Linguistic evidence is the most powerful indicator of the centrality of the eastern side of Africa in the early dispersals of Homo sapiens. Recent investigations suggest that four late Middle and Upper Pleistocene episodes of radical population relocation are mirrored in the histories and relationships of the African language families.
We consider these proposed episodes in reverse chronological order.
Episode 4: The most recent of these episodes dates to around 20,000 years ago, at the time of maximum dry climate in Africa.
In this period, it can be argued, northeastern Africa became a refugium into which populations from distant parts of the continent retreated.
According to the most recent findings, each of the four established families—Nilo-Saharan, Afroasiatic, Niger-Kordofanian, and Khoisan—divides at the deepest level into two primary branches.
In each case one primary branch is spread widely across Africa, while the other primary branch is restricted to one adjacent set of regions in northeastern Africa.
The Omotic primary branch of Afroasiatic is limited to southwestern Ethiopia (Bender 1974, Fleming 1974, Ehret 1995b). One Nilo-Saharan primary branch, Koman, is spoken at the edge of the Ethiopian highlands, immediately adjacent to the Omotic lands (Ehret 2001).
The Kordofanian primary branch of Niger-Kordofanian is spoken in the Nuba Mountains, only 200-300 kilometers from Koman and Omotic languages (Williamson and Blench 2000).
In Khoisan, the restricted primary branch, Hadza, is found somewhat farther off, but still nearby, in East Africa (Ehret forthcoming).
The inescapable import of these findings is that most probable origin place of each of the African language families lay in one composite African region, comprising the southern Middle Nile Basin, the adjacent western and southern parts of the Ethiopian highlands, and certain nearby areas of East Africa (Ehret 1984; Blench 1993).
Making this case still more compelling, we now have strong evidence for postulating a fifth distinct African language family, consisting today of a single remaining language, Shabo.
This language is spoken by a small community of hunter-gatherers located in far southwestern Ethiopia, right in the middle of the origin areas we must postulate for the other four families (Ehret 1995a).
Those scholars who have studied the issue of time depth in the four established families agree that very long chronologies must be postulated (Fleming 1977; Ehret 2000b, 2003).
Ehret has argued from proposed archaeological correlations that the minimum time depth of the Khoisan and Afroasiatic language families is 20,000 years, while the Niger-Kordofanian and Nilo-Saharan time depths may possibly be somewhat shorter, at 15,000 to 20,000 years (Ehret 2000a).
From these adjacent regions, the various families of Africa then spread out to repopulate the continent during the periods after 20,000 years ago.
Episodes 2 and 3. Two previous episodes of population relocation, much earlier in time, are implied in recent conjectures about the relationships among the African language families and between them and families outside Africa (Ruhlen 2003).
According to this proposal, the Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan families belong to a common Afro-Pacific macro-phylum that includes several southern Asian families and the Indo-Pacific family.
Afroasiatic belongs to a second macro-phylum along with Indo-European, the various northern and central Asian language families, and the Amerindian languages.
This hypothesis requires two initial streams of human movement out of Africa, one following the southern margins of Asia, eventually as far as New Guinea and nearby island chains. The second stream would have passed into western Asia and from there into Europe and across central and northern Asia and eventually into the Americas.
Episode 1. The argument has recently been made (but not yet published) that the Khoisan family may form one primary division of the existing human languages, and that all other language the families belong to a second primary division. The argument relates to the question, why do click consonants exist uniquely in the Khoisan family, even though it is known that children of all genetic backgrounds, raised in Khoisan societies, easily learn and use clicks?
The most economical explanation is that the original proto-Human language from which all existing languages derive divided, at the first stage of human dispersal, into two daughter languages.
One of these was distantly ancestral to the Khoisan languages. This language would have maintained the original click consonants. The other was the ancestor of all of the rest of our human languages.
It would have dropped the click manner of articulation, accounting for why its descendants all lack clicks today.
The genetic implications of this explanation are that human beings initially diversified into two groupings of communities within Africa.
One spoke a set of languages found across southern and eastern Africa, of which the Khoisan languages are the last remaining offshoot.
The other primary group would also have been purely African in origin, but it would have accounted for the settlement of the rest of Africa and, subsequently at stages 2 and 3, for the spread of human beings into the rest of the world. (Because no original “Pygmy” languages survived, the evidence is lacking for locating them in this picture. Their no longer extant languages conceivably might have formed a third primary branch of proto-Human.)
Implications for Human Population History Episodes 1-3 implied by the linguistic hypotheses have partial correlates in genetic studies already published (e.g., Tischkoff and Williams 2002, Underhill et al. 2001).
Episode 4 has particular implications for northeastern Africa population genetics: it implies that modern Northeastern African populations should derive from as many as four or five distinct very early human lineages. In addition, however, they should evince significant cross-population gene flow dating to c. 20,000 BP (e.g., Underhill et al. 2001), a consequence of the retreat at that period of these different populations into adjacent areas in and around the southern Ethiopian highlands.Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Episodes 1 fits into what genetics tells us about NRY haplogroups A-M91 and B-M60, only in Africa.
Episodes 2&3 fit the OoA M168 split to YAP (southern Asian D-M174 and African E-M96) and FR-M89 east Mediterranean from whence non-Africa _(F-M213, Caucasus G-M201, western and southern India H-M69, Gravettian culture lands I-M170, E. Med etc J-M172, __Eurasian KR-M9 (K-M9, Hindu India L-M20, M-M4, Ural N-LL22, central and east Asia O-M175, ___"Eurasian/Americas" expansion PR-M45 (P-M45, Americas Q-P36, Europe R-M207))).
Episode 4 seemingly fits A-M91 (specifically A3b2*-M219), E-M96 (under P2's E3* and E3b1*-M35, E3b1a-M78, E3b1c1-M34) FR-M89 (as J2e1-M102 and K2-M70)
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
...Episode 1. The argument has recently been made (but not yet published) that the Khoisan family may form one primary division of the existing human languages, and that all other language the families belong to a second primary division. The argument relates to the question, why do click consonants exist uniquely in the Khoisan family, even though it is known that children of all genetic backgrounds, raised in Khoisan societies, easily learn and use clicks?
The most economical explanation is that the original proto-Human language from which all existing languages derive divided, at the first stage of human dispersal, into two daughter languages.
One of these was distantly ancestral to the Khoisan languages. This language would have maintained the original click consonants. The other was the ancestor of all of the rest of our human languages.
It would have dropped the click manner of articulation, accounting for why its descendants all lack clicks today...
As we go further back in time, it becomes clear that the Khoisan languages are just but among the various oldest languages spoken on the continent, with traits such as the "clicking" sound. And these populations, as it turns out, aren't necessarily as genetically close, as one would imagine:
African Y chromosome and mtDNA divergence provides insight into the history of click languages.
Knight A, Underhill PA, Mortensen HM, Zhivotovsky LA, Lin AA, Henn BM, Louis D, Ruhlen M, Mountain JL.
Department of Anthropological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. aknight@stanford.edu
BACKGROUND: About 30 languages of southern Africa, spoken by Khwe and San, are characterized by a repertoire of click consonants and phonetic accompaniments. The Jumid R:'hoansi (!Kung) San carry multiple deeply coalescing gene lineages. The deep genetic diversity of the San parallels the diversity among the languages they speak. Intriguingly, the language of the Hadzabe of eastern Africa, although not closely related to any other language, shares click consonants and accompaniments with languages of Khwe and San.
RESULTS: We present original Y chromosome and mtDNA variation of Hadzabe and other ethnic groups of Tanzania and Y chromosome variation of San and peoples of the central African forests: Biaka, Mbuti, and Lisongo. In the context of comparable published data for other African populations, analyses of each of these independently inherited DNA segments indicate that click-speaking Hadzabe and Jumid R:'hoansi are separated by genetic distance as great or greater than that between any other pair of African populations. Phylogenetic tree topology indicates a basal separation of the ancient ancestors of these click-speaking peoples. That genetic divergence does not appear to be the result of recent gene flow from neighboring groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The deep genetic divergence among click-speaking peoples of Africa and mounting linguistic evidence suggest that click consonants date to early in the history of modern humans. At least two explanations remain viable. Clicks may have persisted for tens of thousands of years, independently in multiple populations, as a neutral trait. Alternatively, clicks may have been retained, because they confer an advantage during hunting in certain environments.
quote:According to this proposal, the Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan families belong to a common Afro-Pacific macro-phylum that includes several southern Asian families and the Indo-Pacific family.
This may seem on the surface to provide some validation of Dr. Winter's claims about a Mande-Dravidian connection but attention to the timelines involved would indicate otherwise. Ehret is postulating a very broad, ancient and generalized relationship between language groups whereas Dr. Winters asserts a very direct and recent relationship between the two peoples.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Episodes 2 and 3 would imply two distinct OOA events but the failure thus far to find evidence of L1 and L2 mtDNA in Eurasian populations would argue against this.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Episodes 2 and 3 would imply two distinct OOA events but the failure thus far to find evidence of L1 and L2 mtDNA in Eurasian populations would argue against this.
Ehret's Episodes 2 & 3 are far to early for the expansion of the Niger-Congo/Nilo-Saharan/Afro-Asiatic expansions. Around 20,000-15,000 BC the dominant civilization was probably that of Pygmoid/Twa/San people. Let's not forget that the first civilizaers of Egypt, accoring to the Egyptians were the small sized people they called ANU.
The Niger-Congo/Nilo-Saharan/Afro-Asiatic the speakers of these languages probably belonged to the Capsian and Afro-Mediterannean group. Sutton believes that these people practiced an Aquatic culture, that included: bone harpoons, sinkers ambatch canoes, rafts, dug-outs, baskets and wavy-line pottery. This culture was practiced along the Middle Nile, Sahel, Sudan and Atlantic shore. Sutton made it clear that these people were Negroid.
By 6000-5000 BC drier conditions arrived in Middle Africa and the speakers of the Niger-Congo-Kordafanian/Nilo-Saharan/Afro-Asiatic speakers became pastoralist or semi-pastoralists. Between 4000-3500 BC these people, with their cattle and writing system began to move down from the highlands of Middle Africa into the low lands and occupy centers of civlization formerly settled by the Pygmoid/Twa/San people.
Rasol has suggested that I look to a paleolithic expansion of Niger-Congo/Nilo-Saharan expansion of speakers of these languages into Asia, I can not do this because they were still in Africa during the paleolithic, a view supported by the archaeological evidence.
I believe that you can not find evidence of the L1 and L2 mtDNA in Eurasian populations because the present Turk, Persian and Indo-European speaking people are not descendants of the ancient inhabitants of Eurasia. These people spoke, Elamite, Sumerian, Hattic, Kaska etc. Languages which are genetically related to the Niger-Congo/Nilo-Saharan/Dravidian languages.
quote:Rasol has suggested that I look to a paleolithic expansion of Niger-Congo/Nilo-Saharan expansion of speakers of these languages into Asia
No, that's not what I suggested. I suggested that some of the language similarities you cite reflect the ancient paleolithic relationships that Ehret is noting.
quote: I can not do this because they were still in Africa during the paleolithic a view supported by the archaeological evidence.
Correct, and the ancestors of South Asians including Dravidians migrated out of Africa in the paleolithic according to anthropologists and linguists such as Ehret.
Once you accept this fact you can formulate truly effective theories.
But, perhaps you are content with a status quo which allows all of your hard work to be tagged as outre' and dismissed?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Correct, and the ancestors of South Asians including Dravidians migrated out of Africa in the paleolithic according to anthropologists and linguists such as Ehret.
Once you accept this fact you can formulate truly effective theories.
But, perhaps you are content with a status quo which allows all of your hard work to be tagged as outre' and dismissed?
As I have noted before, and posted numerous articles by Dravidian, European and African researchers the relationship between Dravidian and African languages is normal science in India.
My research relating to Dravidian-African connections has not been dismissed by anyone, except the non-linguists on this form. It is fully supported by Tamilian scholars and widely published in Dravidian linguistic journals.
quote: Can you cite some of the scholars supporting your theories?
Yes.
Dravidian Languages Did Originate in Africa
I am not the first to claim links between Africans and Indians, the evidence for this relationship was first gathered and discussed by Indians themselves.
Many Dravidian and African scholar recognize a close relationship between African and Dravidian languages. Many Indian researchers believe that they originated in Africa. B.B. Lal, who did research in Nubia and India, is sure that the Dravidians were related to the C-Group of Nubia (see: Lal, B , "The Only Asian expedition in threatened Nubia:Work by an Indian Mission at Afyeh and Tumas", The Illustrated London Times , 20 April 1963). In addition to the anthropological/archaeological evidence other researchers note a genetic relationship between Dravidian and African languages. These studies include the following:
Aravanan, K P , "Physical and cultural similarities between Dravidians and Africans", Journal of Tamil Studies 10,(1976)pages 23-27.
Aravanan, K P , Dravidians and Africans , Madras, 1979.
N'Diaye, C T, Vers une theorie du Sino-Africaine , Dakar,1972. Mimeo.
Aravanan,K.P. Notable negroid elements in Dravidian India, Journal of Tamil Studies, 1980, pp.20-45.
Lahovary, N , Dravidian Origins and the West, Madras: Longman,1957.
N'Diaye, C.T. The relationship between Dravidian languages and Wolof. Annamalai University Ph.D. Thesis.1978.
Upadhyaya,P & Upadhyaya,S.P., Les liens entre Kerala et l"Afrique tels qu'ils resosortent des survivances culturelles et linguistiques, Bulletin de L'IFAN, no.1, 1979, pp.100-132.
Upadhyaya,P & Upadhyaya,S.P. Affinites ethno-linguistiques entre Dravidiens et les Negro-Africain, Bull. IFAN, No.1, 1976,pp.127-157.
Below is the work of Dravidian speaking East Indians and other scholars that link Dravidian speaking people to Africa and Africans. Why do you think they claim ties to Africa? Are you saying that these Indians are lying about their history?
The ancient inhabitants of the Indus Valley were the Dravidian speakers. Today Brahui, Malto and Kurukh are Dravidian languages spoken in the Indus area.
B.B. Lal (1963) and Indian Egyptologist has shown conclusively that the Dravidians originated in the Saharan area 5000 years ago. He claims they came from Kush, in the Fertile African Crescent and were related to the C-Group people who founded the Kerma dynasty in the 3rd millennium B.C. (Lal 1963) The Dravidians used a common black-and-red pottery, which spread from Nubia, through modern Ethiopia, Arabia, Iran into India as a result of the Proto-Saharan dispersal.
The Nubian Dravidians were one of the cattle herding groups that made up the C-Group culture of Nubia Kush. Thundy has observed that: "If Kashi the holy place (alias Varanasi) is a Dravidian word, the name was bestowed on the place by the Dravidians after their homeland of Nubia, Upper Egypt, which is called Kush and Kashi in the Semitic languages".
He added that: "...I view the common myth[of Isis and Osiris in Egypt and Kannaki and Kovalan in India] only as supporting the widely held theory that the Dravidians of India came from the Mediterranean region, particularly from Nubia, for ethnically and linguistically, the peoples of the two regions are strikingly similar".
The ancient Indo-Aryan writings make it clear that the Indians were dark-skinned (varna) and had flat noses. (Durant 1935, p.396) This fact is supported by the Ali Tiraavitar (Old Dravidians) who are black as their African brothers with a difference in hair texture. In ancient Tamil poems they are described as mamai (black). In addition, the ancient Dravidians practiced a matriarchal system in Kerala and South Kanara.
Aravaanan (1980) has written extensively on the African and Dravidian relations. He has illustrated that the Africans and Dravidian share many physical similarities including the dolichocephalic indexes (Aravaanan 1980,pp.62-263), platyrrhine nasal index (Aravaanan 1980,pp.25-27), stature (31-32) and blood type (Aravaanan 1980,34-35). Aravaanan (1980,p.40) also presented much evidence for analogous African and Dravidian cultural features including the chipping of incisor teeth and the use of the lost wax process to make bronze works of arts (Aravaanan 1980,p.41).
The Dravidians have maintained their ancient African Heritage. There are numerous affinities between Dravidian and Black African culture and languages.
