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),789807. Winters,C.A.(1982). "The Harappan script Deciphered:ProtoDravidian 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 ProtoDravidian",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) 14131425. Winters, C.A.(1986a) "The Migration Routes of the ProtoMande", 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), 2328. 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