As in Africa the Dravidians built their both small and large vessels from a single log or planks tied together. This method of boat construction has been common in Africa since the rise of ancient Egypt, and continues today in East Africa, Chad and along the Niger river.
In both Africa and Dravidic India the people were organized into various "caste" or corporations. Many of the corporations such as that of the blacksmiths in Africa and India have corresponding names e.g., Wolof Kamara and Telugu Kamara.
The are similarities in agricultural technic in Africa and India. For example both groups used the hoe for tilling the ground, manuring the ground to fertilize crops, terracing irrigation and canal building. There are also affinities in animal husbandry, and even the names of animals. For example, sheep: Wolof xar, Brahui (Dravidian) xar 'ram'; and cow: Wolof nag , Serere nak, Tamil naku 'a female buffalo' and Tulu naku 'heifer'.
There are also similarities between the Dravidian and African religions. For example, both groups held a common interest in the cult of the Serpent and believed in a Supreme God, who lived in a place of peace and tranquility . There are also affinities between the names of many gods including Amun/Amma and Murugan . Murugan the Dravidian god of the mountains parallels a common god in East Africa worshipped by 25 ethnic groups called Murungu, the god who resides in the mountains .
In addition among the ali tiravitar, the system of inheritance passes from the uncle to his nephews, instead of to his sons (maru makkal Tayam) as in Africa. And in both South India and the Western Sudan of Africa, the dead were buried in terra cotta jars.
Dravidian languages are predominately spoken southern India and Sri Lanka. These languages are genetically related to African languages.
There are around 125 million Dravidian speakers. The Dravidians are remnants of the ancient Black population who occupied most of ancient Asia and Europe.
Many scholars have recognized the linguistic unity of Black African (BA) and Dravidian (Dr.) languages. These affinities are found not only in the modern African languages but also that of ancient Egypt. These scholars have made it clear that lexical, morphological and phonetic unity exist between African languages in West and North Africa as well as the Bantu group.
K.P. Arvaanan (1976) has noted that there are ten common elements shared by BA languages and the Dr. group. They are (1) simple set of five basic vowels with short-long consonants;(2) vowel harmony; (3) absence of initial clusters of consonants; (4) abundance of geminated consonants; (5) distinction of inclusive and exclusive pronouns in first person plural; (6) absence of degrees of comparison for adjectives and adverbs as distinct morphological categories; (7) consonant alternation on nominal increments noticed by different classes; (8)distinction of completed action among verbal paradigms as against specific tense distinction;(9) two separate sets of paradigms for declarative and negative forms of verbs; and (l0) use of reduplication for emphasis.
There has been a long development in the recognition of the linguistic unity of African and Dravidian languages. The first scholar to document this fact was the French linguist L. Homburger (1950,1951,1957,1964). Prof. Homburger who is best known for her research into African languages was convinced that the Dravidian languages explained the morphology of the Senegalese group particularly the Serere, Fulani group. She was also convinced that the kinship existed between Kannanda and the Bantu languages, and Telugu and the Mande group. Dr. L.Homburger is credited with the discovery for the first time of phonetic , morphological and lexical parallels between Bantu and Dravidians.
One of the most interesting studies done to date on the links between African and Dravidian languages was the work of N. Lahovary (1963). Professor Lahovary in his review of the possible link between the languages spoken by the founders of the major ancient civilizations, gives a stimulating discussion of cognates among various African languages and Dravidian (Dr.). He gives numerous lexical examples for the ancient kinship of the Dravidian group and BA languages, including ancient Egyptian, Hausa, Bantu ,Nubian and Somali, to name a few.
By the 1970's numerous scholars had moved their investigation into links between Dr. and BA languages on into the Senegambia region. Such scholars as Cheikh T. N'Diaye (1972) a Senegalese linguist, and U.P. Upadhyaya (1973) of India , have proved conclusively Dr. Homburger's theory of unity between the Dravidian and the Senegalese languages.
C.T. N'Diaye, who studied Tamil in India, has identified nearly 500 cognates of Dravidian and the Senegalese languages. Upadhyaya (1973) after field work in Senegal discovered around 509 Dravidian and Senegambian words that show full or slight correspondence.
Dravidian and Senegalese. Cheikh T. N'Diaye (1972) and U.P. Upadhyaya (1976) have firmly established the linguistic unity of the Dravidian and Senegalese languages. They present grammatical, morphological, phonetic and lexical parallels to prove their point.As a result of the linguistic evidence the Congolese linguist Th. Obenga suggested that there was an Indo-African group of related languages.
The Dravidians in Africa
MIILE HOMBURGER*
[ French original appeared in the journal “La monde non chretian” Oct~ Nov4 1952, Paris]
The people from South India are known as Dravidians. Their Languages are spoken by more than 65 millions. They do not belong to the Indo-European family to which belong Hindi, Marathi and most of the dialects of the Aryans who were living in the Indus and the Ganges valleys i.e. north to the peninsula.
The Dravidian languages are mainly divided into two i.e. literary and non-literary. Literary languages include four great languages. Each language is having its own indigenous written script. Tamil is spoken in the south-east of South India; Malayalam, the closest language to Tamil, is spoken from the west coast; Kannada, is spoken from the North West Coast; Telugu is spoken from the North of Tamil Nadu and to the East of Kannada. Though they have different characteristics, the vocabularies and morphological systems are common. The differences between these Dravidian languages are lesser than the differences between the Indo-European languages.
The non-literary Dravidian languages are spoken in the mountain areas of the North. The script of these languages was introduced by the European missionaries in the 19th century A. D. They are Kui, Kuvi (two dialects of the people known as Konds). Gondi, Malto and Kurukh or Crayon. Finally, Brahui, a language spoken from Baluchistan (of Pakistan) is also identified as a Dravidian language. Its morphological system clearly shows its resemblance with the Dravidian languages.
The Dravidians were navigators and merchants. Their oldest inscriptions date back to the beginning of Christian era. As they
borrowed more aspects from the Aryans, particularly words, philosophical and religious thoughts etc., it was thought during XIX-th century that their entire civilisation came to them from the Indo-Aryans.
Through the excavation made in the Indus valley prior to 1925, archaeologists discovered Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa, the ruined important towns. They found there the dwelling places, palaces and temples. (See: E, Macay, The Indus Civilisation, London, 1935, French translation, Payot publishing house.). Archaeologists regard that the ruin dates back to 2800 B.C and it was even anterior to the Sumerian Civilisation.
Braye studied the language and traditions of Brahui of Baluchistan. He explains that these Brahui speaking people represent a northern section of the citizen of the ancient Dravidian empire of the Indus. In the later days, the Dravidians of the Indus, would have been driven off to South India by the invaders coming from the North. They could have preceded the Aryans.
However one could not easily accept today that the Dravidians might have been savages before the arrival of the people who spoke Indo-European languages.
It is recognized that the Tamils penetrated into the island of Ceylon and the Singhalese have borrowed much from this Dravidian language. Even now some traces confirming this aspect are found in Malay.
Since 1946 onwards, we affirm that certain languages of Africa have some similarities with Dravidian languages. (See: Our comparative study of the Peul language of the scattered shepherd from Bagiorni to Senegal and hereby mentioned Brahui). But our papers have accepted with scepticism in spite of the affirmation of Professor Baumann, a German ethnologist and an expert in African studies ‘who has declared in his work published in 1940 (French translation, Payot, 1940) that all the Neo-Sudanese Civilization had come from the South of Asia especially from India.
Happily, we presented at the 7th International Congress of linguists, conducted in London from 1st to 6th September of 1952, lot of common morphological facts which’ convinced the quasi
totality of the spectators. Only two or three famous Africans have declared that the sceptics would, hereafter, justifly their incredility.
It is not necessary to show the technical demonstration conducted in London, but it will be useful to bring the conclusions which flow from it.
It does not concern with the massive invasion of Africa by the people of Dravidian languages. It is possible to believe that all the black Africans had come from India. Many anthropologists think in this line. But it is yet, a problem to be solved.
The Linguistic facts show that the various groups of foreigners who came through the ports of the West Coast at different dates organised states and imposed their manner of speaking and a part of their vocabularies.
Due to lack of time, all the details could not be brought out for all the languages. Here, we present a few points which are clear.
The unity of the Bantu language group inspite of its dispersion, has made us to admit the existence of a big state which was between the Late Victoria Nyanza and the ports of Mombasa and of Melude from the beginning of the Christian era. The linguistic facts show that this state was organised by the Kannadas. The demonstrative prefixes a, i (e,o,u) followed by different elements used as pronouns are common in Kannada and in Bantu languages.
Example:
Bantu Kannada*
1. ndu = ondu=are they are (Singular neuter)
2. aba = abbaru = they (plural human person)
3. abi,avii, .
(avei) =they
ebi,evi,vi
4. eka = eka = alone*
5. is = is = causative suffix
6. 1k = ik = stative suffix
* Not only in Kannada, all other Dravidian words also are common.
-Editor
• The word ecka is may be from the Sanskrit origin. -Editor
Nubian is known to us by some Christian texts dating from 8th and 9th century onwards through the multiple works done on the different dialects. Now some morphological traits, rather particular of Nubian have been found in Kui language of the Northern Dravidian family.
Example:
Kul Nubian
in ni - genetive
ki, gi dative, accusative
toti ton, doton
-s- -s-
man amen = is, are
Since we know that the Diocletien one of the savage tribes which was then threatening Egypt, who settle in Nubia at the end of the 3rd century. It is probable that the above said invaders were Dravidians and the settled tribe in Nubia was speaking a dialect which was closely related to the modern Kui, a Dravidian tongue.
Nubian had evolved since 8th century A. D. Between the modern dialects of Nile and the modern dialects of India numerous common words are found.
The kingdom of Mali, or Mandingues was certainly organised by the Telugus. Because, in Mande, the Dravidian unique suffix of the plural lu is still in use. It is a Telugu suffix which does not distinguish the plural between persons and non-persons.
The masculine suffix n and feminine ‘l” are the Dravidian suffixes. These two are available in Housa language, an African tongue. Due to want of time we are unable to examine all the Housa morphemes. Besides, the Housa has much circulation and they have borrowed more from Berbers and Arabs.
We finish here this short insight with the above stated facts. We hope that our readers will understand that henceforth our African linguists will have no more to formulate hypothesis and divergences of the common facts/similarities of the Negro African language groups. The African linguists will be able to bring out the
earlier history of the Christian era; they will also trace out the invaders who brought the Neo-Sudanese civilisation which was found from the ruins of Zimbabwe and the exploiters of the tin mines of Nigeria. Considering all these facts, Professor Hutton of Cambridge since several years back itself affirms, that the invaders and exploiters mentioned above must be Indians.
Before finishing we shall recall certain facts which were very often ignored and left in the dark.
I. The maritime waves going up from the south to north along the west coast of India pass on to south of Arabia and go down towards Zanzibar.
2. Next to Africans, Dravidians (Indians) were more dark in colour. The Dravidians went to Africa through the Red sea. They were black men but not Brahmins.
3. The Periplus of the Erythraean sea of First century A.D. mentions that the Indian colonies appeared on the coast of East Africa.
NOTE:
The numerous words of Negro-African are closely related to the old Egyptian and Copte.
Example:
chillouk - choli ket or get
ee baati - Egyptian kd, Copte ket
Now, certain words are found in the Dravidian and Egyptian languages which are common to the Negro-African languages. Negro-African and Dravidian languages are not recognized as part of the Egypto-semitic group.
Above all we have been led to formulate the following hypothesis. The Egyptians of the first dynasty came from indus and settled in Egypt nearly 3000 B.C. Their spoken language was very close to modern Dravidian. They might have influenced the people of Semitic language. Even today they adopt some rare traces of the Dravidian morphology,
Example: i - Dravidian feminine
un/oui/oue - Copte
Common feminine suffix to Semitic and Dravidian.
A deep research would give certainly some other facts but for the time being we come to know some common vocabularies as follows:
bw = Elephant - Egyptian
iblia = Elephant - Kannada (Dravidian)
shrr = small - Egyptian
chiru = small - Kannada
(essay concluded)
Dravidians and Africans-4
The Dravidian and SudanoSahelian Civilisations
CHEIKH TIDIANE N DIAVE
In the year 1933, Et Tuttle published in the “Journal of the American Oriental Society” an artical entitled “Dravidian and Nubin”.1 This Article, is a brief census of facts rather than a detailed study. Nevertheless, it is worthy of mention, because it is really the first attempt to connect Dravidian with an African language. Since 1945, L. Homburger recognised a number of morphemes which are to be met within Several African (Saharan) idioms. Since then, the idea of kinship between the Dravidian Languages and certain Negro - African languages had become dear to her heart. That is why she began to study in succession the Senegalese-Guinean (or Sudano..Sahelian) languages, Mande (another Sudano - Sahelian family of languages), Bantu (an East African family of languages) comparing them with the Dravidian languages. This is what led her to publish, in 1950, and 1951, in the “Journal de la societe des Africanistes”, Paris, the following two articles in turn: “Dravidian elements in Peul” and “Telegu and the Mande dialects”. The point worth noting is that Miss L. Homburger was sure that “the Dravidian languages make it possible to explain the morphology of the Senegalese group-particularly Serer and Peul” (two Sudano ‘Sahelian languages) had aire. ady tried to show relationships between Dravidian and some African languages two great German ethnologists, H. Baumann and
D. Westermann, pointedout “ethnological” relations between South India (the country of most of the Dravidian people) and Black Africa. Therefore, the comparison between the Dravidian and SudanoSahelian civilisations is not arbitray. Better still, the application of the
(1.Nubion is an East African Language. Most of the people who speak it are very similar to the Dravidian type.)
general principles of the comparative method in historical linguistics and ethnology proves that Dravidians and some Sudano-Sahalian ethnic groups speak languages which are genetically related and belong to the same “Knlturkreis” or” “culture circle”.
The lexical resemblance, between Dravidian languages and Wolof is not at all a matter of chance, because of three fundamental arguments which are the following
1. Firstly, it is unlikely that chance is the explanation for these remarkable phonemic semantic resemblances concerning the various and basic lexical categories such as kinship terms, the vocabulary concerning the civil status, the personal pronouns, parts of the body, the biologioal needs, dressing and’habitation, vocabulary denoting rest, names of instruments(for household, agriculture-fishing, hunting and music), the vocabulary concerning alimentation, the kitchen and the commercial exchanges, the vocabulary concerning the activities of the hands, the legs, the head, the nose, the mouth, the sexual organs and the whole body, the vocabulary concerning the moral, politico-social and intellectual activities, the vocabulary denoting states of beings and things, the mythico-magic vocabulary, the vocabulary denoting time, the vocabulary concerning animals, (domesticated and undomesticated) sounds and noises colours, metals, liquid, the earth, the sky and death.
2. Secondly, from the “two principles of the arbitrariness of the sound-meaning cOnnection and the independence of meaningful forms” (of J. H. Grrenberg, “Essays in Linguistcs”), it follows that chance can not explain, for example, ~The fact thati three lexemes for ‘male organ’ and two lexemes for ‘belly’ in Dravidjan are almost the same as their correspondents in Wolof.
3. Thirdly, there are regular rules of’ correspondence between Dravidian and Wolof phonemes which clearly prove that the resemblance between Dravidian and Wolof lexemes is not accidental.
The grammatical resemblance between Drayidjan and Wolof cannot be accidental and is the least subject to borrowing. The reaSons can be summarised as follows:
1. Concerning nominals, Dravidians and Wolof have six same suffixes denoting names of states or qualities, actions and instruments, two similar suffixes for the expression of plurality and the collective motion, two same personal pronouns referring to the first persons singular and plural, two similar personal pronouns referring to the second persons singular and plural, four similar numerals denoting the numbers ‘one’, ‘two’, ‘four’ and ‘ten~, two same locative clitics, four same ‘epideictic’ or demonstrative vowels denoting proximity. remoteness and the intermediate position.
2. As regards verbals, they have the same morphemes denoting the three main moods, i,e. the infinitive, the imperative and the subjuntive-conditional, almost the same morphemes denoting the three main tenses, ie. the past, the present and the future, almost the same morphemes denoting the negative (verbal and adjectival), the ‘expectative’ and the potential modalities.
For ethnology, H. Baumann and Westermann said that ‘the NeoSudaneseculture circle spreads from Senegal to Abissinia(or Ethiopia) over the paleonigritic culture circle. The people who belong to it are the Wolof, the northern Mandeng, the Mossi, the Haussa, the preislamic Bagirmi, the Ashanti, the Yoruba and the Peul. The main cultural elements would be: the working of gold mines, the metalurgy of brass and bronze—, the making of glass, the cotton weaving---, long dresses, the organisation of the state having officers, the deification of the supreme ruler, etc. The origins of this culture circle are part ticularly complex. The prominent feature is its links with the great states which are found on the same latitude throughout Sudan; beside that, there are visible relationships between this group of elements and the ancient eastern civilisations of Arabia, Syria, Mesopotamia and mainly Inda (of ~les Peuples et las Civilisatjons de I’ Afrique’, Paris, 1948).
In conclusion, as J. H. Greenburg says, ‘the presence of fundamental vocabulary resemblances and resemblances in items with grammatical function, particularly if recurrent through a number of languages, is a sure indication of genetic relationship.’ In addition to that, if the speakers of genetically related languages belong to the same culture circle, we have a good example where ethnology comes in support to historical linguistics. There are the facts that lead us to say that Dravidians and some Sudano-Sahelian peeple were originally related. To explain this relationship, three hypotheses can be given:
1. Firstly:
Proto-Indo-African (?spoken inEast Africa or
Proto Dravidian South Africa)
I I I I I
NDr CDr SDr some Sudana Sahelian
languages
(North (Central (South Wolóf, Pular, Serer, etc.,
Dravidian) Dravidian) Dravidian)
2. Secondly:
Proto-Libyan (spoken in West Africa)
or Proto-Saherian
Proto Tekrurian Proto Dravidian
I I I
Senegalese languages NDr CDr SDr
(Wolof, Pular. Serer, etc.,)
3. Thirdly:
Proto-Dravidian (spoken in India)
NDr CDr SDr
Sudano-Sahelian Sudano-Sahelian Sudano-Sahelian
I I I
x y z
(Pre-Serer-Pular) (Pre — Wolof) A
II At~ A
I I I
For the first hypothesis, there is neither linguistic nor historical evidences in support to it.
Regarding the second hypothesis, one may also be tempted to hold it because. J,T. Cornelius published, in 1955, an article entitled ‘Linguistic evidence for the Lybian origin of the Dravidians’ (Cf,Proceedings and Transactions of the All India Oriental Conference, XVIII Session, Annamalainagar). This article, inspite of its title, does not give any linguistic evidence.
The archaeological evidence and some linguistic arguments show that the third hypothesis is the best, that is to say, SudanoSahelian languages such as Wolof, Pular, Serer, etc., are brought in West Africa by black people and brownish people like the two Dravidian types. In other words, Wolof, Pular, Serer etc., should be classified as ‘Dravidoid’ languages, that is to say ‘languages derived from dravidian’ just like the Romance languages are derived from Latin. Their differences with Dravidian can be explained by the influence of some African languages with which they have been in contact from East to West. There is a historical evidence that the inhabitants of Maurilania in the first Century B.C. came from India (Of. Strabo, L. XVII). There are also some traditions, among Wolof people, which consider Mauritania as one of the ancient homes of the ancestors. Better still, the last Thierno Amath Mbengue, said that the Lebu family Mbengue (/mbeng/) came from Bengal (North East of India) and that their name is derived from this word.
Dravidians and Africans-5 The Languages of Africans and Dravidians
A BIRD’S EYE VIEW*
S. R SANTHARAM,
A language can adopt and create as many words as it pleases without changing its character, but it cannot alter its grammar, its syntax, without becoming another, for grammar represents the innate made of thought over which the Individual person or nation has no real control By Gustove Appert.
- This assumption applies to each and every language in the world. No doubt, the African and Dravidian languages are also governed by this assumption. Before going to know about these languages, we must have some ideas about Africans and Dravidians.
Who are the Dravidians? Who are the Africans? Whether they belong to the same family? or they are closely related to each other ? etc. Solutions are yet to be found out.
Who are the Dravidians? Even today research Works are going on to get the solution for this problem. Till we get the correct Solution, we may probably define, that the Dravidians are those who speak Dravidian languages. [Notes: I am indebted to 1Dr. S. Agasthiyalizngom based on whose Writing this article has been produced.]
Dravidian languages: A family of languages spoken by more than 1,10,000,000 people, primarily in Southern India. There are seven major Dravidian languages spoken in India: Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, Gondi, Kurukh, and Tulu; minor Dravidian languages are Kota, Toda, Budaga, Irula, Kolamj, Naiki, Puriji, Konda, Gadho, Pemzo, Manda, Kui, Kuvi, Matta and Kodaga, all spoken in India.
Among these languages Tamil is the oldest of the Dravidjan language. Basham states-Tamil has undergone change as follows. Tamil
l Dramizha
l Damila
l Dramila
l Dravida
Africans:
African peoples vary in racial origin and stand at many different cultural levels. From the ethnic point of view there is both a white and a black Africa, but the first important human occupation appears to have been by Negroes or Negroid people, several types of whom, probably entered the Continent from Arabia and spread over the land south of the Sahara Desert. They probably inhabited the Sahara also, for in the glacial period it was well watered and fertile. Northern Africa, however was penetrated by the invasion from Europe or Western Asia of Caucasian (white) people at a later date. These Caucasian peoples are broadly classed as Bamitic and include an important type referred to as Berber, as well as the Tuareg. Semitic people at a later date penetrated Africa. They are the Arabs, who established themselves in Northern and East Africa. The Phoenicians who founded Carthage were Semites. Madagascar shows a remarkable intrusion of Malayo Polynesian people, Who crossed the Indian Ocean, perhaps by way of island stepping-stones; probably more than two thousand years ago and settled on the island, which may or may not have had an earlier Negro population. It may be noted that neither Greek nor Roman left any permanent ethnic mark upon Africa.
The modern period has seen the settlement of large numbers of Europeans.
African Languages:
Languages indigenous to the African continent that belong to the Hamito-Semitic, Niger-Congo, (or Niger-Kordopfanian) Chari-nil (or Nilo-Saharan) and Khoisan language families. The number of African languages has been estimated at between 800 and 1000. In Northern Africa, languages of the Hamitic Semitic family are spoken. Arabic is most widespread of these. Important sub-Saharan languages included are Swahili, Fulani, Yoruba and Zulu of the Niger-Congo group. Nulian of the Chari-Nile group, and Bushman and Hottentot of the Khoisan family.
Similarities:
Besides language similarities, physical and cultural similarities appear between these two continents. Frobenjusa German ethnologist identified some cultural similarities between Africa and Ancient India. Baumann, Westermaun and CheikAnta Diop have also stated the same opinion.
Physical Similarities:
In Tamilnadu, the suppressed people are called “aati Draavidaa” (Old Dravidians). The size of head, forehead, nose, ear and the colour of body, hair and eyes are common between these “aati-Dravidida~i” and African. The main two differences are Africans have curling black hair and slightly thick lips, but “aati-Dravidaas” do not have them.
Cultural Similarities:
Cultural similarities appear between these countries. The legend of Lord Kannan, killing Kamsaa is reflected in African legend. “Soni Ali Ber”. in which “Burgo” appears as the hero in the place of Krishnaa. [. Dr K P. A. clearly compares these legends in his book~ Senthamtil, Sene~al, Senghor P. 18.]We can expand the above similarities and other similarities further more. But confining to our topic on languages, we can deal with particular reference to languages.
Niger Congo Languages:
Niger-Congo group is the largest among the African language families. “Bantu” which were once treated as a separate group are also now included in this group. Though there ate about thirty divisions Geenberg classifies them nto 6 major divisions. They are as follows :
I. Western Atlantic languages, 2. Mamde languages. 3. Gur languages. 4. Kwa languages. 5. Adamawa-Eastern languages. 6. Benue-Congo-languages.
West Atlantic Languages:
These are classified as Northern and Southern languages. The most important among these is ~Fulani, Wolof and Temme come next to it. More than,56,00000 people speak Fulani. In Fulani there is no distinction of gender in nouns. To indicate sex the suffix male or female is added to the nouns. For example in Tamil the sex of a horse is indicated by suffixing male or female before the nouns.
aaN Kulirai PeN Kutirai
In Fulani the sex of human beings are indicated as follows.
biddo debbo (girl) biddo gorko (boy)
In Tamil the verb endings do not recognise gender of the non-human category. To denote the female or male horse the pronoun “That” is used. But the classification human and neuter category is also found in Fulani. The changes which a noun may undergo to show the plural primarily depend on to which of the two comprehensive classes the noun belongs, to the personal, or human class, or to the non-personal, or non-human and thing, class. This division is extremely important for it is the fundamental principle at the genious of the language. Neuter gender has got three different persons. They occur only in plural form. In Tamil Tholkappiar has also included first person within the scope of human category. Indicative pronouns that indicate human category and neuter gender are always of different kinds. In this language by suffixing endings to a verb we can obtain so many verbs
In this language by suffixing endings to a verb we can obtain so many verbs
For Example:
o Janaki - he read 0 Janahithi - be read very well
o fiyi - he beat 0 fifini - he beat badly.
This characteristic phenomena, seen in Tamil language is also found in the “Bantu” languages. As in Tarnil, active voice becomes passive voice, by the mere modification of the verb. Wolof: Wolof language is notable language, among the languages that are existing in Senagal Democratic Nation. Just like in Tamil we can see the doubling of the consonants.
Example:
i, ii; k, kk; m, mm; n, nn; Since there are no verbs to indicate gender in this language, a separate word is used to indicate gender. As far as the numerals are concerned, there are only two i.e. singular and plural. The units that indicate the numbers also occur by the side articles and indicate numerals.
Example: fas w-i - the horse fas y-i - the horses a-w fas - a horse a-y fas - some horse
In interrogative forms too we can find the difference between singular and plural.
w-an fas which horse.
y-an fas which horses.
In several aspects this language resembles Tamil language. It also has its own specialities. The articles which are not seen in Tamil are found in this language. This is a major difference between these languages. Ki, Ka, Gi, Ga - are the units that stand for the artic1e~ In the same way as, ag, a, aw, ab and so on serve as Common indications.
Mande Languages: These languages are spoken by more than 70 lakhs of people. This group is often called “Mali” or “Mantonga” group. Though in these groups there are about 22 languages, Malinda-Bambara, Soninde, Mande, Susu-Dyal onke, Vai, Loma, Kpela are considered as important.
North West - Languages: Mande: In this language there is no discrimination of genders. But a difference is seen between human category nouns and neuter gender nouns.
Nouns of Mande have got the two numerals both singular and plural. Common nouns by addition of suffix “nga” and proper nouns by the addition of suffix “sia” indicate plural numerals. Apart from this there is third numeral. This plural form is made up of the indefinite plural + i + - - + - - Sia. This form is much rarer than the other two and is normally found only with a few words referring to human beings and domestic animals.
Just like in Tamil, in Mande language there are indications to point out nearer and farther. But it does not have separate words for adjectives.
The verbs of Mande languages, show tense, negative and so on. Past tense, present tense, future tenses are shown by the verbs. When tenses change the noun also undergoes a change. (When it occurs in three persons.) Interrogative verbs occur in second person both in plural and in singular which is similar to Tamil In Tamil we can say to a person or to many persons “Let us go”. But in this language we cannot say like this. If we address one person means, we have to say “Muli”, if many persons means we have to say “amuli”. (Let us go) Kwa Languages :- Yoruba: This language is familiar in Nigeria. The nouns of this languages have got two genders and two numerals. Separate words show separate genders as in
laba father
cya - mother Sometimes by the addition of suffixes they show different gender.
aburo - ikonrin brother aburo - ilnrin sister Nouns have no cases in Yoruba. The cases are supplied by the use of prepositions. This is the main difference between this language and Tamil language.
III case si, ba (Preposition)
IV case : - si, fun Example : Si odo to river fun mi to me
V case :- (ti)
ti ile from the house
VII case :- (ni)
ni ile in the house
Bantu Languages :- This group contains more than five hundred languages. These languages have simple voice system. A, E, U, these three vowels are the basic. Though there are plenty of prefixes and suffixes no prepositions are to be seen. The cases as found in Tamil are not found in these languages. There is no distinction of masculine and feminine, it is not merely that nouns have no femine terminations, but there are not even separate pronouns corresponding to ‘be’ and ‘she’. There is however a set of distinctions quite strange to us, nouns being devided into a number of classes. (Usually eight or nine) distinguished by their prefixes.
A unique concord is seen, which is not to be found in any other language. All the words in a sentence are affixed with the noun having the function of subject which replaces the prefix. This reappearance of the prefix before every word in agreement with the noun is called the Alliterative concord, which is not found in Tamil.
a-na, a~nga, a-ngona, a-ia, a-tayika.
Those, my little children were missing
This “Nyanja” sentence shows this Alliterative concord,
The repetitive morpheme (irattaikilavikal) which are less frequent in Tamil are found in Bantu in abundance,
A lot of verbal variations are found in Bantu. The ideas expressed by Tamil in many words are brought out by less number of suffixes.
Example :- Bantu Tamil English
Mona Kalaku Shake
Monesa Palamaaka Kalaku Shake violently
Luganda or Ganda :- The main difference between Tamil and Luganda is the absence of differentiation of gender in the latter.
Comparatively simpler verbs show the past, future and present tenses. Within the past tense there are three divisions viz., without any time limit and just within last 12 hours and past continuous. Example :-
nn - a - lake - saw
nn - a - labye - saw (just within 12 hours) n - o - dabye - had seen
In future tense there are separate words for denoting happenings, which are to happen within 24 hours and after 24 hours, which are novel to Tamil.
Example :-
nnaa - laba - will see (within 24 hours) n-di-raba - will see
In imperative verbs take three forms.
I. To be done at once, 2. To be done continuously 3. To be done in the prescribed hour. Example:-
Soma - Read at once
o soma - Read quickly
Somanga - Read continuously
Muba musoma - Read in the evenings
These are not found in Tamil
Swahili :- It is an important language in North-Eastern region. In Tamil diminutives are denoted by small adjectives. The same pattern is well followed in Swahili. In this language the nouns that occur in all the three persons as they occur in Tamil. Third person singular and plural show neither category nor gender. This also happens in Malayaalam Example
mimi I we we you ye ye He/She/it si si We ninyi You (Plural) Wao They
Adjectives come after the nouns, as in other ‘Bantu’ languages. There is a concord between adjectives and noun -the prefixes of the adjectives undergo change, with reference to the prefixes to the nouns.
There are articles to point out nearness and distance. The root -‘le’ points out nearness. But with reference to the noun that occurs, this root takes various prefixes and becomes an indicative:
adjective. - ki - suki - le sword (near by) wa - tura - le Those people vy - amba - vile Those trees.
In second person interrogative verbs indicate singular, plural -and negative, which is also the case with Tamil.
Example :- -~ big-a beat (Singular) big-eni beat (Plural)
Nyanja :- As in ancient Tamil, in Nyanja there are three classes or demonstratives which point out different degrees of distance or reference like adjectives. Similar to Tamil the nouns of all the three persons will occur. In first person plural, there is no inclusive numbers. In the third person singular, there are not divisionsuch feminine gender, masculine gender; human category, non human category and so on.
Example :-
ine - I iwe - You lye - He/She/It ife - We ma - You (PluraJ) iwo - They/those
In the commanding verbs of Tamil, they do not point out whether the command should be obeyed immediately or to be done later. But the commanding verbs in the language point out urgency and so on,
Example :-
tatenga - take immediately
Zulu :- Gender is not a grammatical feature in Zulu. That is to say, the fact that any particular noun may indicate the masculine, feminine, common or neuter idea does not in any way influence a Zulu sentences grammatically, the form of the prefix of the noun ruling the concordial structure.
In Zulu there are three positional types of demonstrative pronoun. The first demonstrative signifies “this” “these” indicating proximity to the speaker. The second demonstrative signifies ‘that’ ‘those’ indicating relative distance from the speaker. The third demonstrative signifies ‘Yonder’, that ‘yonder’ indicating distance from the speaker and the one spoken to, but also indicating that the object is within sight and may be pointed to.
Apart from these features, there are some specialities too. The grammatical feature that are revealed, by the use of three or more words in English and in Tamil, is revealed by the use of verb in this language.
Doubling of the verb is commonly seen in Tamil, when a particular action is to be emphasised.
“ati ati yena atittaan” (beaten violently)
The intensive form in Zulu indicating intensity or quickness of action, is expressed by suffixing - isisa in the place of final vowel of the stem. The dimunitive form of the verb, formed by a reduplication of the stem, indicates a dimunition of the action to do a little.
The reciprocal form of the verb denotes that the action is reciprocated, and is similar to the form expressed in English adjectively by one another. In Zulu the derivative is formed by suffixing -ana in place of the final vowel of the verb form.
Khoisan Languages :- The word Khoisan can be written as Khoy-sa-n and its meaning is as follows.
Khoy People Sa in search of food is an affix to indicate plural.
Hence Khoisan means “food searching people”. Further the sound of “click” is often heard where these languages are used, people called these languages as “click languages”.
Though so many people have conducted researches, C.R. Lepsius, classified these languages in his “Standard Alphabet” as two main divisions. He not only classified these languages as
1. Hottentot
a. Nama b. Kora
2. Bushman
but also called them Hemittic languages.
Hottentot: The adjectives precede nouns, likewise in Tamil also it happens to. The adjectives do not undergo any change regarding the noun. But the possessive nouns differ from Tamil to certain extent. One speciality which is not to be seen in Tamil is the indicative of gender, both in the first person and second person. The possessive nouns that occur in all the three persons, they accept divisions of gender and numerals as in Tamil, Verbs are so simple. To indicate tense there are different prefixes. Unlike in English and in Tamil, the tense shown in this language are not limited to completed actions, continuing actions, alone, but even in completed actions, the exact time of the completion of the action is revealed by the use of various prefixes.
A structural feature of this (Korana) language is the use of double verb or a series of more than two verbs. The function of one of the verbs-the subsidiary one is to modify the action of the other verb-the principal one with reference to circumstances of time, place, manner, or any other circumstances which may effect the verbal action. In other words, the subsidiary verb is in an adverbial function of the principal verb, In Tamil also this type of feature can be seen.
Bushman Languages: These languages are classified into three groups. Called Northern, Central, and Southern languages, there are the divisions of singular and plural.
In certain languages plurality is revealed by the use of different verbs and in some languages, by the doubling of the singular verbs, which is in tune with Tamil.
mum - stone. mum-si - stones.
The possessive pronouns, occur, before nouns in northern and southern languages in accordance with Tamil, but in the central languages they occur after the noun. In certain languages separate syllables are used to indicate possessiveness. Example:
mha - my father mtail - my mother Certain languages know, no distinction of tense, mood or voice.
Saharan Languages - Kanuri: In many of the languages existing now, even though the nouns occur by the side of adjectives only nouns accept ‘case’ prepositions. In Tamil also this is the case. But in Kanuri language the nouns do not accept case prepositions but adjectives accept case prepositions.
In this language the commanding verbs, occur both in second person plural and singular which is in concordance with Tamil
But a speciality is that this language shows commanding nature even in first person plural.
Eastern Sudanic Languages: These languages are spoken by more than nine lakhs of people who live in the southern part of Sudan.
In alignment with Tamil, ‘Dinka’ also has the division of singular and plural. By the modification of the vowels, by the modification of ending and by the tuse of various words plural is shown,
Examples yic - ear yit ears moe man ror men
Lwo Languages: Shilluk: The distinction between singular and plural is noted like in Tamil. This distinction is produced by: affixes, and by the modification of verbs. There is no distinction of genders in this language. Adjective often follows nouns. Though most of adjectives show the distinction between singular and plural without undergoing any change some undergo change with reference to the noun which show the distinction of singular and plural.
Example: Won duong Big house Woti dono Big houses.
Verbs of Shilluk languages are so simple. They show tense and voice. As in Tamil, past tense, present tense and future tense are seen, though there are some minor differences.
Eastern Nilotic Languages: Masai: The nouns of all the three persons can be divided as a first person singular and plural, second person singular and plural and third person singular and plural, which is similar to Tamil. Among them, the third person nouns do not show any distinction between masculine gender and feminine gender.
Central Sudanic Languages Cendu :-~ The adjectives occur preceeding the noun and they are unaffected. We can see the same phenomena in Tarnil also. During formative years of Tamil language there are three demonstratives. These demonstratives do not serve as nouns, but they serve as adjectives. Verbs show subject and passive voice. Verbs of Sudanic language do not show tense as Tamil or English.
General
We met with various stages in African languages, viz- which possess singular, plural; singular, dual, plural; singular, plural and great quantity and singular, plural and small quantity. For Example:- Singular, plural and great quantity are denoted n the “Chwana” language or “Bantu” as follows
Cbwana Tamil English n kn aatu lamb
ii - nku aatukaL lambs
ma - nku pala aatukal many lamps
The classification of singular and plural are not to be seen in some of the African languages. But the material is considered as a compound entity and a single unit is deemed a constituent part of it. In certain language the suffixes indicating plurality have a meaning of their own. Example:
Ewe Tamil English
wo avarkaL They
ati maram Tree
ati wo marang~kaL Trees
Gender: In Hottentot languages besides the masculine and feminine genders common gender is also seen. Some of the languages indicate gender in plural condition also while others abandon it.
In some languages, the suffixes denoting the gender have the meaning of male, female, mother, father, men and women etc.
Kanda Tamil English
Se - gwanga ceval cock
na - gwanga petal hen
Verbs: In some languages verbs do not undergo any transformation, while others like Tamil, exhibit grammatical structureslike tense and numerals. Thematic variations effected by various words in Tamil are effected by a single suffix in Wolof.
Wolof Tamil Engilsh
Jeka un eat
lakati ciritu un eat a little
In Tamil there are words which have no meaning of their own which accentuate the characteristics of verbs. Similar phenomena are seen in African languages.
Example: Zo ka ka walk up right
Zo dze dze An assayed and energetic gait.
In Zande language such words are found. But in “Bongo” language a triplet occurs.
Example: Lan mokonya wakka wakka wakka. (The cloth is very black)
Conclusion: So far we have seen the similarities between the languages of the two groups of people. Further cultural, anthropological and linguistic studies will throw light on the affinities during the early times.
REFERENCE BOOKS:
1, Dr. Agasthiyalingam Aafrica Mozhikal (Tamil) Paari Nilayam, Madrasi. 1974.
2, Dr. Agasthiyalingam Dravida Mozhikal (Tamil) Paari Ni!ayam, Madras-i. 1976.
4.Rt. Robert Caidwell A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian Languages. University of Madras, 1956.
5.Suggate L. S. Africa, George G. Harrap & Company Ltd., London-Bombay-Sydney. 1920. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dravidian and Negro-African
(Ethnic and LinguisticAffinities)
By U.Pupadhyaya Susheela O.Uphadyaya
The language spoken in the Indian sub-continent are classified into four groups. Among these four families of languages, the Dravidian, spoken mainly in South India occupies the second place next to Indo-Aryan sub-branch of the Indo-European family according to the number of speakers it has, but it occupies an equal - if not more important - position because of the contribution made by it to the totality of the literary and cultural heritage of India. Though the native tradition considers all these languages as derived from Sanskrit, modern scholarship has proved a century ago the four literary languages of the South, together with at least a score in the North-West and Assam in the East belong to a distinct linguistic stock different from the other three linguistic families namely Indo-Aryan, Austro-Asiatic and Tibeto-Burman.
From he beginning of the 19th century, modern scholarship began to investigate the structure and parentage of the Dravidian family of languages. In the early decades of the century, William Carey, a missionary from Bengal noted that the languages of South India should be differentiated from the Aryan languages of the North. His opinion was further supported by the great linguists of those days Max Muller, Ellis and Stevenson. The epoch-making work of Bishop Robert Caldwell in 1856 named “ A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian languages” proved beyond doubt the existence of a separate language family and laid the foundation for a new era of linguistic scholarship in India. He not only proved that these languages belong to a distinct genetic group, but also showed the structure and characteristic features of this family of languages. In spite of the fact that the twentieth century scholarship has modified many of the conclusions arrived at by Caldwell, the monumental work produced by him proves to be an indispensable companion for a modern scholar because of the wealth of information contained in it.
Since then these languages have been considered to belong to a separate stock and the scholars have been interested in penetrating into the origin and antecedents of this linguistic and ethnic group. Were they really the autochthonos or the original inhabitants of India? If not, from where did they come to India? To which other ethnic stock of the world are they to be related? What were they like in their linguistic and cultural habits in the remote past? What is the nature of their contact or confrontation with other linguistic or ethnic groups within and outside India? What was their contribution to the evolution of pan-Indian civilization?
Of the four major ethnic groups of India, the Austrics are believed to be oldest inhabitants. This long-headed and medium sized race is considered to be one of the oldest offshoots of the so-called Mediterranean race, tough on their way from the Mediterranean to India they were much mixed with other peoples and acquired new characteristics. Before the Austrics there were certain Negrito people whose identity and origin is yet to be investigated. Dravidians and Sino-Tibetans came later, the former from the North-West and the latter from the east. Aryans, one of the sub-groups of the Indo-European stock, are the last to enter the sub-continent whose confrontation with the earlier inhabitants is now almost an accepted fact and also recorded in their literature. It is also believed that the composite culture of India is the creation of the incoming Aryans and the already established Dravidians.
The presence of Dravidian languages throughout the length and breath of the sub-continent, e.g. Brahui in Baluchistan and Afghanistan, Kudukh and Malto in the Eastern part of India and the numerous tribal languages spread throughout the hilly regions of Central India proves it beyond doubt that the Dravidians are not simply the inhabitants of South India, but have, at one time occupied the entire region of the sub-continent. The excavations of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro have also brought to light the fact that Dravidian Civilization reigned supreme in the North-Western part of the sub-continent in a period about three to four millennia before the Christian era : a period before what is termed the Aryan invasion of India. These factors have indicated the possibility of the Dravidians having come to India - if at all they came from outside - from the North -Western frontiers.
If this is to be taken for granted, which part of the North-Western region did they come from? Who are the kinsmen of these Dravidians who were left behind or who might have migrated to some other direction? Are they related to the ancient races like Aegean, Sumerian, Caucasion, Finnish, Elamite, Pelasgian, Basque etc? Or to the Proto-Hamitic-Semitic population whose descendents now occupy the North-West Africa and Arabia? Or to the Negro-Africans who are now completely extinct by the onslaughts of other races and hence whose descendents now survive only in India?
Caldwell, the pioneer of Dravidian linguistics is not unaware of the problem of the affiliation of these languages. He has discussed in some length the possible relationship of the Dravidian languages with what he termed Scythian tongues, the numerous languages once spoken in the Middle East region. The idea first expressed by a Danish scholar Rusk was elaborated by Caldwell in considerable detail. The translation of the inscriptions discovered at Behistun in Western Media in the language of the Scythians has thrown some light on the connection of the Dravidian languages with the Scythian group.
[ Note:The cover term Scythian of Caldwell includes the languages like the Finnish, the Turkish, the Mongolian, and the Tungusian families. But the later research has grouped the Finno-Ugric under a separate family and the Turkish, Mogolian, Tunguz and Korean are considered as belonging to the Altaic family.]
Caldwell cites instances like the presence of retroflexes, presence of stop consonants as voiceless in the initial position and as voiced in the medial position of a word, genitive forms ending in na and nina, dative suffixes ikki/ikka, accusative forms ending in un/in, use of relative participles etc. etc. which lead him to conclude: “ The Pre-Aryan inhabitants of the Deccan should appear, from the evidence furnished by their language alone, in the silence of history, in the absence of ordinary possibilities, to be allied to the tribes that appear to have overspread Europe before the arrival of the Teutons and the Hellenes and even before the arrival of the Celts”
Caldwell has also noted that in the vocabulary of certain Dravidian languages, a few Semitic analogies may also be discovered which appeared to him to be of no significance and hence might be due to the contact of the Dravidians with the Semitic people their arrival in India. He also discusses the possibility of some relationship of the Dravidian languages with an African language Bornu and some Australian tongues, but this was not elaborated further due to the lack of information about these languages.
Up to the first few decades of the 20th Century, our sources of information were limited tot eh Dravidian languages and the history of Dravidians in South India. The advances made by the sister-disciplines like Archaeology and Anthropology during the middle of this century with development of the technique of historical reconstruction in Linguistics have thrown a flood of light on the problems connected with Dravidian ethnology
The Indus valley excavations and the interpretation offered by a host of scholars right from Father Heras to modern scholars like Asko Parpola of Scandinavia together with many other excavations conducted in different areas of middle East, Egypt and other Negro-African regions by the bands of English, German and French scholars during the first half of our century have widened the horizons of modern scholarship and directed our thinking about peoples of prehistoric times in an altogether new line. One of its great contributions is to uphold the supremacy of “ancient civilizations” which led us to believe that the Indo-European and Semitic races are not the only leaders of civilization in the world and numerous tribes spread over the vast continents of Africa, Europe and Asia had their own well-developed civilizations in Pre-Indo_European and Pre-Semitic times. This has not only led the scholars to estimate the contribution of these ancient civilizations in forming the composite cultures of these regions in the post-Christian era, but also focused the attention of the world on the possible links of these ancient civilizations which form the substrata.
Mohenjodaro and Harappa excavations have revealed the existence of well-organized urban civilization in India before the entry of Indo-Aryans. It has been an admitted fact that when Aryans came to India they were like semi-nomads whereas Dravidians at that time formed a settled community of agriculturists and herdsmen. They lived in cities with fortifications and they had many amenities of advanced city life like public bath, drainages etc. Exactly in the same manner Schlieman’s discovery of Pre-Hellenic Pelasgian sites among the ruins of the old cities of troy in Asia-Minor and in Mycenae in Greece revealed the existence of a highly advanced urban civilization in those regions. Similar Archaelogical excavations conducted in Egypt, Nubia, Ur and many other African, Mediterranean and Middle-eastern regions have proved the existence of advanced city civilizations in the regions from Africa to India.
As a result of these excavations the scholars in the first half of this century tried to link the Ancient Dravidians with the Mediterranean races of he Neolithic era. Nilakantha Sastri and Suniti Kumar Chatterjee the two great authorities on South Indian History and Indian linguistics respectively have demonstrated the identity of the Dravidian race with the Mediterranean races based on anthropological and linguistic evidences. Lahovary has cited a number of linguistic evidences as well as toponymic evidences to prove the racial unity of the Basques, Caucasians and Dravidians. Though not organized systematically Lahovary’s work merits a serious consideration because of the wealth of information it contains about some phonetic and morphological features and hundreds of lexical items as well as toponymic items gathered from many ancient languages of the Middle East. He has rightly focused the attention of the scholars on the fruitfulness of toponymic studies in determining historical relations. As he observes” “ In toponymy there can be no questions of cultural or commercial loan-words, nor of fortuitous resemblances, for it is the direct and faithful mirror of the language of the people of a country at a given time and even long outlast it” Ramaswamy Aiyar too has noted many similarities between the toponymy of Dravidian India and Persia. Sadasivam has attempted to prove the common parentage of Dravidian and Sumerian languages and Tuttle has cited many lexical and grammatical resemblances between Nubian and Dravidian. Zvelebil attempted to prove that the Dravidians were a highlander folks who lived, sometime around 4000 BC in the rugged mountainous regions of North-East Iran where they were in contact with the Ural_Altaic people and from there they migrated into the Indian Sub-continent and played a leading role in the ethnographic composition of the Indus Valley peoples before they ultimately reached Southern India. McAlpin has cited many lexical and grammatical points to indicate the relationship of the Elamite and Dravidian.
Some French, German and African scholars have also attempted to trace the common heritage of ancient Dravidian India and Negro Africa in culture, language and civilization. As early as 1897 the German ethnologists Frobenius noticed some cultural similarities between Negro Africa and Ancient India. Baumann and Westermann in their monumental work on African ethnology and civilization have noticed the influence of Indian Culture on Neo-Sudanese Culture. Cheik Anta Diop has traced many resemblances between Negro-Africa, Egyptian and Oriental Civilization. Cheik Tidiane N’Diaye has shown that many words and expressions denoted by the Indus Valley Script can be related to Dravidian as well as Senegalese languages like Wolof and Pular.
L. Homburger had brought to light for the first time, some phonetic, morphological and lexical parallels between certain African languages and Dravidian languages. Though her studies were limited to a few isolated languages of these groups, they have drawn the attention of the linguists and the statesmen like L.S. Senghor to make a deeper probe into the prehistoric ties of Negro-Dravidian-Mediterranean races which have laid the foundations of civilizations much before the dawn of modern western civilizations. The researches being carried out now at the “Institut Fundamental d’Afrique Noire” of the university of Dakar and the Center of Advanced Study in Linguistics of the Annamali University are expected to provide very strong linguistic evidence to support the hypothesis formed by the ethnologists about the ancient ties of these races which once occupied the entire region from Negro-Africa to south India through the Mediterranean and Middle-East.
Though the present inhabitants of the peninsula India and Negro-Africa have very few common physical characteristics due to mixture with different races, the pre-historic excavations go to prove the racial and cultural unity of these peoples. As Dravidians are considered to have come from the North-West of India and not to be original inhabitants of South India , it is also recognized that the Negroes of Africa are not the original inhabitants of their regions, though they have evolved in that region for a considerable period of time in the history of the continent. It is generally recognized that the Pygmies and Bushmen of the equatorial forests and the Kalahari desert are the survivals of the races which were spread over the whole of Africa before the arrival of Mediterranean peoples in the North and of darker skinned people in the North-East. The brown or black population seems to have invaded Africa from the East and tradition points to the regions east of the upper Niles as being those from which they spread South and West.
It is now generally accepted that in the Neolithic and early metal ages about 8th to 3rd millennia BC, the vast region of Western Asia with its extensions up to Niles and Indus, was occupied by what may be called a blackish race with its local variations like Proto-Mediterranean, Mediterranean and Hamite. This race is characterized by blackish brown complexion, long head, long straight and narrow face etc. The racial features of these peoples are testified not only by anthropological considerations but also by the homogeneity of cultural considerations by the study of their monuments artifacts and tools unearthed in those regions. As Lahovary, points out, the Neolithic Civilizations, which have so profoundly influenced human evolution have had a single origin and a single center of diffusion-- namely the Near est. This region endowed with a good climate and blessed by the river irrigation facilities, contributed much to the evolution of civilizations and it was here that the arts of agriculture, cattle breeding, weaving and pottery developed and later spread into Europe and other regions through migration. It is from this area that Bronze-Age civilization was carried to and spread in Europe before the advent of the Indo-Europeans. A series of migrations in different directions from that center until the break in the development of this civilization, was well testified by the archaeological discoveries. In spite of some local differences like the Prot-Mediterranean type in Egypt and India, Hamitic type in East_Africa and Ibero-insular Mediterranean type from Anatolia to Western India, we can see, on the whole a fundamental racial and cultural unity in all this part of the ancient world which is rightly called the ‘cradle of civilization”.
Three principle waves of migrations may be specially noted here. The first of these possessed no common name for metal and introduced Neolithic civilization into Europe together with the ribboned and incised pottery and a little later the painted ware. The second and third series of migrations gave Europe megalithic civilization and that of the first metal and bronze ages. The fourth series of migrations gave writing to Europe.
The fundamental unity of these Pre-Indo-European civilizations spread over this vast area from Dravidian India to Negro-Africa can be observed by the resemblances noticed in anthropological traits, social customs, religious beliefs, artifacts and linguistic features. Though due to pressure or onslaughts of the incoming races like Semites and Indo-Europeans many of them are either completely exterminated or survive in some remote corners in the mainland (like the Basques, Elamites, Caucasians etc), those who had earlier migrated into distant places like India and Africa survived preserving and developing their age-old customs and civilizations. These primitive people contributed a major share in the creation of the composite culture of the later periods with Indo-Europeans and Semitic peoples.
Anthropologists have shown many similarities between the human skeletons unearthed in Dravidian India and the Western regions of Neolithic times. Most of the skeletons found in Mohenjo Daro were very much like those of the megalithic civilizations of the Mediterranean regions. The skeletons found in Sialkot present great analogies with those of the pre-dynastic Egypt and of Mesopotamia. The conclusions arrived at by the Indus valley excavations are further supported by the epoch making discoveries made by the excavations at Jericho, Upper Galilee, Northern Iran, Egypt, Kenya, Tangkanyika and other regions.
The ancient matriarchal system of this civilization is found even today among the Dravidians, especially in Kerala and South Kanara, the Basques of Pyrenees, the Berbers of Sahara and many communities of Negro-Africa, where inheritance is transmitted through women.
The Cult of Serpent
The Cult of Serpent is another prominent feature of Dravidian India, Pre-Hellenistic Mediterranean world and Negro-Africa. Almost every village in Dravidian India, especially the wets coast belt, has what is known as sarpa-kavu or naga bana, a bush or a piece of land surrounded by the thick growth of trees and bushes wherein the stone-idols of serpents are worshipped. This is also associated with a variety of rituals in which we also find, among other things, dialogues between priest possessed by the serpent-god and the devotee. Many of the rituals associated with snake-worship in Africa find their parallels in the practices noticed in the Western Coast of South India. As the dead body of a serpent is cremated in Dravidian India with due funeral rites, it is buried by many Africans tribes with ritual formalities.
Mother-Goddess
Worship of the Mother Goddess is an important religious rite commonly noticed among the followers of this culture and we find this custom practiced throughout this region. The later Indo-European ancestors of the Greeks and Aryans brought with them the worship of the gods who lived in the sky and who were just anthropomorphized forces of nature, In contrast with these heavenly gods the Dravidians, Aegeans and other folks of these regions worshipped primarily the great Mother Goddess residing on the earth. This goddess has a male counterpart who is a passive figure. The concept of Shakti and Shiva in India grew out of this Dravidian belief. It is worth noting here that she is considered as Black Goddess (kali) in India as well as the Pre-Hellenistic Greece. She is the source of all life and also the goddess of death. Some of the Sumerian rituals relating to the marriage of the Mother Goddess with the Moon g=god find their parallels in the temple rituals of South India especially in the marriage of the Mother Goddess with Shiva. The god Nyame of the Ashanti and other peoples of West Africa is considered to be female, the great mother who gives life to all and is symbolized by the moon. The name Great Mother is one of the epithets given to the supreme being in African regions. Murugan, the god of mountains, the son of the mother goddess is a prominent and typical deity of the Dravidian India. It is interesting to note that at least twenty-five tribes in East Africa worship ‘Murugu” as supreme god, and like the Dravidian god Murugan, the African Murungu resides in the sacred mountains.
During the first millennium BC, the cult of the mother goddess gradually lost its primacy in the Mediterranean regions and in the Middle East under the influence of religious transcendentalism and of the patriarchal culture of the Semitic and Indo-European peoples. Dravidian India and Northern Africa, comparatively less affected by these influences, have kept these ancient beliefs with some local modifications. Even today, in almost all villages of Southern India a form of the mother goddess is worshipped as a village deity and she is specially worshipped to ward off evil spirits and contagious diseases or epidemic and the rituals associated with this worship do not bear any influence of the Aryan customs and the Brahmanical ways of worship. The word amma used to refer this village goddess as well as the disease of small-pox etc caused or cured by her will have its parallel in the same word amma used by the Dogons of the French Sudan. As in Dravidian India, altars are built in those parts of African also for sacrifice and communal worship for the deity amma.
It is worth noting the contrast between the patriarchal system and the male gods of the later Indo-European culture and the matriarchal system and the mother goddess of the ancient cultures of this region.
The offering of hair by women for fulfilling a vow to god and the practices of offering a maiden to the service of gods in temples ( the so-called sacred prostitution or Devadasi System) are some of the rituals noticed in Ancient South Indian temples, Middle East and the Mediterranean areas. Similarly the worship of tress -- fig, oak, or peepul - to fulfil a vow or to get boon , is also a common practice in Dravidian India, Mediterranean and African regions.
It is also believed that the cult of animism originated in Ancient Babylonia and made its way to Sub-Saharan Africa via the Carthaginian Civilization which called it the cult of Astarte. This cult was later on introduced to South America by African slaves. It is likely that some of the above mentioned beliefs common to Dravidian and Negro-Africans originated from the same source.
The practice of placing the dead body in terra cotta jars was current in Ancient South India, especially in the regions of Pondichery even up to the late iron Age. A similar practice was brought to light by the excavations in Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean regions. It may be noticed here that resurrection is an important belief of the religions of this area and the departed soul will come back in course of time. The jar is perhaps believed to be womb of the mother goddess.
It is perhaps this belief in resurrection that led to ancestor worship. As in the case with Dravidian India, the Ancestral spirits play a prominent role in African and Mediterranean thought. The practice of offering sacrifice to ancestors at regular intervals is noticed in almost all African tribes from South Africa to Sahara. The Ancestors are believed to have survived death and to be living in a spiritual world, but still taking a lively interest in the affairs of their families. The Ancestors who have not received proper burial or funeral rites become ghosts and wander between this world and the next, causing considerable harm to the members of the family. But those who are properly buried according to accepting rituals attain divinity and rank with other gods and look after their descendents on the earth.
The common features noticed in the areas of religious and social customs find their parallel in art and architecture also. As early as 1918, James Hornett noticed similarities existing between the South Indian boat designs and the Ancient boat designs of the Nile and Mesopotamia. He observed that before splitting off from the original stock the Dravidians living around Mesopotamia borrowed or invented the circular coracle and the reed raft. Coomarasamy has noticed that the ancient ritual and decorative designs of the Aegeans and the Dravidians are very much alike. In the technique dying, jewellery and in the making of metal weapons the West African Peuls and the Dravidians show remarkable resemblances. The Gonds of Central India, a Dravidian tribe, even now erect the houses similar to those erected by the Gallas of Somaliland.
Archaeologists have also noticed resemblances between the megalithic structures, tombs and monuments of the Dravidian regions and the Mediterranean regions. The objects found in the Megalithic monuments of Hyderabad are similar to the objects discovered in the Egyptian regions belonging to the second dynasty. The ornaments of gold discovered in the tombs of Adichanallur of Dravidian India resemble those discovered in Enkomi, Cyprus and the surrounding regions of the Bronze Age. Nilakanta Sastri hs shown the existence of numerous analogues between certain types of pre-historic tombs of pre-dynastic Egypt and South India as well as between the Stone urn burials of South India and Syria. The bronze bowels discovered in Nigiris (South India) show remarkable resemblances to those found in Ur (Sumer) of the third millennium BC and Assyria.
The art of making pottery with various designs on it, one of the achievements of the Paleolithic period, also aids us in discovering the possible relationship of these ancient races. Many archaeologists have noted resemblances between the pottery designs of Dravidian India and the Mediterranean regions)
In this vast territory of great civilizations, we can distinguish at least three important linguistic types. Of these three the Indo-European an inflectional type is evidently brought by the later conquerors of these regions. Hittite is the only one which is now considered to be related to the Indo-European family. The other ancient languages which show agglutinative and inflectional tendencies may be considered as belonging to two separate families. Of these two, the proto-Semitic forms the upper layer. Other languages which show an agglutinating tendency with invariable roots using chains of detachable suffixes belong to the still earlier inhabitants of this region who founded the earliest civilizations.
It is perhaps due to the pressure of the Semitic stock that the earlier inhabitants speaking these agglutinative languages were dispersed from this area and went in eastern directions towards India and in Western directions towards Africa. The speakers of the Dravidian languages and the Negro-African languages represent these branches and hence continue to retain many of their original linguistic features in these remote areas. Other peoples of the same stock, who remained in their own regions were either completely assimilated to the conquering race or partially assimilated (like Hamites) and thus lost their linguistic heritage, or took refuge in distant mountain regions of the Caucasus, Pyrenees etc, preserving their languages like Caucasian, Basque and other languages which are now termed Asiatic languages.
Linguistic resemblances noticed among the Dravidians, Negro-African, Basque, Caucasian, Elamie, Sumerian, Nubian, Scythian and a host of other languages of this area go to prove this fact. It is true that certain points of resemblance may be noticed between Hamito-Semitic languages and the above-mentioned languages also. But these resemblances only lead us to postulate the impact of the Hamitic-Semitic languages on these languages due to socio-cultural contacts and hence mutual borrowing must have taken place. If the composite culture of India is the creation of the already settled Dravidians and the incoming Aryans, and the Greek culture is the creation of the earlier inhabitants like Aegeans and the incoming Greeks, the composite culture of Negro-Africa may also be considered as the creation of the already settled Negroes and the the incoming Semites and Hamites. Due to such cultural contact, conflict, coexistence and fusion, linguistic borrowing also might have taken place to a very large extent.
Linguitic similarities noticed among different language groups are to be considered as due to any one of the following (i) accidental similarity in certain vocabulary items, (ii) typological similarity due to parallel phonetic, morphological or syntactic structures, (iii) areal similarity due to convergence in linguistic features on account of geographical contiguity and mutual inflow of communication through a considerable period of time, and (iv) resemblance due to genetic relation because of their having developed from the same source. Since the resemblance noticed among the Dravidian, Negro-African and other ancient languages of the Near and Middle East are so numerous the first possibility is ruled out. The second possibility is also ruled as the resemblances are not typological alone but are also in the root elements relating to vocabulary items and grammatical structure. Since the languages under consideration are separated by geographical boundaries the third possibility is automatically ruled out. We are left with no other alternative but to accept the fourth possibility namely the genetic relationship. Since the languages share not only lexical and grammatical features but also display sound correspondences as described in the following pages our assumptions about common heritage is very much strengthened.
If the linguistic evidences go to strengthen the assumptions made by the anthropological and archaeological studies, the common parentage of the Dravidians, Negro-Africans and other ancient races of these region can be proved with convincing evidence.
It will be of interest to postulate that even after the original stock was dispersed in different directions towards India and Africa the member communities maintained contacts with one another through sea-route. After the Indus Valley Civilization of Dravidians was destroyed by the incoming Aryans – or the natural calamities as believed by some – the Dravidian Speakers must have come towards the south along the western coast. The maritime front of the Indus Civilization is well known. The great Dravidian Kings of South India had maritime relations with Mesopotamia, Arabia, Egypt and East Africa. They had excellent trade relations with the countries across the Arabian sea. Egyptian merchants were in the habit of trading on the Indian Ocean. The archaeological excavations conducted on the Arabian Coast, the Persian Gulf and other regions go to prove this fact.
One of the generals of Alexander the Great travelled through these coasts and recorded the presence of foreign traders in those regions. The fact that the burnt bricks were used both by the architect of Mohenjo Daro and those of the Egypt of the first dynasty is evidence of the mutual contact or the common origin of these peoples. The presence of a few Kannada words and sentences in a Greek play preserved in an Egyptian papyrus of the second century AD, further strengthens our assumptions. It is interesting to note that when Vasco da Gama reached Mombasa he found Indians already settled there and it was an Indian pilot who took him to Goa. The contributions made by the Dravidian immigrants in evolving the New Sudanic Civilization is rightly acknowledged by great historians like Baumann.
The examples of phonetic, morphological and lexical parallels between the Dravidian languages and the Senegalese languages like Wolof, Serer, Pular ( Fulani) and Joola (Dyola) and hints about sound correspondences presented in the following pages are based on the observations made during the course of about a year’s field wok carried out in Senegal with a view to making a comparative study of the Dravidian languages and the above-mentioned four languages belonging to the West-Atlantic sub-group of the Niger-Congko family.
The present study is not without its obvious limitations. First of all it is based on preliminary observations and a detailed study is being made. Many of the observations made now are subject to modifications after further analysis. The purpose of this preliminary report is only to indicate the possibilities and the fruitfulness of a detailed study which is being made now. It must also be noticed here that many pre-requisites are yet to be fulfilled before the parentage of the different groups of languages can be ascertained. Reconstruction of the Prot-Language of the hundreds of Negro-African languages based on systemic synchronic descriptions and the methods of reconstruction - which will be the work of reconstructed proto-language is to be compared with the reconstructed proto-language of the Dravidian family. Though linguists have made some progress in reconstructing the Ancient Dravidian speech forms, practically no work of any significance is available so far for a bewildering variety of the Negro-African languages of this vast area. Any result obtained until that time is only tentative and subject to modifications. But however, it is hoped that the efforts now being made may certainly contribute towards that goal and stimulate further efforts in this direction to make a deeper probe into the subject.
For such ancient languages with poor documentation o written record, separated by geographical boundaries and having independent course of development or evolution over some millennia, any attempt to find rigid equivalences is bound to be met with failures. Or, within the frame-work of comparative linguistics, to what extend a regular sound correspondence can be set up or strict morphological parallels can be utilized and validated in the case of languages separated by such a long geographical and temporal gap is also a point open to dispute. It is only a rough approximation of general tendencies in their phonetic and morphological behavior that can be aimed at, at this stage of our understanding of these languages, which may help us to postulate the relationship and the original source of these linguistic features. Linguistic laws are not irrefutable because of the various disturbing factors.
During the course of their survival and evolution over some millennia, many losses and innovations might have taken place due to contact, borrowing, independent development etc. It is with this caution that the broad tendencies noticed among these languages specially in their phonetic, morphological and lexical elements are presented in the following pages. Syntactic features are not taken into consideration in this study because the order of the constituent elements is more free in the higher stage of construction in the immediate constituent hierarchy and the order of constituents is more susceptible to change due to areal convergence and hence may not prove to be a useful tool in determining genetic relationship.
Agglutinating tendency, absence of grammatical gender, absence of inner vowel-change, use of post-positions or prepositions instead of flexion are some of the prominent features in which the Negro-African and Dravidian languages differ from the Indo-European and Hamito-Semitic group. Other features shared both by the Negro-African and Dravidian are : a simple system of five basic vowels with short-long contrast, vowel harmony, absence of initial clusters of consonants, abundance of geminated consonants, distinction of inclusive and exclusive pronouns in the first person plural, absence of the degree of comparison for adjectives, lack of adjectives and adverbs as distinct morphological categories, consonant alternation or nominal increments noticed among the nouns of different classes, distinction of completed action and incomplete action among verbal paradigms as against specific tense distinctions, two separate sets of paradigms for declarative and negative forms of verbs, use of reduplicated forms fro emphasis etc. At the same time, the Negro-African languages also show some marked differences from the Dravidian languages especially in their baffling noun-classification system, consonant alternation, wealth of derived forms to modify the sense of verbs, use of wide variety of personal terminations for verbs etc.
[ Abbreviations used for language names:
Sn.= Senegalese languages. NA = Angro-African Land=gauges Dr. = Dravidian languages PDr. = Proto-Dravidian MDr. = Modern Dravidian SDr. = South Dravidian CDr. = Central Dravidian. W. = Wolof P. = Pulaar(Fulani) S. = Serer. J. = Joola(Dyola) Ta. = Tamil Ma. = Malayalam Ko. = Kota To. = Toda Ka. = Kannada KoD. = KoDagu Tu. = Tulu Te. = Telugu Kol. = Kolamai Nk. = Naiki Pa. = Parji Ga. = Gadaba Go. Gondi Konda. = Konda Kui. = Kui Mal. = Malto Br. = Brahui Bas. = Basque Su. = Sumerian Cau. = Caucasus Ber. = Berber]
Both Sn. And Dr. have a system of five basic vowels with a three-fold distinction of tongue-height (high, mid and low), a three-fold distinction of tongue-position (front, central and back), a two-fold distinction of lip rounding (rounded and unrounded), and a two=fold distinction of duration (short and long)
I u ii uu
e o ee oo
a aa
Some languages belonging to both these groups have developed slightly lower or higher counterparts like I, E, U -- -- -- (Note: could not type for lack phonetic symbols) . These sounds are noticed at phonetic level in some languages whereas in some other languages either some of them or all of them attained phonemic status. With very slight modifications this basic system can be noticed in all languages belonging to Sn. And Dr. group. All these can occur as short or long in all positions of a word and pronounced evenly. Neither word-stress nor pitch is a phonologically distinct feature in these two groups of languages.
Though we assign six series of stop consonants for PDr., only five, namely bilabial, dental, retroflex, palatal and velar form a perfect system. Alveolar R in Dr. has a limited occurrence and it is restricted to certain positions only. Though the distinction between voiced and voiceless stops was at phonetic level only in PDr., almost all modern Dravidian languages have this distinction at phonemic level also. We find approximately a similar system in Sn. With the exception that in the place of dental and retroflex series, Sn. Have a single tip-alveolar series, which, to the ear of a Dravidian speaker sound more like the retroflex of Dr. Implosives stops --(?), d and y noticed in certain Sn. Languages like Pular and Serer must be later innovations. Both Sn. And Dr. do not also employ a wide variety of fricatives. As MDr. Developed some fricatives like s, s and h, Sn. Too developed f,x and h. Of these, some may perhaps be considered as due to Semitic borrowings while some like f may be due to borrowing as well as developments from primitive sounds like P. The two important features in which Sn. and Dr. together form a group as opposed to hamito-Semitic and Indo-European are the (i) absence of aspirated stop consonants and (ii) relatively little use of stops and fricatives in post-velaric regions.
Like Dr., Sn. too have a series of nasal corresponding to all stop consonants and the abundance of these nasals (including n like its counterpart in Malayalam even in word initial position) resemble Dravidian tendency. A more or less similar system of vovwels and consonants is noted for the ancient languages of the Mediterranean and Middle East regions also, especially Basque, Ligurian, Sumerian etc. The only exception is the Caucasion group which displays a wide variety of consonants different from the systems noted above.
The syllable pattern of Dr. and Sn. show many resemblances. We have in both the systems a greater tendency towards open syllables and avoidance of non-identical consonant clusters. Generally the accent falls on initial syllable of a word in both these groups. Since only a few languages of the Niger-Congo family bear phonologically significant tones it is doubtful whether it is to be attributed to the proto language of this family. Hiatus is avoided and prothetic vowels or the vowel glides are employed. Initial clusters of consonants are absent in both these groups. The sole exception is the presence of some nasalized stops in the initial position in Sn. as well as the entire Niger-Congo group. It is likely that they might have developed from an earlier cluster by the loss of preceding vowel or due to later innovations.
Abundance of medial geminated consonants is a popular phenomenon noticed in Dr. and Sn. It is due ti their preference for open syllables that the final consonants are very rare in these languages. As opposed to Indo-European and Hamito-Semitic the verbal roots in Dr. have a vocalic ending. According Meinhof Proto-Bantu roots have all a vocalic ending. Nubian too has this tendency. Though we find some liquids and nasals in the word-final position in some Dr. languages, many languages of this group have a tendency to add a vocalic release at that end. We have also come across a good number of cases with consonantal endings in Sn. But two points deserve special mention here. First of all, the exact nature of the single stop consonants in the final position is not clear. The contrast between voiced and voiceless stop consonant in the final position is neutralized in many cases. It occurs as voiceless when followed by another vowel. When a slightly geminated, aspirated or tense consonant occurs in the final position a vocalic release can be noticed, in which case it is considered as geminated. This may lead us to postulate that originally these languages might have had a greater tendency towards vowel-ending words.
Vowel harmony in some form or other is a tendency noticed in the phonology of the Negro-African, Dravidian and many other ancient languages of the Mediterranean and the other regions of West Asia. In Te. the final ‘u’ or ‘i’ of many suffixes like dative, accusative, pronominal etc. depends on the stem-final vowel preceding it; e.g. tammuni-ki, ‘to the brother’ qurramuna-ku ‘ to the horse’; kottina-nu ‘ I struck’ unti-ni ‘ I was’. The stem-final ‘i’ is assimilated to the following ‘u’ of the plural suffix ‘lu’ ; e.g katti “knife’ kattu-lu “knives’. The enunciative vowel ‘u’ or ‘i’ in many Dr. languages depends on the vowel in the preceding syllable; e.g. Tu. and- I ‘yes’, undu ‘this’, Ta. kotu ‘to give’, pati ‘to lie down’ etc. In NA languages vowel-harmony is noticed in the case of the respective tongue-heights of the vowels in consecutive syllables. Greenberg suggests that relative height is basic to all African systems of vowel harmony. Hence the vowels can be divided into two mutually exclusive sets like higher and lower or tense and lax, and the vowel is assimilated to the following or preceding vowels. (Notes: the examples omitted because lack of relevant phonetic symbols)
Some prominent sound correspondences may be noted here. Alternation b & v is noted in Dr. e.g. Ta. v and Ka. b. W. b corresponds to Dr. b & v in a number of cases;
e.g W. baaram’ finger’, Ka. Beral; T. viral; W. biig ‘evening’; Ka. Bayqu; Ta. vayku; W. biir ’belly, pregnancy’ ; Ka.basaru, Ta. vayiRu, Ma. Vayaru, Tu. Banji; W. benn ‘one’ Ta. (wo_onRu; W.bey “tocultivate, cultivation’, Ka. Bele, Ta. viLay, Ma. Vila; W. bunt ‘door’, Ka. Baagilu, Ta. vaacal; W. bant ‘stick’, Ka. Badige, Tu. Badu, Ta. vati; W. bind ‘to write’ , Ka. Bare, Ta. vari etc.
W. f & Dr. p.
e.g. W. fukk ‘ten’, Ta. ma. Patti, Te. Padi, Tu. Patti; W. fekk “to find’ , Ta. piti ‘to hold’, Ka. Pidi, Tu. Patti; W. fab ‘to pick up’ , Kui.pebga, Kod. Pori, Ta. perukka, Tu. Peji; W. fen “to tell lie’, Tu.pani ‘to tell’, Ta. peecu; W. fog ‘to shake’ , Ta. pandi,; W. feex ‘fresh, cool’, Tu. Paji.
W. f & Dr. c/t/k.
W. juroom ‘five’, Par. Cem, Go. Sayyum, Kui. Singi; W. jaan ‘snake’, Ta. cereal, Ka. Keere; W. jiit “scoprpion’, Ta. Ma. TeeL, Ka. Ceel; W. jaay ‘to sell;, jar ‘to cost’, Ta. celavu, Ma. Celka; W. jam ‘to piere’, Ta. ceruku, Ma. Cerutu, Ka. Cuccu.
W. & Dr. k
W. xar ‘sheep’ , Ka. Kuri, Ta. Ma. Kori, Kod. Koi; W. xeer ‘rock’ , Ta. Ma. Kal “stone’, Ka. Kallu, Br. Khal, Pa. Kel; W. xenx ‘red’, Ka. Tu. Kempu, Br. Khiisum; W. xerem ‘salt’, Ka. Kaar ‘pungent, saltiest, hot’ Br. Khareen ‘bitter’; W. xetti ‘to tear’, Ta. Kati ‘to cut’, Ma. Katikka, Te. Kaatu, Br. Gat; W. xarit ‘friend’, Ta. KeeLanm Ka. Keleyea, geleya; W. xuuge “hunch-back’, Ta. Ma. Kuuna, Ka. Guuna; W. xam “to know’, Ta. Kal ‘to ;earn’, Ka. Kali; W. xaar ‘to wait’, Ta. Kaay, Ka. Kayyu; W. xel ‘heart’, Ma. Karai, Ka. Karalu; W. xur ‘valley;, Ta. Kuri, To. Kos; W. xaj ‘dog’, te. Kukka. Also note: S. xoox ‘head’, Kur, kukk, Mal. Kuku.
Though Dr. does not display any system of noun classification similar to the one noticed in NA, some traces of such a system can be imagined for Dr. because of the augment apparing after nouns before case-suffixes and post-positions are added. Special mention may be made of the augment Ta. Ma. tt, Te. ti ti. Ka. d etc. occurring after non-human nouns ending in ‘a’, augment ‘n’ in most of Dr. languages after human nouns ending in ‘a’ etc. e.g. Ta. mara-tt-ai ‘the tree’(acc), Ka. Mara-d-a “tree’s’. Consomnant alternation when the membership of a root is changed into adifferent class or when suffixes are added may be noticed in instances like Ka. oodu ‘to run’, oota ‘running, race’ kodu, ‘to give’, kottano ‘he gave’, biilu ‘to fall’, bidd ‘ ‘fallen’ participle. In Sn. languages in general and S. and P. in particular the system of consonant alternation is highly developed, e.g. P. modo ara ‘I came’, eden ngara ‘we come’, hoore ‘head’, koye ‘heads’, S. gar ‘to come’ o ngara ‘they came, bind ‘to write’ o pind ale ‘writng;, xon ‘ todie’, o kon ohe ‘dead; and W. bind ‘to write’ , mbind ‘writing; garab ‘tree’ , ngarab ‘bush’.
Demonstrative bases in Sn. and Dr. show striking resemblances as can be seen from the following table. These are prefixed to the elements indicating person, place, manner etc in Dr. whereas they are suffixed in the case of Sn.
[* The Dr. ‘u’ is still in usage among Ceylon Tamils. Tolkappiyam and Cankam literature mention this ‘u’ - Editor]
The following participial and abstract noun formative suffixes of Sn. Corresponds to Dr. suffixes of similar signification.
P. -o past participial and -oowa agentive; J. -a agentive, Dr. -a, ava, e.g P. windudu ‘written’, windoowo ‘writer’, janginoowa ‘teacher’, J. leb ‘to talk’, allaba ‘talkative’, tep ‘to build’ , ateba ‘builder’, Ka. Bareda ‘written’ baredava ‘ one who wrote’ etc.
W. aay and J.ay abstract noun formative and Dr. ay. Ta. Ay K. e etc, e.g. W. baax ‘good’, baaxaay ‘goodness;, rafet ‘be beautiful’, raftetaay ‘beauty’, gudda ‘be lomg’ , kudday ‘length’; J. apala ‘friend’ bapalay ‘friendship’, leb ‘to tak’ mulebay ‘scandal’; Ka. Hiri ‘big’ , elder’ hirime ‘greatness’, Ta. Nal ‘good’, nanmay ‘goodness’
W. it, iit abstract noun formative suffix and Ka. ita, ta . e.g W. deg ‘to cut’ degit ‘sharpness’, des ‘to remain’ desit ‘residue’, Ka. hari ‘ to cut’, harita ‘sharpness’, kuni ‘ to dnace, kunita ‘dance’.
W. kaay and P. iki formative suffix and Ka. ike e.g. W. faj ‘to nurse’ fajukaay ‘hospital’, ate ‘to judge’, attekeay ‘tribunal’ , bind ‘to write’ bindukaay ‘instrument for writing, pen’ , P. and ‘to knoe’, andiki ‘knowledge;, wind ‘to write’ , bindiki ‘writng’, yar ‘to drink’ , jarki ‘drinking’, Ka. Haasu ‘to spread’ haastike ‘bed’, aalu ‘to rule’, aalike ‘ domination, rule’.
P. past tense suffix ‘i’ ‘finished action’ corresponds to Dr. I, it/id past tense suffix and ‘i’ past participial suffix, e.g. P. a wari ‘ he came’ a andi ‘ he knew’ o tuuri ‘ he vomited’ and Ma. pooyi, went Ka. maadi ‘ having done‘ .
W. wul, ul ‘negative suffix’ and J. ul ‘suffix for negative derivation for verbs; correspond to Dr. al, il, illa etc, and P. a, ata ‘nef=gative suffix’ corresponds to Dr. a, ate, ade, ada ‘ negative participial/ gerundial suffix’. E.g. W. bey ‘ to cultivate’, beyul ‘negative’, indi ‘to bring’ indiwul ‘did not bring’; J. kik ‘to stich’, kikul ‘to unstich’, gadul ‘to unhook’, fehlul ‘to untie’; Old ta. Nill al-an ‘ he will not stand’, Ka. Nill-alla “does not stand’. P. war ‘to come’ warata ‘not coming’ , ta. Var ‘to come’, varaata’ not coming’, Tu. Bori ‘to milk’, boriyada ‘don’t milk’; Old Ma. Ceyyaa ‘ I will not do’ and P. mi andi ‘ I knew’ mi andaa ‘ I do not know’ , Ka. Maadu ‘ to do’, maada ;he may not do’.
W. al/l ‘imperative suffix’ corresponds to Dr. ali, la, le , alaam ‘imperative/permissive, e.g W. bindal ‘write’, indil ‘bring’ Tu. barela ‘write’ , barele ‘write’, (pl) Ka. bareyali ‘let . . . . . write’, Ta. varalaam ‘may come’
Many pronouns and pronominal elements in verbal constructions (like personal suffixes) in the two groups of languages contain common elements, e.g. W. man ‘I’ naa I. P.sg; Ka. naan ‘I’ ne/nu I.p.sg.; W. yew ’you’, ya II.p.sg., nga II.p/sg, ngeen IIp.pl. J. aw, nu ‘you’ g., Tu. ii’you’, Ta. niinga ‘you’ nga IIp.hon., sg.; W.meen ‘he’, nae III p.sg., P. omo ‘he’ J. e “he’, Ta. avan ‘he’ etc.
J. e, ere ‘reflexive suffix’ and P. o to form middle voice (with reflexive meaning) correspond to Dr. o, onu, ollu, kollu etc , e.g. J. buj ‘to kill’ bujere ‘to kill oneself’; P. laata “to become’ , laato ‘to become’, middle voice; Ka. Oodu ‘to read’ oodika ‘read oneself’; Tu. Bare ‘to write’ bareyonu ‘write oneself’.
Both Dr. and Sn. Employ reduplication of these bases to emphasize meaning or to modify the sense in a similar manner. E.g. J. fan ‘more’ fanfan ‘very much’; funak ‘day’ funako-funak ‘every day’; W. xam ‘to know’, xam-xam ‘knowledge’; siin ‘region of Sine”, siin-siin ‘native of Sime’; gam ‘to hurt’, gaam-gaam ‘wound’; Ka. Beega ‘quick’, beega beega ‘veru quick’, maadi ‘having done’, maadi-maadi ‘having done again again ‘, ondu ‘one’ ondondu ‘one each’ .
A few sample lexical items from the basic vocabulary list are given below. The numbers at the end denote the corresponding entries of the Dravidian Etymological Dictionary by Burrow and Emeneau.
In Pular and Serer entries the slash separates singular and plural forms.
Nature, Flora and Fauna
Village, settlement. P. wuro, Ta. Ma. Nk. uur id. Ka. Tu. Te. uuru id. Br. ura id. 643, Su. uru id.
Mountain, rock. P. haayre, Ka. hare ‘rock’, Kuwi. hooru id. 2356
Valley, pit. W. xur, S. xulub id. Ta. Ma. kuri id. Tu. quri id. Pa. kurub id. 1511.
Stone W. xeer, Ta. Ma. kal id. To. kas id. Ka. kallu id. Pa. kal id. Br.khal id. 1511
Mud ,clay W. ban, Ta. Ma. maN id. Ka. mannu id. Ta. mannu id. 3517.
Cloud , water (i) W. niir “cloud’ , Ta. Ma. niir ‘water’, ka. Ta. niiru id. Br. Diir id 3057. (ii) W. ndox ‘water’ P.ndiiyam id. Br. diir id. Ta. Ma. niir id. 3057.
Stream W. wel, J. kal id. Te. velli id. Ko. kolli id. 4529, 1777.
Dawn W. fajarm, S. fajar id. Ta. pular, pularcci id. Ma. pularuka id. Te. pulva id. 3531
Day-time , warmth W. beceg, Ka. beccaqe id.
Evening . W. W. biiq, Ka. bayqu id. Tu. bayya id. Ta, Ma. Vaiku id. Te. veequ id . 4570
Snake (i) fangool/ pangool , Ta. Ma. paampu id. Te. paamu id. Pa. baam id. Ko.paab id. To. poob id 3361. (ii) W. jaan id. P.njaawa id. Pa. jeeri id. Go. seeri id. Ko.jeeringga id . 2314.
Spider W. jargon, P. njabale id. Ta. jaadajeeda, Tu. jaadye id.
Lizard P. pallardi, ta. Ma. Palli , 3294
Scorpian W. jeit Ta. Ma. teeL id. Ka. Tu. ceel id.
Tortoise (i) P. amere/ame Ta. aamai id. Ma. aama id. Ka. aamaa id. Tu. eeme id 4282 (ii) J. ekub id. Kur. ekka id. Mal. eke id. 660
II. Household and Agriculture
House, hut (i) P. galle J. elun id. Te. illu id. Ta. il id. Tu. ill id. Nk. ella id. 420. Bas. ili id. Nu. il (ii) W. ker id. Ta. kuti kuticai id. Ko. kurji id. Kui. kuuri id. Tu. kotta ‘hut’ 1713. Br. Kur id.
Door P. baafal W. bunt id. Ka. baagil id. Ta. vaacal, vaayil id. Ma. vaatil id. Te. vaakili id. 4386.
Corner W. kon S. koon id. Ta. koonai id. Ka. kone id. Ma. Konna id. 1808
Pestle. P. unugal Ta. ulakkai id. Ma. ulaka id. Ka. onake id . 580
Pot W. paana ‘metal pot’ Ta. paanai ‘eathern pot’ , Ma. pane id. Ka. bane id. Kod. paani id. Tu. paani id. 3394
Charcoal W. kerin P. kaata id. Ta. Ma. kari id. Ka. Tu. kari id. Ta. karu ‘black’ 1073
Smoke W. saxaar, J. fakor id. Ta. Ma. pukai id. Ka. Kod. poge id. Te. poga id. Nk. pog id. 3483
Salt W. xoron Ta. kaar “to be saltish, pungent’, kaaram id. Ma. kaaram id. Ka. kaara id. Te. kaaru ‘salt’ Br. Khareen ‘bitter’ 1227
Clarified butter S. new Ta. Ma. Ka. Tu. ney id. Pa. nev id. Go. In id. Kui niiju id. Kuwi niiyu id 3104
Cultivation W. bey ‘to cultivate’ mbey ‘cultivation’ ambey ‘crop’ Tu. bey ‘ to cultivate’ benni ‘cultivation’ bule ‘crop’ Ka. bele ‘crop’ ‘to grow’ Ta. vilay id. 4473, 4464
Manure J. aroka Ta. eru id. To. Eruvu id. Ka. erubu, eeru id. 696
Net W. mbaal S. mbaal id. J. mabal id. Ka. bale id. Ta. valai id. Ma. Vala id. Ga. Valla id. 4326
Boat raft W. gal Ta. kool, koola id. Ka. kool id. Te. koolamu id. Pa. kulla id 1853
Rice W. eeb Ta. Ma. cooru ‘cooked rice’ 2360
Millot W. suuna, P. sunna id. Kol. sonna id. Kuwi. zoona id. To. joona id. Pa. jenne id. Go. jonaa id. 2359.
III Kinship Terms and Body Parts.
Person J.an S. kin id. W. nit id. Ta. Ma. Ka. aan ‘person, male’ , an ‘masculine suffix’ 342.
Mother W. yaay, S. yaay id. J. inaay id. Ta. aay, yaay, naay, taay id. Ka. aavi, taavi id. Ga. Aava id. Mal. avva id. 308, 53
Father W. baay, P. baaba id. S. baab id. J. ampa id. Ka. appa id. Ta. appan id. Te. appa id. Go. aapa id. 133 Su. ab id. Cau. ab id.
Child J. anil/kunil Ma. kunnu, kunci id. Ko. kuni id. Kod. kunni id. 1371.
Husband J. ata Ta. attaan ‘husband’, ‘maternal uncle’s son’ ‘ man of eminence’ ‘sister’s husband’ 121
Grandfather W. maammaat ‘great grand-father’ maam ‘greandfather’ P. maamiraado id. S. maamkor id. Ta. maama ‘uncle’ ‘a term of address to eladers’ muuttaar ‘aged persons’ mutu ‘aged, old’ Ka. mudimi id. 4057
Maiden W.janx, J. ajana id. W. jeeg ‘married woman’ Tu. jeevn ‘maiden’ 2311.
Friend W. xarit S. kuud id. Ma. kuuraan id. Ka. keleyan 1577, 1678.
Body W. yaram S. cer id. Ta. uru id. uruvam id. To. urp id. Kol. urp id 566.
Head (i) S. xoox J. fu-ko id. Kur. kukk id. Mal. kuku id. 1358. (ii) W. bapp id. Te. burra id. Ka. burude id. 3553. Bas. Buru id. (iii) P. hoore id. Ka. hore ‘head-load’ hour ‘to carry on head’.
Lip W. tun P. tondu id. Ta. Ka. titi Go. tote id. Kui. Tooda id. 2698
Eye-lash J. kamoy/umay Ta. imay id. Ka. Tu. ime id. 2097.
Ear J. kaos Br. khaf id. Ka. kivi id. Tu. kebi id. Kur. khebda id. 1645.
Neck P. geenul S. goddul id. Te. gontu id. Ka. gantalu id. 1428
Hand (i) J. kangen, kaban S. kand id. Ta. Ma. Ka. kay 1681
Finger W. baaram, Ka. beral id. Ta. Ma. viral id. Ko. bera id. 4436
Heart W. xol J. xoor id. Ko. karl id. Ma. karal, kari id. Ka. karul id. 1070
Blood W. deret Br. Ditar id. Go. nattur id. Te. netturu id. Ka. nettaru id. 3106.
Belly W. biir Go. piir id. Ko. viir id. Ta. vayiRu id. Ka. basaru id. 4299.
Leg P. kovngal Ta. Ma. Kaal id. Ka. kaalu id. Na. kaalu id. Tu. kaari id. 1238.
Skin P. nguru/guri Ta. uri, urivai id. Ma. Uri id 561.
IV Verbs of Common Action etc
Eat , lick W. an ‘eat’ naam’ lick’ P. naam ‘eat’ S. naam id. Ta. Ma. un ‘eat’ nakku’lick, Ka. unnu ‘eat’ nakku ‘lick’ Te. naaku id. Pa. neek id. Kui. Naaka id. Ka. nanju id. 516, 2945, 2956
Drink P. var S. var id. J. raan id. Ta. paruku id. Ma. parukuka id. Tu. par id. 3279.
Come P. ar , wara S. gari id. J. rin id. Ta. varu id. Ma. Varuka id. Ka. baru id. Br. Bar id. Mal. hare id. 4311.
Say W. ne Ta. en id. Ma. ennuka id. Ka. en id. Ta. an id. Mal. anc id. Kur. aannaao id. 737.
Learn J. kaliken Ka. kali id. Tu. kalpu id. Ta. Ma. Kal id. 1090.
Beget , give birth to W. jur J. eron id. Ta. peru id. Ma. peruka id. Ka. per id. Kod. per id. 3622.
Die W. saay ‘to die’ used for king’s death. P. sooyta id. Ka. saay id. Tu. say id. Ta. caay id. Ma. caaka id. Ga. say id. Kui. Saava id. 2002.
Hope P. kori Ta. kooru id. Ma. kooruta id. Ka. Ta. kooru id. Ga. koor id. 1848
Want, desire W. begg Ka. beeku id. Tu. boodu id. Ta. veenum id. 4548.
Spill, vomit W. tuur, P. tuur id. Ka. Te. tuuru id. Ta. tuppu id. Te. tuppukku id. 2795, 2725.
Steal J. kuut S. kuud ‘thief’ Ka. kadi ‘to steal’, kalla ‘theirf’ Ta. kal ‘to steal To. Kol id. Tu. kalu id. 1156.
In Summary, the Dravidian speakers came from the Fertile African Crescent, where they made up one of the Temehu ethnic groups which are called C-Group people by archaeologists. This explains the close relationship between Dravidian and Black African languages.
These Nubian Dravidians came to India from two directions. The Proto-Tamils and northern Dravidian speakers settled the Indus Valley. The Malayalam speakers probably early separated from the Tamil speakers and migrated southward from the Indus Valley after 1700 B.C. The Tamil went on to settle Central Asia, and migrated from this area and China to settle India after 500 B.C.
In science knowledge is obtained as result of the examination of the evidence . As a result, of the genetic relationship between Dravidian and African languages we know that these people are related.
Other Articles can be found at the following sites
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ^^Remember Rasol, you asked for this extraordinarily long response, but validity of points is something else that needs to be closely examined.
I agree read the papers and you see that Dravidian, African, and European researchers agree that Dravidian and African languages are related.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
The experts state that such a relation is distant and stems from Paleolithic OOA migrations, NOT recent African migrations. They also say the same with other non African languages including European and Siberian languages!
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: ES isn't a courtroom. But if it were, the judge would interrupt Dr. Winters monologue with the following 'request':
Either answer the question, or be found in contempt of court.
Many Dravidian and African scholar recognize a close relationship between African and Dravidian languages. Many Indian researchers believe that they originated in Africa. B.B. Lal, who did research in Nubia and India, is sure that the Dravidians were related to the C-Group of Nubia (see: Lal, B , "The Only Asian expedition in threatened Nubia:Work by an Indian Mission at Afyeh and Tumas", The Illustrated London Times , 20 April 1963).
In addition to the anthropological/archaeological evidence other researchers note a genetic relationship between Dravidian and African languages. These studies include the following:
Aravanan, K P , "Physical and cultural similarities between Dravidians and Africans", Journal of Tamil Studies 10,(1976)pages 23-27.
Aravanan, K P , Dravidians and Africans , Madras, 1979.
N'Diaye, C T, Vers une theorie du Sino-Africaine , Dakar,1972. Mimeo.
Aravanan,K.P. Notable negroid elements in Dravidian India, Journal of Tamil Studies, 1980, pp.20-45.
Lahovary, N , Dravidian Origins and the West, Madras: Longman,1957.
N'Diaye, C.T. The relationship between Dravidian languages and Wolof. Annamalai University Ph.D. Thesis.1978.
Upadhyaya,P & Upadhyaya,S.P., Les liens entre Kerala et l"Afrique tels qu'ils resosortent des survivances culturelles et linguistiques, Bulletin de L'IFAN, no.1, 1979, pp.100-132.
Upadhyaya,P & Upadhyaya,S.P. Affinites ethno-linguistiques entre Dravidiens et les Negro-Africain, Bull. IFAN, No.1, 1976,pp.127-157.
quote:Implications of African Language Family Histories for Human History Christopher Ehret
Linguistic evidence is the most powerful indicator of the centrality of the eastern side of Africa in the early dispersals of Homo sapiens. Recent investigations suggest that four late Middle and Upper Pleistocene episodes of radical population relocation are mirrored in the histories and relationships of the African language families.
We consider these proposed episodes in reverse chronological order.
Episode 4: The most recent of these episodes dates to around 20,000 years ago, at the time of maximum dry climate in Africa.
In this period, it can be argued, northeastern Africa became a refugium into which populations from distant parts of the continent retreated.
According to the most recent findings, each of the four established families—Nilo-Saharan, Afroasiatic, Niger-Kordofanian, and Khoisan—divides at the deepest level into two primary branches.
In each case one primary branch is spread widely across Africa, while the other primary branch is restricted to one adjacent set of regions in northeastern Africa.
The Omotic primary branch of Afroasiatic is limited to southwestern Ethiopia (Bender 1974, Fleming 1974, Ehret 1995b). One Nilo-Saharan primary branch, Koman, is spoken at the edge of the Ethiopian highlands, immediately adjacent to the Omotic lands (Ehret 2001).
The Kordofanian primary branch of Niger-Kordofanian is spoken in the Nuba Mountains, only 200-300 kilometers from Koman and Omotic languages (Williamson and Blench 2000).
In Khoisan, the restricted primary branch, Hadza, is found somewhat farther off, but still nearby, in East Africa (Ehret forthcoming).
The inescapable import of these findings is that most probable origin place of each of the African language families lay in one composite African region, comprising the southern Middle Nile Basin, the adjacent western and southern parts of the Ethiopian highlands, and certain nearby areas of East Africa (Ehret 1984; Blench 1993).
Making this case still more compelling, we now have strong evidence for postulating a fifth distinct African language family, consisting today of a single remaining language, Shabo.
This language is spoken by a small community of hunter-gatherers located in far southwestern Ethiopia, right in the middle of the origin areas we must postulate for the other four families (Ehret 1995a).
Those scholars who have studied the issue of time depth in the four established families agree that very long chronologies must be postulated (Fleming 1977; Ehret 2000b, 2003).
Ehret has argued from proposed archaeological correlations that the minimum time depth of the Khoisan and Afroasiatic language families is 20,000 years, while the Niger-Kordofanian and Nilo-Saharan time depths may possibly be somewhat shorter, at 15,000 to 20,000 years (Ehret 2000a).
From these adjacent regions, the various families of Africa then spread out to repopulate the continent during the periods after 20,000 years ago.
Episodes 2 and 3. Two previous episodes of population relocation, much earlier in time, are implied in recent conjectures about the relationships among the African language families and between them and families outside Africa (Ruhlen 2003).
According to this proposal, the Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan families belong to a common Afro-Pacific macro-phylum that includes several southern Asian families and the Indo-Pacific family.
Afroasiatic belongs to a second macro-phylum along with Indo-European, the various northern and central Asian language families, and the Amerindian languages.
This hypothesis requires two initial streams of human movement out of Africa, one following the southern margins of Asia, eventually as far as New Guinea and nearby island chains. The second stream would have passed into western Asia and from there into Europe and across central and northern Asia and eventually into the Americas.
Episode 1. The argument has recently been made (but not yet published) that the Khoisan family may form one primary division of the existing human languages, and that all other language the families belong to a second primary division. The argument relates to the question, why do click consonants exist uniquely in the Khoisan family, even though it is known that children of all genetic backgrounds, raised in Khoisan societies, easily learn and use clicks?
The most economical explanation is that the original proto-Human language from which all existing languages derive divided, at the first stage of human dispersal, into two daughter languages.
One of these was distantly ancestral to the Khoisan languages. This language would have maintained the original click consonants. The other was the ancestor of all of the rest of our human languages.
It would have dropped the click manner of articulation, accounting for why its descendants all lack clicks today.
The genetic implications of this explanation are that human beings initially diversified into two groupings of communities within Africa.
One spoke a set of languages found across southern and eastern Africa, of which the Khoisan languages are the last remaining offshoot.
The other primary group would also have been purely African in origin, but it would have accounted for the settlement of the rest of Africa and, subsequently at stages 2 and 3, for the spread of human beings into the rest of the world. (Because no original “Pygmy” languages survived, the evidence is lacking for locating them in this picture. Their no longer extant languages conceivably might have formed a third primary branch of proto-Human.)
Implications for Human Population History Episodes 1-3 implied by the linguistic hypotheses have partial correlates in genetic studies already published (e.g., Tischkoff and Williams 2002, Underhill et al. 2001).
Episode 4 has particular implications for northeastern Africa population genetics: it implies that modern Northeastern African populations should derive from as many as four or five distinct very early human lineages. In addition, however, they should evince significant cross-population gene flow dating to c. 20,000 BP (e.g., Underhill et al. 2001), a consequence of the retreat at that period of these different populations into adjacent areas in and around the southern Ethiopian highlands
Question for Rasol or Supercar:
Episodes 2 and 3 above postulates separate OOA streams: one following a southerly coastal route; the other into western asia. Are these scenarios compatible with the existing genetic evidence? Thanks in advance
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to this proposal, the Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan families belong to a common Afro-Pacific macro-phylum that includes several southern Asian families and the Indo-Pacific family.
Afroasiatic belongs to a second macro-phylum along with Indo-European, the various northern and central Asian language families, and the Amerindian languages.
This hypothesis requires two initial streams of human movement out of Africa, one following the southern margins of Asia, eventually as far as New Guinea and nearby island chains. The second stream would have passed into western Asia and from there into Europe and across central and northern Asia and eventually into the Americas.
^^As far as I know, southern Asian-Pacific groups like the Melanesians, Australian aborigines and New Guineans go back to the quite early out-of-Africa anatomically modern human migrations. These would needless to say, predate much of the known language differentiations in Africa.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ Thanks Supercar and Rasol. I appreciate the responses. Ehret's hypothesis is interesting but, based upon documents you've both posted in other threads, the genetic evidence seems to lend greater support to Tishkoff's view. Language is so volatile that any attempt to extrapolate back to macro-phylums contemporaneous with the OOA event would, at present, be highly speculative.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Calypso: ^^ Thanks Supercar and Rasol. I appreciate the responses. Ehret's hypothesis is interesting but, based upon documents you've both posted in other threads, the genetic evidence seems to lend greater support to Tishkoff's view. Language is so volatile that any attempt to extrapolate back to macro-phylums contemporaneous with the OOA event would, at present, be highly speculative.
Just out of curiosity, based on what points, do you feel that Tishkoff's viewpoint is more supported?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The key factor is that the two main L3 mtdna derivitives L3M and L3N expanded all the way to Melanesia and Australia along the southern route, before Northern Eurasia was populated, and perhaps 75,000 years ago.
During this time North Africa and the Levant were even more arid than they are now. This is important because even if the Nile is used as passage way to the Levant, what then? The entiriety of SouthWest Asia is still a massive desert. As this is the paleolithic - no pottery to carry water, no domesticated animals....nothing.
On the other hand the low sea levels that accompanied the drier climate make the southen passage easier, and is often used to explain exactly how humans ended up in relatively remote Pacific Island areas and Australia at such and early time.
If you want see the entire theory of single migration and southern route played out....go here:
quote:Just out of curiosity, based on what points, do you feel that Tishkoff's viewpoint is more supported?
Supercar my understanding is that all "native" Eurasian Mtdna are derived from the earliest OOA lineage, viz, M. Mtdna N and all others are downstream lineages of M. Ignoring the complicating fact that M1 can also be found in Africa, it would seem that had L3 left Africa in 2 separate episodes there would not have been the simple mother daughter pattern among the existing Eurasian lineages. Therefore the neat relationship between existing mtdna lends greater support to Tiskoff's view of one OOA event. Again this is my understanding free of dogmatism. I'm too unschooled in genetic sciences to hold any rigid views.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Calypso: Supercar wrote:
quote:Just out of curiosity, based on what points, do you feel that Tishkoff's viewpoint is more supported?
Supercar my understanding is that all "native" Eurasian Mtdna are derived from the earliest OOA lineage, viz, M. Mtdna N and all others are downstream lineages of M. Ignoring the complicating fact that M1 can also be found in Africa, it would seem that had L3 left Africa in 2 separate episodes there would not have been the simple mother daughter pattern among the existing Eurasian lineages. Therefore the neat relationship between existing mtdna lends greater support to Tiskoff's view of one OOA event. Again this is my understanding free of dogmatism. I'm too unschooled in genetic sciences to hold any rigid views.
More approriately, with respect to the highlighted piece, M and N mtDNA are downstream lineages of L3. I am not aware of statement anywhere, of N macrohaplogroup having derived from the root of M.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
The key factor is that the two main L3 mtdna derivitives L3M and L3N expanded all the way to Melanesia and Australia along the southern route, before Northern Eurasia was populated, and perhaps 75,000 years ago.
During this time North Africa and the Levant were even more arid than they are now. This is important because even if the Nile is used as passage way to the Levant, what then? The entiriety of SouthWest Asia is still a massive desert. As this is the paleolithic - no pottery to carry water, no domesticated animals....nothing.
Looking at this highlighted piece, I take it that this wasn't an issue for the likes of the "generalized modern" specimen found in Qafzeh, in the Levant...or were the conditions presumably better then?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I am not aware of statement anywhere, of N macrohaplogroup having derived from the root of M.
Except for my statement above, which I suspect you're not quite willing to adopt as authoritative at this juncture, you may have some difficulty in finding this in the literature.
I do stand corrected however.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
The key factor is that the two main L3 mtdna derivitives L3M and L3N expanded all the way to Melanesia and Australia along the southern route, before Northern Eurasia was populated, and perhaps 75,000 years ago.
During this time North Africa and the Levant were even more arid than they are now. This is important because even if the Nile is used as passage way to the Levant, what then? The entiriety of SouthWest Asia is still a massive desert. As this is the paleolithic - no pottery to carry water, no domesticated animals....nothing.
Looking at this highlighted piece, I take it that this wasn't an issue for the likes of the "generalized modern" specimen found in Qafzeh, in the Levant...or were the conditions presumably better than?
Well they died out. So 'something' was and issue for them.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Calypso: Supercar wrote:
quote: I am not aware of statement anywhere, of N macrohaplogroup having derived from the root of M.
Except for my statement above, which I suspect you're not quite willing to adopt as authoritative at this juncture, you may have some difficulty in finding this in the literature.
I do stand corrected however.
Calypso, I don't take issue with your stance on the "southern" route for the initial "anatomically" modern humans from Africa; trust me, if I did, you'd know. Just wanted to discern the reasoning you were grasping at, to make your assessment. And you have done just that. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
From Bradshaw foundation.com link: "The branch that reached the Levant died out by 90KYA. A global freeze-up turned this area and north Africa into extreme desert. This region was later reoccupied by Neanderthal man"
This may have been the fate of Qafzeh man.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
From Bradshaw foundation.com link: "The branch that reached the Levant died out by 90KYA. A global freeze-up turned this area and north Africa into extreme desert. This region was later reoccupied by Neanderthal man"
This may have been the fate of Qafzeh man.
Maybe.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
The key factor is that the two main L3 mtdna derivitives L3M and L3N expanded all the way to Melanesia and Australia along the southern route, before Northern Eurasia was populated, and perhaps 75,000 years ago.
During this time North Africa and the Levant were even more arid than they are now. This is important because even if the Nile is used as passage way to the Levant, what then? The entiriety of SouthWest Asia is still a massive desert. As this is the paleolithic - no pottery to carry water, no domesticated animals....nothing.
Looking at this highlighted piece, I take it that this wasn't an issue for the likes of the "generalized modern" specimen found in Qafzeh, in the Levant...or were the conditions presumably better than? [
Well they died out. So 'something' was and issue for them.
What would that something have been? What Calypso just pointed out?
The point is, the Qafzeh group did make their way to the Levant, whatever might have happened to them later on. But I guess, this boils down to the issue of what is considered successful "migrant" groups, by which, one is implying that the said migrant groups have lived successfully, such that they spawned contemporary living populations.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes moreover, the key isn't only in that Homo Sapiens disappeared from the Levant, but also in that they never spread from Levant to elsewhere, at least not during this time period.
quote:The point is, the Qafzeh did make their way to the Levant, whatever might have happened to them later on. But I guess, this boils down to the issue of what is considered successful "migrant" groups, by which, one is implying that the said migrant groups have lived successfully, such that they spawned contemporary living populations.
Interestingly Spencer Wells put's it nicely in Journey of Man - He says that Qafzeh are essentially early Africans in the Levant, and not early non-Africans - a label he assigns to the Andamans.
I understand what he means.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The point is, the Qafzeh did make their way to the Levant, whatever might have happened to them later on. But I guess, this boils down to the issue of what is considered successful "migrant" groups, by which, one is implying that the said migrant groups have lived successfully, such that they spawned contemporary living populations.
Interestingly Spencer Wells put's it nicely in Journey of Man - He says that Qafzeh are essentially early Africans in the Levant, and not early non-Africans - a label he assigns to the Andamans.
I understand what he means.
Well, of course, one cannot call contemporary Andaman Island populations "Africans". This is a term that would have been reserved for groups ancestral to the likes of those in the Andaman Islands, i.e., the initial immigrants into the region.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Andamans are among the descendants of the earliest population to separate from Africa, which also formed the basis of some or all present non Africans and of course survived to this day
The early Qafzeh are like a little out-crop of Africans in Israel.
In fact it calls to question the superfluous nature of whatever makes Isreal a part of Asia instead of Africa to begin with.
We must not forget that per Eric Trinkhous and TW Holliday, these populations were highly tropically adapted.
Now...Isreal isn't in the tropics and doesn't have anything near a tropical climate, so we can't really even regard this population as tropical 'asian' - there are no people living in the asian tropics at this time.
The morphology of this population was one of the early proofs of Out of Africa.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Andamans are among the descendants of the earliest population to separate from Africa, which also formed the basis of some or all present non Africans and of course survived to this day
The early Qafzeh are like a little out-crop of Africans in Israel.
In fact it calls to question the superfluous nature of whatever makes Isreal a part of Asia instead of Africa to begin with.
We must not forget that per Eric Trinkhous and TW Holliday, these populations were highly tropically adapted.
Now...Isreal isn't in the tropics and doesn't have anything near a tropical climate, so we can't really even regard this population as tropical 'asian' - there are no people living in the asian tropics at this time.
The morphology of this population was one of the early proofs of Out of Africa.
Well then, on that issue Spencer and I concur. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have one Question of all the African family groups which one is the oldest.
Another Question so the Afro-Asiatic language group has its origins in eAst Africa so this includes Cushitic and Omotic right but how did they come up with placing these languages in Ethiopia is it because all of these languages are in Ethiopia.
One more thing so Who would u guys say are the oldest of those family goups the Khosian.
-------------------- Hikuptah Al-Masri Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hikuptah, I was doing some research on that recently, I found that: Clicks and the idea of a human protolanguage Hartmut Traunmüller Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University http://www.ling.su.se/fon/perilus/2003_21.pdfPosts: 711 | From: Africa | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
AFrica so u are saying that the click was the first language so are u saying that the Khosian the San are the oldest and even the Ancient Egyptians come from these people.
-------------------- Hikuptah Al-Masri Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Khoisan The Khoisan, or Click, linguistic family is made up of three branches: the Khoisan languages of the San (Bushmen) and Khoikhoi, spoken in various parts of sub-Saharan Africa; Sandawe, a language found in E Africa; and Hatsa (Hadzane or Hadzapi), also spoken in E Africa.Although all the Khoisan languages use click sounds, Sandawe and Hatsa are unlike the other Khoisan tongues and are not related to each other. All of the Khoisan languages appear to use tones to distinguish meanings, and the Khoikhoi languages and some of the San languages inflect the noun to show case, number, and gender. The outstanding characteristic of the Khoisan tongues, however, is their extensive use of click sounds. (Examples of click sounds familiar to speakers of English are the interjection tsk-tsk and the click used to signal to a horse.) Click sounds, which are found only in Africa as parts of words, involve a sucking action by the tongue, but the position of the tongue and the way in which air is released into the mouth vary, just as in the formation of other sounds; thus clicks may be dental, palatal, alveolar, lateral, labial, or retroflex; voiced, voiceless, or nasal; aspirated or glottal. Six types of clicks are known for the San languages as a whole, although no single tongue has all of them. The Khoikhoi languages have dental, palatal, retroflex, and lateral clicks. Some Bantu languages, notably Zulu and Xhosa, which are spoken near the Khoisan area, have borrowed click sounds from the Khoisan languages.
Sarah Tishkoff has done extensive genetic study on the African population and linguistic scholars as well; and it seems that hunter gatherers of Africa have the most ancient genetic haplogroups A and B. Some speak click languages that is highly complex if you compare that to other languages. Both information suggest that they might be the ancestors of all humans...
quote: Both information suggest that they might be the ancestors of all humans
One thing - we should be careful with the notion that Khoisan are 'ancestors' of all humans.
Modern Khoisan are not anyone's ancestors.
Rather it is better to think of them as having the longest unbroken blood-line.
For example - some members of your family might be able to trace their ancestry back to their great grandparents and no further - others might be able to go back that far - and then keep going for several more generations.
Africans have bloodlines that go back the furthest of all people.
Your particular bloodline may be said to go back to the furthest point where you can be distinguished from someone else.
Non African mtdna goes back to where L3 breaks off into L3m and L3n [maybe 70 thousand years ago].
Before this point, non-africans do not exist genetically - meaning there is no way to distinguish the ancestor of a Mongol or Melanesian from each other, or that of a Masai. However you still might be able to distinguish Masai from Mande or other Africans because they would have older, distinct lineages going back to L1 which is the mother of L3.
Africans have longer, distinctive, continuous bloodlines.
Per Tishkoff, this is because all non Africans descend from a small group of East Africans 70kya.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I hope this ends the confusion that modern Khoisan are the ancestors of all peoples. Let's not even get started on the more ridiculous claims that non-Africans are just as closely related to Khoisan as other 'darker' Africans.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
We know what's up with Winters. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic