posted
Many researchers have long noted the presence of African placenames in the Pacific and Asia generally. A certain Mr. Onimisi Baiye has an interesting site where he discusses Yoruba and Japanese placenames.
JAPANESE............. şE....... şN....... NIGERIAN 1 Azuma-san (mountain) 140-141 37-38.... Zuma Rock , Niger State
2 Tobi-shima (island) 139-140 39-40.... Tobi: Rivers State male name
3 Akō(town) 134-135 34-35.... Akō: Yoruba, excessive pride
4 Akan(town) 144-145 43-44...... Akandu: Ibo male name
5 Ibara(town) 133-134 34-35....... Ibarapa, Oyo State
6 Minna-jima (island) 124-125 24-25..... Minna, Niger State
18 Watanabe...... Watanabe: Southern Borno State name
19 Kōbe(city) 134.41 135.1....... Achakōbe: Isoko,Delta State name
20 Machida .......Maccido: Fulani, Sokoto State name
Compiled by Onimisi Baiye onimisibaiye@yahoo.co.uk
Onimisi Baiye wrote:
quote:
Far East Asian Languages Are Near African Languages
Written and Compiled by: Onimisi Baiye
If you do an Internet image search, www.google.com on the following Nigerian names: Haruna, Sambo, Pankan, Kwashi, Imoko, Chika, Azuka, Ezuka, Koma, Zoro, Watanabe, Nene, Osato, Osaru, Okada, Edo, Baba, Emiko, Kano, Nana, Aya, Tami, Tai, Sada, Ikimi, Ume, you will more likely see a Japanese link than a Nigerian link.
The writing system of Japanese hides the striking similarities between Japanese and African languages. But on closer examination of the syllables that make up the Kanji character set, the syllables easily describe the Nigerian Languages.
Japanese festivals and dressing are very African in color combination. Also Shinto is about shrines, ancestors, mountain spirits, tree spirits, the so-called heathen religions that was used to justify the enslavement of Blacks.
Japanese were bleached out by invading Mongolians, that is why Southern Japanese people are darker-skinned than their northern counterparts.
Chinese and Korean map to the Calabar languages of South-Southern Nigeria. One has to listen to and see the physical stature someone from that part of Nigeria to to have a feel of of the similarities to Chinese and Koreans. Unfortunately, because of the Eurocentric nature of post-colonial Nigerians, the Calabar people cannot understand why Chinese and Koreans are their bleached-out descendants. Martial Arts is of African origin.
posted
The place names cited are either coincidence or not. And another way to look at the issue is to establish when was the last common ancestor shared by the people who became the Japanese and the West African peoples mentioned above.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have seen images of Ta Mo before while searching for images of the Bhudda in India. However, up to now I never knew who he was. What I did know was that there were a lot of pictures of this often funny looking black dude in Ancient Chinese style paintings. That is Ta Mo.
There are more, but unfortunately you wont find them by doing a normal search for Ta Mo or Bodhidarma or Da Mo or Daruma. This is because he is a legendary figure, meaining much of his story and actions are subjects of legend and sometimes only loosely based on fact. Likewise, being that this is a legendary figure throughout much of Asia, his image therefore gets made over in the image of those who worship the legend. Therefore many of the images of this figure look more Eastern Asian than Indian.
However, there is no doubt that this was someone from India. Whether all the legends are true or not or all the stories about martial arts are true or not, it is still true that MOST Indians are and were DARK skinned people. THIS is not a subject of legend.
Also, lets just get down to the crux of the issue. Buddhism and its symbolism originates in Egypt. The evidence is there if you care to look:
quote: Meaning: The lotus closes at night and sinks underwater. In the morning it re-emerges and blooms again. Thus the flower became a natural symbol of the sun and creation. In Hermopolis, it was believed that it was a giant lotus blossom that first emerged from the primordial waters of Nun and from which the sun-god came forth (portrayed in the image at left).
As a symbol of re-birth, the lotus was closely related to the imagery of the funerary and Osirian cult. The Four Sons of Horus were frequently shown standing on a lotus in front of Osiris. The Book of the Dead contains spells for "transforming oneself into a lotus" and thus fulfilling the promise of resurrection.
The lotus was commonly used in art as a symbol of Upper Egypt. It was often shown with its long stems intertwined with papyrus reeds (a symbol of Lower Egypt) as a representation of the unification of the two lands.
quote: The lotus occupies a very special place in Thai life because Thailand is a Buddhist country and the lotus is the traditional flower of Buddhism. Legend has it that the Lord Buddha was able to walk on his birth, and that when he took his first seven steps in this mortal world, lotus blooms opened up from underneath to support the tender soles of his feet.
In murals in Buddhist temples and in other paintings with a Buddhist theme, the Buddha is invariably portrayed, from Birth to Nirvana, with one or more lotus flowers beneath him, whether he is sitting, standing, walking, or reclining. The Buddha images, too, are usually placed on a seat in the form of a lotus.
Now take a closer look at those two pages and you will see more parallels. Buddha on the lotus is depicted as enveloped by fire. Ra is the sun and therefore is also a symbol of fire and heat and also rose from the lotus. Thai temples us lotus form columns, which we all know is an ancient Egyptian architectural motif.
The bottom line is that these similarities are more than just coincidence. Just as Bhuddism spread from India to the rest of Asia, so too did these ideas spread from Africa to India. Therefore, HOW did this spread take place? This is the question that many want to answer within so-called "Afrocentric" circles. But the issue is NOT an Afro-centric one. The issue is one of research and true history. One must keep in mind that India, the country is a recent invention by the British. No country by that name ever existed in ancient times. As is testified here:
quote: "Hindu/India" (derived from the word "Sindhu" in present day Pakistan --- by the way, the people of Sindhu continue to call themselves "Sindhis" and not "Hindus/Indians") was exclusively the foreign geographic term for Indus Valley (Pakistan region) in ancient times. It had nothing to do with the religion of Hinduism nor the region of present day India. This is proven in the Achaemenian inscriptions at Persepolis and Greek texts like those of Herodotus.
It was many centuries later that the term "Hind/India" was used by some foreigners to further encompass much of South Asia, again as a geographic term having no religious or national meaning. The broadening of this term's usage was no different than how the word "Farangi" (derived from the word "Franks/France") became the term for all Europeans used by Middle Easterners (and South Asians) during the Middle Ages due to French interaction (Crusaders) with them. Indus Valley is located at the entering point (from west) into South Asia, thus its geographic term was later used by a few foreign visitors and invaders for the whole region. However, others used 'Hind' for present day north India and 'Sindh' for present day Pakistan.
The bottomline is that the term/word "Hind/Hindu/India" was foreign (for their own references), and had no religious or national meaning. It was no different than how the words "Africa" and "America" are used --- i.e. foreign geographic terms encompassing many different peoples and religions.
Not a single South Asian text/inscription (Vedic, Buddhist, Brahmanic, Dravidic, etc.) mentions any word "Hindu/Hinduism/India". It was only with the arrival of Muslim invaders (Ghorids --- 12th century AD) that the foreign term "Hindu/Hindustan" was imposed in South Asia to denote its ruled subjects and lands. It was also starting from this period that the word "Hindu" started to gain a religious color. It was easy for the new invaders to differentiate their religion from the countless local ones with just a single word. Later on, with the arrival of the British, their introduced term "Hinduism" became widely in use.
quote: The word, Hindu was coined by foreigners, may be Greeks or Persians who had declared that the inhabitants in the region beyond the eastern bank of the River Sindhu are Hindus substituting 'H' for 'S'. The same River Indus gave our country the name of INDIA, although all our ancient books called this country, "BHARATA KHANDA", "BHARAT VARSHA" or simply "BHARAT", the Kingdom ruled by BHARATA, a very very noble monarch who happened to be the son of King Dushyanta and Shakuntala, the famous characters immortalized by Kalidas, the Shakespeare of India.
On top of this foreign creation of the country India comes the whole Aryan mythos, which puts the origin of the ancient culture of South Asia in the hands of WHITE Eurasians (Aryans). This MYTH was promulgated by one foreign group after another starting with the Greeks, various Greek derived IndoPakistani empires, the Persians and the Muslims. All of these foreign invasions have left its mark on the ancient lands of South Asia and caused much confusion over its language, history and culture.
Therefore, what we see in some Afrocentric circles is an effort to reconnect the Ancient culture of South Asia to the ancient BLACK South Asians. Modern efforts to WHITEWASH this history has resulted in most images of Buddha and other important dieties being depicted as white. But this is for a religion and culture that originated in a region and land that is MOSTLY DARK SKINNED. So HOW could he look like that?
Another aspect of reconnecting Asia with Africa is going back to the roots of the Ancient cultures of South Asia as it relates to Egypt and Africa. As I posted earlier, there are many parallels between South Asian Buddhism and African belief systems. Another parallel is the belief in the Sacred Bull or Nandi Bull: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nandi_Bull
Now compare that with the Apis bull of Egypt:
quote: After preparation of the body and internal organs, the crouching bull was intricately bandaged, artificial eyes were inserted, its horns and face were either gilded or covered with a gold leaf mask, and it was covered with a shroud. The Apis mummy was carried to the Serapeum (a catacomb preceded by an avenue of sphinxes), amid the formalities due a deity, for burial in a massive stone sarcophagus weighing over 60 tons. A papyrus from the 26th Dynasty explains the technique used to embalm an Apis bull.
quote:Originally posted by lamin: The place names cited are either coincidence or not. And another way to look at the issue is to establish when was the last common ancestor shared by the people who became the Japanese and the West African peoples mentioned above.
Somtimes i'm reminded of huksters who perform magic tricks and claim supernatural powers.
For example, a famous psychic trick involved bending a spoon - supposedly by mental projection.
Oddly this trick was usually performed with the psychics hand on the spoon.
In order for the trick to impress the trickster relies on the audience suspension of common sense.
For example - common sense dictates that if you can bend a spoon with your mind - then you don't need to touch or handle the spoon physically in any way.
Once a good magician touches and object he *should * be able to bend it, set it afire, make it disappear, transform it into 'bunny rabbit', etc., so what!
Likewise common sense dictates that all humans are a common species with a common origin. Any two languages should produce common sounding words - after all, there are only so many sounds humans can make. Some of those words *should* have similar meanings, simply by chance and in accord with mathamatical probability.
Hence.... Akō(town) 134-135 34-35.... Akō: Yoruba, excessive pride
Again....so what?
That's the conclusion that I draw from the evidence presented.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug M it is no surprise that the Japanese and Indians show many similarities. Susumu Ohno a major Japanese linguist is sure that Tamil and Japanese are genetically related.
posted
^ Mosts linguists concur that every language on earth is ultimtately *genetically* related.
Again, so what?
You are practicing the magic trick of suggesting something amazing based on evidence that is banal. The spoon..bends.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
DNA hints at origin of all language - Biology: from San Diego, at a meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics - Brief Article Science News, Oct 27, 2001
Some tribes in Africa speak to each other with a vocabulary that includes sharp clicking sounds. Genetic comparison of two such tribes suggests that the unusual click languages, known as Khoisan languages, could resemble the ancestral tongue of all humankind.
For more than a century, linguists have debated the origins of these click languages, notes Alec Knight of Stanford University. These tongues are most prevalent in southwestern Africa where many tribes, including the San and !Kung tribes (the ! represents a click sound), speak them. The Hadzabe people and several other tribes in the East African country of Tanzania also talk with clicks. The geographic diversity of Khoisan tongues, Africa's apparent role as the birthplace of humanity, and other clues have led some scientists to propose that all living humans descended from speakers of a click language.
Elizabeth Pennisi Genetic and linguistic data indicate--but can't quite prove--that our ancient ancestors spoke with strange clicking and sucking noises now heard only in a few corners of Africa.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Elizabeth Pennisi Genetic and linguistic data indicate--but can't quite prove--that our ancient ancestors spoke with strange clicking and sucking noises now heard only in a few corners of Africa.
This has nothing to do with genetic relationship of languages. It is concerned with language development.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Genetic comparison of two such tribes suggests that the unusual click languages, known as Khoisan languages, could resemble *the* ancestral tongue of all humankind.Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: ... showing the exact same place names starting at the demic source then all along their migratory route and lastly at the demic final settlement target is required to demonstrate any but a fortuitous similarity.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
... one sleight of hand practised by the Nostratic advocates is to make inconsistent cross comparisons across multiple languages, for example, between Dravidian, Semitic, Berber and various Indo European languages - whatever matches for a particular word - and so generating 'false positives'.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Winters, the point that is being made here by many is that the issue of Nigerian words having similar spelling or sounds to Japanese words is nothing more than a useless fact. It is not enough to prove that Nigerians or Africans made any cultural, linguistic or ethnic impact on Japanese culture.
HOWEVER, what it means to me is that African languages, cultures and phenotypes are some of the most DIVERSE in the world and that many aspects of African culture, language and religion can be seen elsewhere, even though Africans have NEVER been there in any substantial way in recent times. In other words, Africa as the MOTHER of humanity gave birth to many of the traits and customs (was the first to practice said traits) long before mankind populated the rest of the world. Therefore, Nigerians and other Africans may have linguistic, cultural and religious traits that some see as being like Asia, but are African and are probably OLDER than those in Asia. However, this does not make Asians Africans any more than it makes Europeans African. It is an issue of Africa, being the OLDEST known inhabited continent on the earth and therefore the people there having the OLDEST and most diverse linguistic, cultural and religious customs on earth.
There are many features of African cultures that can be seen elsewhere, but it does not mean that these people are DIRECTLY related to Africa, due to RECENT migrations from there. A good example is the way that ancient South Asian sculpures and artworks show peoples with elongated earlobes with holes in them. These are indicative of people who practice ritual, ceremonial or cosmetic stretching of various body parts like lips, ears and nostrils using discs or other foreign objects. There is no doubt that Africa is the oldest place on earth where humans practiced human adornment. This fact alone makes it impossible to find people anywhere who could have any style or fashion of andornment that has not appeared in Africa first in some form or fashion. Europeans practice peircing of the nose, tongue or other body parts, but do they know that Africans have been practicing the same for THOUSANDS of years? Does that make Europeans Africans??
My point in posting what I did about Buddhism and Egyptian symbolism is to show that there is GOOD SOLID EVIDENCE for African influence on South Asian culture. The problem with you and the stuff you often post is that it is the facts you put forward concerning linguistic similarities ALONE are not enough to PROVE anything other than a mere coincidence. If you want to PROVE African INFLUENCE (and I mean AFIRCAN as opposed to BLACK South Asian) on Asian culture, then why is it so hard to point out the obvious facts that could support your claims? Why is it so hard to fill in the gaps of scholarship that have been created by years of Eurocentric misinformation in distortion? The only way to push back and successfully defeat such distortion is to present clear facts and documented evidence that support your claims and as I said there are TONS of facts and data that could be used. The fact that you DONT use such facts to corroborate your claims of linguistic ties makes it even more obvious that something is wrong with your scholarship.
I dont think ANYONE here believes for a second any of the distortions of Eurocentric history that puts the basis and origin of civilization in the hands of northern "whites". However, what you often post does NOTHING to clarify the role of SOUTHERN BLACKS, including Africans and Asians (including the original populations of the Arabian peninsula) to the spread of civilization throughout Europe and Asia. The criticisms of your linguistic approach is valid, but unfortunately you have FAILED in most cases to follow through with serious multidisciplinary scholarly work to back up such claims. Sure, Afrocentric studies and research are not supported and funded by any major institutions, HOWEVER, there is NO excuse for sloppy, badly formed theses supported by half hearted evidence and NO firsthand research. It is not that the IDEA is wrong (about African influence in Asia and elsewhere) but YOUR APPROACH is wrong and THAT is what leads people to not only criticize your approach but also some of your CONCLUSIONS as well.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another solid link between Bhuddism and Egyptian cosmology:
quote: Called a 'lotus', the depictions of the floral symbol of Upper Egypt is actually known as a Nymphaea caerulea which is actually known today to be a water lily. This flower, along with the papyrus flower, was shown throughout Egypt in tombs and temples to symbolize the union of Upper and Lower Egypt, but the blue water lily had a much deeper significance to the Egyptian people.
The Blue Water LilyIn the beginning were the waters of chaos ... Darkness covered the waters until ... the Primeval Water Lily rose from the abyss. Slowly the blue water lily opened its petals to reveal a young god sitting in its golden heart. A sweet perfume drifted across the waters and light streamed from the body of this Divine Child to banish universal darkness. This child was the Creator, the Sun God, the source of all life.
So the Primeval Water Lily closed its petals at the end of each day... Chaos reigned through the night until the god within the water lily returned....
... the Creator ... knew that he was alone. This solitude became unbearable and he longed for other beings to share the new world with him. The thoughts of the Creator became the gods and everything else which exists. When his thoughts had shaped them, his tongue gave them life by naming them. Thoughts and words were the power behind creation.
The problem with you and the stuff you often post is that it is the facts you put forward concerning linguistic similarities ALONE are not enough to PROVE anything other than a mere coincidence.
This shows your lack of understanding the role linguistics plays in providing a genetic connection between people. For example, the whole idea about an ancient people called Indo-Europeans is founded solely on linguistics. In fact it is linguistics that has helped us know about Indo-European civilization.
Are you saying that ancient Indo-Europeans did not exist?
There are many features of African cultures that can be seen elsewhere, but it does not mean that these people are DIRECTLY related to Africa, due to RECENT migrations from there.
I have two questions for you:
1)If Africans did not visit the Pacific Islands why do many place names in the Pacific agree with African place names.?
2) Why do Japanese and other East Asians have African surnames if Africans did not formerly inhabit these Islands?
.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Two questions: 1)If Africans did not visit the Pacific Islands why do many place names in the Pacific agree with African place names.?
^ Logical fallacy - begging the question.
Similiar sounding words for names, per se....proves absolutely nothing.
When hypothesis becomes myth: the Iraqi origin of the Iraqw. The origin myth of the Iraqw is considered to be a modified version of the now-rejected Hamitic hypothesis. Iraqw people in Tanzania claim to be historically connected with Iraq, and they validate their claim by pointing to the similarities between the words Iraq and Iraqw.
quote:2) Why do Japanese and other East Asians have African surnames
They don't. Calling East Asian names like Mandarin, "African" is a tautology.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The whole idea about an ancient people called Indo-Europeans is founded solely on linguistics. In fact it is linguistics that has helped us know about Indo-European civilization.
Are you saying that ancient Indo-Europeans did not exist?
Are you claiming that linguistics and linguistics alone has somehow *resolved* debate pertaining to so called Indo-Europeans?
What we know about the Proto-Indo-Europeans with any certainty is the result of comparative linguistics, partly seconded by archaeology.
The scholars of the 19th century that originally tackled the question of the original homeland of the Indo-Europeans (also called Urheimat after the German term), were essentially confined to linguistic evidence. A rough localization was attempted by reconstructing the names of plants and animals (importantly the beech and the salmon) as well as the culture and technology (a Bronze Age culture centered on animal husbandry and having domesticated the horse). The scholarly opinions became basically divided between a European hypothesis, positing migration from Europe to Asia, and an Asian hypothesis, holding that the migration took place in the opposite direction.
However, from its early days, the controversy was tainted by romantic, nationalistic notions of heroic invaders at best and by imperialist and racist agendas at worst. It was often naturally assumed that the spread of the language was due to the invasions by some superior Aryan race. Such hypotheses suffered a particularly severe distortion for purposes of political propaganda by the Nazis. The question is still the source of much contention. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-EuropeansPosts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote:2) Why do Japanese and other East Asians have African surnames
They don't. Calling East Asian names like Mandarin, "African" is a tautology.
Onimisi Baiye disagrees with you, he says Nigerians and Japanese share the same names.
quote: If you do an Internet image search, www.google.com on the following Nigerian names: Haruna, Sambo, Pankan, Kwashi, Imoko, Chika, Azuka, Ezuka, Koma, Zoro, Watanabe, Nene, Osato, Osaru, Okada, Edo, Baba, Emiko, Kano, Nana, Aya, Tami, Tai, Sada, Ikimi, Ume, you will more likely see a Japanese link than a Nigerian link.
Baiye is not the first person to note the presence of African placenames in the Pacific. The first person to discuss this hypothesis was W.J. Page.
Williams John Page discussed the Lakato Hypothesis. The Lakato Hypothesis stated simply implies that the Melanesian people of Fiji were carried to the Pacific Islands by Indonesian maritime merchants after they had colonized parts of East and central Africa.
A recent article on Nigerian place names in India was published by Dr. R. Balakrishnan titled "African roots of the Dravidian-speaking Tribes: A case in Onomastics", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 34(1) (2005),pp.153-202. Like Baiye, Dr. Balakrishnan found almost 500 Nigerian placenames, and 46 tribal names in Koraput, India; and 110 ethnonyms of Koyas in Nigeria. This led Dr. Balakrishnan to declare that :"However, the overwhelming evidence available from the toponymic corpuses of Koraput and Nigeria, and ethnonyms, surnames and personal names of Koyas seem more adequate to propose an African origin to the Koyas, the Dravidian speakers" (p.177) It is interesting to note that we find Koya placenames in Nigeria, and Nigerian place names on the East Coast of India (Balakrishnan), Nigerian place names throughout the Pacific (Page) and Nigerian placenames and surnames in Japan (Baiye). This shows a direct spread of Nigerian place names from Africa, across the Indian Ocean into the Pacific. The discovery of common placenames in three different regions can not be accounted by coincidence.
The problem with you and the stuff you often post is that it is the facts you put forward concerning linguistic similarities ALONE are not enough to PROVE anything other than a mere coincidence.
This shows your lack of understanding the role linguistics plays in providing a genetic connection between people. For example, the whole idea about an ancient people called Indo-Europeans is founded solely on linguistics. In fact it is linguistics that has helped us know about Indo-European civilization.
Are you saying that ancient Indo-Europeans did not exist?
.
No. It shows YOUR misunterstanding of linguistics. IndoEuropean is not a race and it is not an ethnic group. Indo-European is a language and a flaky one at best. In fact, the WHOLE concept of Indo European is a perfect example of WHY linguistics alone is not enough to reveal the impacts of migrations of peoples and their impacts on others. The IndoEuropean language family is one the BIGGEST frauds in history. It is based around the MYTH that Indian history started with the invasion of Northern India by Aryans who developed the Sanskrit language. This whole theory of the Aryan origins of Indian culture is now long demolished. However one byproduct of this, the IndoEuropean language family still remains. The REASON this too is a farce is because it connects India and Europe in ways that DONT MAKE ANY SENSE. Northern India, Pakistan and Persia are NOT in any Sense of the term European. The earliest speakers of Indo Europeans actully were not really even in INDIA, as I mentioned earlier there WAS no country called India in 3000 B.C. and the whole idea of a European connection for what is now called Indian culture TOO is a farce. In fact, it goes against YOUR OWN theories of the DRAVIDIAN origins for Indian culture, which is basically a language and culture with SOUTHERN origins. Bottom line, the IndoEuropean language group is another remnant of the outdated Aryan invasion mythos which implies a EUROPEAN connection to the history of the South Asian subcontinent.
What were the languages of the South Indian subcontinent in 3000 B.C. Mr Winters? Why do the maps of the so-called Indo European languages not MENTION the languages and cultures that flourished in SOUTH of the subcontinent at this time? This is what I mean by linguistics being ABSOLUTELY meaningless by itself with regards to the history of populations and movements. In fact, my opinion is that the Southern areas of the South Asian subcontinent produced the cultures now called "Hindu" as well as the culture of the Indus valley. Likewise, the language of the Indus Valley is also NOT INDO EUROPEAN. Sanskrit is a language that did not appear until LONG AFTER rise of the Indus Valley. In fact, the Indo European languages, ie Sanskrit, only really is attested to as early as the 3rd century B.C. Before that was the Vedic language which was ORAL not WRITTEN. But the problem here is that Sanskrit was not A WIDESPREAD LANGUAGE. Many believe that the ORIGINAL population of the subcontinent spoke a DRAVIDIAN language and that the IndoEuropean language family was FORCED on them by FOREIGNERS.
Note the following:
quote: Historically, Sanskrit is not associated with any particular script. The emphasis on orality, not textuality, in the Vedic Sanskrit tradition was maintained through the development of early classical Sanskrit literature. When Sanskrit was written, the choice of writing system was influenced by the regional scripts of the scribes. As such, virtually all of the major writing systems of South Asia have been used for the production of Sanskrit manuscripts. Since the late 19th century, Devanagari has been considered as the de facto writing system for Sanskrit,[4] quite possibly because of the European practice of printing Sanskrit texts in the script.
In northern India, there are Brahmi inscriptions dating from the 3rd century BCE onwards, the oldest appearing on the famous Prakrit pillar inscriptions of king Ashoka. Roughly contemporary with the Brahmi, the Kharosthi script was used. Later (ca. 4th to 8th centuries AD) the Gupta script, derived from Brahmi, became prevalent. From ca. the 8th century, the Sharada script evolved out of the Gupta script, and was mostly displaced in its turn by Devanagari from ca. the 12th century, with intermediary stages such as the Siddham script. In Eastern India, the Bengali script and, later, the Oriya script, were used.
And
quote: European Scholarship
European scholarship in Sanskrit, begun by Heinrich Roth (1620 - 1668) and Johann Ernst Hanxleden (1681 - 1731), led to the proposal of the Indo-European language family by Sir William Jones, and thus played an important role in the development of Western linguistics.
Sir William Jones, speaking to the Asiatic Society in Calcutta, February 2, 1786, said:
“ The Sanskrit language whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong, indeed, that no philosopher could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists.
”
Indeed, linguistics (along with phonology, etc.) first arose among Indian grammarians who were attempting to catalog and codify Sanskrit's rules. Modern linguistics owes a great deal to these grammarians, and to this day, for example, key terms for compound analysis such as bahuvrihi are taken from Sanskrit.
But what does this REALLY mean? What this REALLY means is that the IndoEuropean language family is a EUROCENTRIC concept, created to REINFORCE the idea of an EURASIAN origin and basis for the ancient culture of the South Asian subcontinent. MANY would argue that the ORIGINAL languages were DRAVIDIAN and that these were REPLACED by waves of invaders who CREATED a caste system and IMPOSED it on the population. Just remember the following: Indo European languages are NOT related to the languages of the ANCIENT sub-continent of South Asia. Those languages were related to Dravidian and have largely been LOST. The so-called Indo European languages are RECENT concoctions which ONLY go back to about 300 B.C. and the rule of Ashoka. The ancient languages of the Indus Valley were NOT IndoEuropean and were derived from Dravidian languages. Something YOU should be saying Mr. Winters.
In summation, Indo European languages is only the Aryan model of history in LINGUISTIC form and is basically STILL a Eurocentric, Eurasian, WHITE model of history. The old model of Aryan invasion is now replaced by the concept of a PROTO IndoEuropean language that spread from Europe to Asia, even though there IS NO EVIDENCE to support this theory. BASICALLY, this NONSENSE is an attempt to place the ORIGINS of the culture in South Asia in the hands of whites.
quote: The Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) is the hypothetical common ancestor of the Indo-European languages. Although the existence of such a language has been accepted by linguists for a long time, there has been debate about many specific details.
The reason it is such a hotly debated topic is the EVIDENCE doesnt match the hypothesis. Basically, the Indus Valley civilization flowed OUT of a SOUTHERN cradle and has NO linguisic affiliation with ANY Indo European language. Sanskrit was a ORAL language and it TOO was only spoken by a SMALL number of people in the subcontinent. THEREFORE, it makes the IndoEuropean language family a RECENT phenomenon, since the ORIGINAL languages of the continent in the era of the Indus Civilization have been LOST.
quote: The Open Page discussion on Indus and Vedic society by N. S. Rajaram (January 22) and Michael Witzel (January 29) is not finished. Rajaram's main thesis seems to be that the Indus Civilisation was a direct linear antecedent to Vedic society and classical Indian civilisation. Witzel is correct that this is too facile and appears to be an argument driven by ideology.
But neither Rajaram nor Witzel discusses language much, except that Rajaram ridicules the claim that the Indus Civilisation had a Dravidian-type language saying that it is strange that the people would have lost their script. He suggests, without evidence, that it was Indo-Aryan speaking. Witzel is correct in saying that the population of the Indus Valley lost their language and script and took over an Indo-Aryan language which has now developed into Punjabi, Sindhi, etc.
Scholars who have devoted many years to the study of the Indus script mostly agree that all indications are that it was Dravidian-like. This is the conclusion of scholars in Finland, Russia, England, Czech Republic, the U.S., Pakistan and India. Some earlier ones, like Father Heras, and recently Finnish scholars, have spent decades studying the 600 script symbols, their possible grammatical positions, and the cultural associations. It is a minority of people who are themselves speakers of Indo-Aryan languages, who assert that the Indus people must have spoken a language like that of their own!
And dont forget what I posted earlier about the fact that Hindu, India and Indian are ALL Eurocentric terms created by Europeans to control the population of the Indian subcontinent. It also goes without saying that much of this so-called HISTORY and LINGUISTICS is also a FABRICATION of Eurocentric anthropologists and historians, wishing to JUSTIFY continued European domination of Indian culture, which started with the Greeks and continues to this day.
Also note the following:
quote: It is nothing unusual in history that Indo-Aryan speech overwhelmed Dravidian in western South Asia. Such tendencies are everywhere. Semitic languages overwhelmed other language groups over much of the Near East about 2000 BC, but this doesn't mean that the pre-Semitic people were killed off; rather they were often absorbed into different political-economic systems. Semitic speech later overwhelmed Egypt, then most of North Africa, because it was thought to be the vehicle of advancement. This is the usual stuff of history.
In Pakistan, the Burushaski language is related to none other, isolated in the high Hunza valley. It might be a relic of both pre-Dravidian and pre-Indo-Aryan speech in Punjab. The Dardic languages, including Kashmiri, are apparently descended from the first wave of Indo-European speech to enter South Asia, but these then got isolated in the Himalayas during the diffusion of Indo-Aryan. Indo-Aryan itself got overwhelmed in western Pakistan by the later arriving Persian-related languages such as Pashto and Baluchi. These changes may happen by invasion, but also by dribbles of more mobile or more politically powerful people moving in or by their cultures being considered so modernising that the existing inhabitants lose their language.
A different language displacement was going on in eastern India. Underlying Bengali is a Munda-type language, of which Bengali today retains many linguistic and cultural evidences. There is absolutely no evidence that Dravidian speech underlies Bengali, Oriya, or Assamese (Grierson, writing on this a century ago, was wrong). The Munda languages (Mon-Khmer group) reflect diffusion of cultures from Southeast Asia thousands of years BC which had mastered horticulture (rice, bananas, turmeric, taro, etc.) and therefore enabled humans to proliferate and diffuse into eastern and central Ganga plains and east-central India — with all their cultigens — prior to the diffusion there of both Dravidian and Indo-Aryan.
Also note that South India is a distinct entity from North India in terms of language and history. Why is that, if the WHOLE country was supposedly unified in 3,000 B.C.? The answer is that because IT WASNT and the whole IndoAryan, IndoEuropean model of the history of the Subcontinent is NONSENSE. It is tantamount to saying that ancient Egyptian culture originated in Eurasia.
If you really want to see the languages of the aboriginal groups prior to and during the rise of the Indus Valley civilization, you will look at the Munda language, part of the Austro-Asiatic language family: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Asiatic_languages
quote: The Munda Languages are a language family spoken by about nine million people in eastern India and Bangladesh. They constitute a branch of the Austroasiatic language family, generally placed in opposition to the Mon-Khmer languages of Southeast Asia, which means they are distantly related to Vietnamese. The origins of the Munda languages are not known, though it is generally thought that they are autochthonous languages of eastern India. Mundari and Santali are notable languages of this group.
And for those who believe in the WHITE version of Indian history, here are some images from the Gupta period when NORTH India was unified under Maurya Gupta:
Here is one snapshot of Buddha images from Ajanta:
I see no INDO EUROPEAN in these images. And these are the types who took Buddhism to China and the rest of Asia.
Also note that many of the early BLACK buddhas can be seen in the rock cut temples in India. Many of these temples are found all over India in places like Ajanta, Ellora and a place called Elephanta Island.
quote: India has greater variety and quantity of rock-cut architecture than any other country in the world. Rock-cut architecture is technically not really architecture but monumental sculpture through which entire temples and buildings are carved out of solid rock. The skill in large scale carving lies in accurately chiseling the side of a hill to create a temple, not brick by brick from foundation upwards, but cutting the rock from roof downwards. One wrong move, one broken bit would mean the failure of the entire scheme. The best example of Indian rock-cut architecture are to be found in Maharashtra at Ajanta, Ellora, and Elephanta, in Orissa at Udayagiri and Khandagiri, and in the southern state of Karnataka at Badami and Aihole. But these are not isolated monuments and many other sides in Maharashtra (for instance Karle, Kanheri and Bedsa) trace the development of this unique form of architecture.
The whole issue here is that the IndoAryan IndoEuropean DOCTRINE is nothing more than Eurocentric white ethnocentric nonsense that replaces the ORIGINAL images of HINDU dieties as seen in the caves at Elephanta, Ellora and elsewhere and replaces them with images of WHITE dieties like these (UNLIKE MOST INDIANS):
NONE of the original HINDU or Bhuddist dieties look like this. All of these images are designed to please the NON Indian, white populations who worship these dieties, even though they have NOTHING to do with the populations who ORIGINATED these concepts. Yet even with the obvious IndoAryan (white) features, note the other similarities to Egypt and Africa: leapard skin dress (egyptian priest garments), cobra snakes around the head (uraeus symbol of protection), the Cow/Bull symbolism (Ra the great bull).
Also, note the layout of the old South Indian temple complexes like that of Achyutaraya Temple in Hampi:
You have a long avenue leading through a series of GATES leading through pillared courtyards, which get smaller and smaller until you get to the inner sanctum, the chamber of the gods, which is the holy of holies. This is the EXACT same sort of layout as seen in the ancient temple complexes like Karnak of Egypt and elsewhere.
Like I said earlier, all of this shows definite influences from Africa, but this influence has been blurred by years of racist history that tries to put the origins of Shiva and the hindu gods as well as the Buddha in the hands of white Indo Aryan Europeans and not the South Asian blacks who are depicted in the ancient temples.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nigerian names: Haruna, Sambo, Pankan, Kwashi, Imoko, Chika, Azuka, Ezuka, Koma, Zoro, Watanabe, Nene, Osato, Osaru, Okada, Edo, Baba, Emiko, Kano, Nana, Aya, Tami, Tai, Sada, Ikimi, Ume, you will more likely see a Japanese link than a Nigerian link.
* Japanese is a language. There is no such language as Nigerian. This is important because we must not allow cheating. You can now shift between a single language on one hand - and many different Nigerian languages on the other, and then cherry pick for common words.
** Zoro and Tami are also common European words. Zoro is shared with Persians as well.
** Tai is a common Asian word, not just Japanese.
*** Sambo is a Hausa word for Uncle, but the Japanese word for Uncle is Oji.
**** When I 'googled' for Nana the majority of references are to Inuit or Eskimo names.
This list does not show that Japanese is derived from a Nigerian language - or vise versa.
Honest linguists have a difficult enough time specifically denoting the relationship between Hausa [Afrisan] to Yoruba [Niger-Congo], much less to Japanese.
However just for kicks: If you feel that the Japanese Islands were populated by migrants from Nigeria - would you please give us a rough time frame. When did this happen?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
A common Japanese name is "Sue". A common Korean name is Kim. Thus Japanese and Koreans share names with Europeans.
Not really. Sue is not a European name. Sue is derived from SUSANNA f English, Italian, Swedish, Finnish, Russian, Dutch, Biblical From Σουσαννα (Sousanna), the Greek form of the Hebrew name שׁוֹשַׁנָּה (Shoshannah). Kim is not an English name. Kim is derived from: KIM short form of KIMBERLY ;KIMBERLY a surname that means "land belonging to CYNEBURGA" in Old English. The origin of Kim in Old English makes it clear that this name was not originally pronounced: Kim.
It is clear that alledged Japanese "Sue" and Korean "Kim" are unrelated to the English names.
Now post 400+ English placenames that are found in India and Nigeria, that are not the result of British colonialism in India and Nigeria.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Many believe that the ORIGINAL population of the subcontinent spoke a DRAVIDIAN language and that the IndoEuropean language family was FORCED on them by FOREIGNERS.
If you believe that Dravidian languages were spoken throughout India, and Indo-Aryan languages were forced on the original none I-A speaking people--then you most accept that Aryans invaded the country.
DougM
quote: THEREFORE, it makes the IndoEuropean language family a RECENT phenomenon, since the ORIGINAL languages of the continent in the era of the Indus Civilization have been LOST.
What is your proof that the language spoken in the Indus Valley has been lost?
Many researchers claim they spoke a Dravidian language Brahui, a Dravidian language continues to be spoken in the area.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Many believe that the ORIGINAL population of the subcontinent spoke a DRAVIDIAN language and that the IndoEuropean language family was FORCED on them by FOREIGNERS.
If you believe that Dravidian languages were spoken throughout India, and Indo-Aryan languages were forced on the original none I-A speaking people--then you most accept that Aryans invaded the country.
DougM
quote: THEREFORE, it makes the IndoEuropean language family a RECENT phenomenon, since the ORIGINAL languages of the continent in the era of the Indus Civilization have been LOST.
What is your proof that the language spoken in the Indus Valley has been lost?
Many researchers claim they spoke a Dravidian language Brahui, a Dravidian language continues to be spoken in the area.
.
No I dont subscribe to the Aryan invasion myth. HOWEVER, Hindi, the national language of India, did not come into existence until about 1000 AD. Sanskrit is only attested to about 300 B.C. It is in this time frame that FOREIGNERS began to arrive in India and SHAPE the culture and economy. First was the Greeks and Persians, then came the Muslims and then the British. THESE are the ones who tried to spark the idea of an IndoAryan or IndoEuropean origin of Indian culture. Prior to that, there is a great debate about the language and customs of India. It is the period PRIOR to 1000 BC that is the subject of debate as to whether IndoAryans invaded India and introduced Indian culture. However, most of that is largely based SOLELY on linguistics, with no REAL proof that a) the languages of the period were related to IndoEuropean b) that IndoEuropean speakers introduced the Vedic culture to the Indus Valley.
That is COMPLETELY different from the REAL IndoEuropeans who invaded India starting in the 500 B.C.E. and established the kingdoms and states in Northwest India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Keep in mind that the Mahabharata takes place AFTER the development of Indus Valley civilization. It is during this period that the IndoAryans and IndoEuropean languages FIRST become associated with what we now call India. MOST of the great Empires of India from this period, are situated NOT in the Southern Dravidian areas of India, but in the Nothern areas of India, from Afghanistan to Pakistan and into Northern India. These people influenced the culture of India and are responsible for the basis of the MYTH of Aryan influence on Indus Valley civilization, even though the civilization existed LONG BEFORE the entrance of the REAL IndoEuropeans. The REAL debate about IndoAryans in India is similar to the debate about Asiatics or WHITES in Egypt, PRIOR to the major invasions of Asiatics into Egypt long after ancient Egypt had ceased to be a great Empire.
Even with the entrance of the REAL IndoEuropeans however, it should not be forgotten that the vast majority of the Indians in these northern regions are STILL dark skinned people. The issue here is WHITES trying to CLAIM ancient Indian culture for themselves and IGNORING the majority of NON WHITE Indians in the process.
quote: Hindi evolved from Sanskrit, by way of the Middle Indo-Aryan Prakrit languages and Apabhramsha of the Middle Ages. There is no consensus for a specific time where the modern north Indian languages such as Hindi emerged, but c. 1000 AD is commonly accepted.[9] In the span of nearly a thousand years of Muslim influence, such as when Muslim rulers controlled much of northern India during the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire, many Persian and Arabic words were borrowed into Hindi. All Arabic words were loaned into Hindi via Persian, and hence do not preserve the original phonology of Arabic (Tiwari [1955] 2004).
IndoEuropean/IndoAryan history in India from 1000B.C. onwards:
quote: Mahajanapadas (महाजनपद) literally means "Great kingdoms" (from Sanskrit Maha = great, Janapada = foothold of tribe = country). Ancient Buddhist texts like Anguttara Nikaya (I. p 213; IV. pp 252, 256, 261) make frequent reference to sixteen great kingdoms and republics (Solas Mahajanapadas) which had evolved and flourished in the northern/north-western parts of the Indian sub-continent prior to the rise of Buddhism in India.
quote: Gandhāra (Sanskrit: गन्धार, Persian; Gandara, Waihind) (Urdu: گندھارا) is the name of an ancient Indian Mahajanapada, currently in northern Pakistan (the North-West Frontier Province and parts of northern Punjab and Kashmir) and eastern Afghanistan. Gandhara was located mainly in the vale of Peshawar, the Potohar plateau (see Taxila) and on the northern side of the Kabul River. Its main cities were Purushapura (modern Peshawar) and Takshashila (modern Taxila). [1]
The Kingdom of Gandhara lasted from the 6th century BC to the 11th century AD. It attained its height from the 1st century to the 5th century AD under Buddhist Kushan Kings. After it was conquered by Mahmud of Ghazni in 1021 AD, the name Gandhara disappeared. During the Muslim period the area was administered from Lahore or from Kabul. During Mughal time the area was part of Kabul province.
quote: The Kushan Empire (c. 1st–3rd centuries) was a state that at its height, about 105–250, stretched from what is now Tajikistan to Afghanistan, Pakistan and down into the Ganges river valley in northern India. The empire was created by the Kushan tribe of the Yuezhi confederation, an Indo-European people from the eastern Tarim Basin and Gansu, China, possibly related to the Tocharians. They had diplomatic contacts with Rome, Persia and China, and for several centuries were at the center of exchange between the East and the West.
Because so many of the kingdoms of Early India around 1500 - 300 B.C. are found in NORTHERN and NORTHWESTERN India and Afghanistan, many assume that the Epics like the Mahabharata and Rig Veda are referring to IndoAryans or IndoEuropeans when they mention the Aryans. Actually Aryas is a term for a group of high caste individuals and is NOT a reference to a RACE. This concept was added LATER after the REAL invasions of India by IndoEuropeans and IndoAryans somewhere in 500B.C. starting with the Persians.
quote: The Achaemenid Empire (Old Persian: Hakhāmanishiya also frequently, the "Achaemenid Persian Empire".) (559 BC–338 BC) was the first of the Persian Empires to rule over significant portions of Greater Iran. It also eventually incorporated the following territories: in the east modern Afghanistan and portions of Pakistan; in the north and west all of Turkey (Anatolia), the upper Balkans peninsula (Thrace), and most of the Black Sea coastal regions; in the west and southwest the territories of modern Iraq, northern Saudi-Arabia, Palestine (Jordan, Israel, Lebanon), all significant population centers of ancient Egypt, and as far west as portions of Libya. Encompassing approximately 7.5 million square kilometers, the Achaemenid Empire was territorially the largest empire of classical antiquity, second only to the Roman Empire in population.
quote: The modern day Pakistan consists of four major parts called provinces Punjab, Sind, Balochistan and NWFP. It also governs part of Kashmir which is currently split between Pakistan, India and China. Modern Pakistan is a country that has Harappan, Indo-Aryan, Persian, Grecian, Saka, Parthian, Kushan, White Hun, Afghan, Arab, Turkic, and Mughal heritage. Waves of conquerors and migrants settled down in Pakistan through out the centuries, influencing the locals and being absorbed among them. Pakistan is home to the oldest Asian civilisation (and one of the oldest in the world after Mesopotamia), Indus Valley Civilization (2500 BC - 1500 BC). The modern state of Pakistan was established on 14 August 1947, but the country has an extensive history that overlaps with the histories of Ancient India, Iran and Afghanistan. The region is a crossroad of historic trade routes, including the Silk Road, and was settled over thousands of years by many groups, including Dravidians, Indo-Aryans, Persians, Macedonians, Greeks, Scythians, Parthians Kushans, White Huns, Afghans, Arabs, Turks, and Mongols. The Indus region was the site of several ancient cultures including Mehrgarh, one of the world's earliest known towns, and the Indus Valley Civilization at Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro.[5] 17th Century Badshahi Masjid built by Mughal emperor Aurangzeb in Lahore 17th Century Badshahi Masjid built by Mughal emperor Aurangzeb in Lahore
The Indus Valley civilization collapsed in the middle of the second millennium BCE and was followed by the Vedic Civilisation, which extended over much of northern India and Pakistan. Successive empires and kingdoms ruled the region from the Achaemenid Persian empire[6] around 543 BCE, to Alexander the Great[7] in 326 BCE and the Mauryan empire. The Indo-Greek Kingdom founded by Demetrius of Bactria included Gandhara and Punjab from 184 BCE, and reached its greatest extent under Menander, establishing the Greco-Buddhist period with advances in trade and culture. The city of Taxila (Takshashila) became a major centre of learning in ancient times - the remains of the city, located to the west of Islamabad, are one of the country's major archaeological sites.
quote: The Rigveda (Sanskrit: ऋग्वेद ṛgveda, a tatpurusha compound of ṛc "praise, verse" and veda "knowledge") is a collection of Vedic Sanskrit hymns dedicated to the gods. It is counted among the four Hindu sacred texts (shruti) known as the Vedas. Geographical and ethnological passages in the Rigveda provide evidence that the Rigveda was composed between 1700–1100 BCE (the early Vedic period) in the Punjab (Sapta Sindhu) region of the Indian subcontinent. The Rig Veda is the oldest of all known religious books, and the oldest book in Vedic Sanskrit or any Indo-European language. The composition of the Rigveda is conventionally dated to before 1500 BCE [1][2][3][4][5] Some writers have traced astronomical references [6] in the Rigveda dating it to as early as 4000 BC, [7] a date well within the late Mehrgarh culture.
Basically the whole gist of what I am getting at is that the IndoEuropeans who invaded and established the caste system favoring whites over darker skinned Indians came LONG after the events of the Mahabharata and RigVeda. These people justified such acts based on the notion that the principle location of many of the important kingdoms and events in these Epics take place in the NORTH of the country, which would then imply influence from a NORTHERN or IndoAryan race. Of course this is not the case, but it is the same sort of NONSENSE that you see regarding Egypt and its relationship to the rest of Africa. What is being debated therefore, is not that great kingdoms and events took place in Northern India at this time, but that these events are NOT about WHITE IndoEuropeans or IndoAryans and their attempts to subjugate DARKER skinned Indians, as has been proposed by MODERN Eurocentric scholars. The fact is that the OLDEST hindu temples and shrines in India do NOT depict WHITE IndoAryan or Indo European people. They depict DARK skinned Indians, like the MAJORITY of Indians in India today. Likewise, the EARLIEST images of the Buddha portray a man with tight curly hair and VERY DARK skin, which is SOMEWHAT different from MOST Indians, who have straight hair. Therefore, it is MORE likely that the origins of the culture of the South Asian continent is with the DARK skinned populations of India and has NOTHING to do with WHITES or INDO ARYAN invasions into the region.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A common Japanese name is "Sue". A common Korean name is Kim. Thus Japanese and Koreans share names with Europeans.
quote:Not really. Sue is not a European name. Sue is derived from SUSANNA f English, Italian, Swedish, Finnish, Russian, Dutch, Biblical From Σουσαννα (Sousanna), the Greek form of the Hebrew name שׁוֹשַׁנָּה (Shoshannah).
Okay. Then let us say that Japanese, Europeans and Hebrews all share this name. Again...so what?
quote:Kim is not an English name.
Did I say it was?
quote:It is clear that alledged Japanese "Sue" and Korean "Kim" are unrelated to the English names.
Again where did I say anything about *English* names? I didn't.
You continue to argue by misdirection and flawed example.
You start with specific claims of Yoruba and Japanese "relationship".
When it suits you , you switch to "Nigerian", which is neither a language or group of related languages.
You then use words like Tai which may be found in "Japan" but are not necessarily of Japanese origin.
When we show you how easy it is to produce such superfluous noise and call it, "evidence" - you counter by stating that the terms in question are not of "English" origin...which was never claimed and is moot to the reasons for citing them.
quote: Post 400+ English placenames that are found in India and Nigeria, that are not the result of British colonialism in India and Nigeria.
Why? As you state - we already know the British colonised India which would readily account for English being spoken by 100's of millions of Indians.
However Yoruba did not colonise Japan.
Yoruban is not spoken in Japan.
Your obligation is to prove that words like Tai originate among Yoruba who migrated to Japan.
I already asked you when this supposedly happened?
You ignored the question.
Evidently it's easier to just go on making far-fetched claims than to answer the basic questions that arise from those claims.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Basis of the distortion of Indian history and culture:
Arya in the Rig Veda and Mahabharata refer to ARYANS as a distinct caste:
quote: Ārya is a Sanskrit (आर्य) and Avestan word used by Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists and Jains, and has a variety of positive meanings, usually in religious contexts. It is not to be confused with the derived English adjective "Aryan", which in its socio-linguistic meaning refers to Indo-Iranians regardless of religion or spirituality.
"Arya" can also be spelled in the form of any of the following Sanskrit words:
Arya was thought to be related to the Indo-European word for "Aristocracy" for example the German word 'Ehre'. But 20th century linguists have given up the connection between Indo-iranian word arya with Ehre or Aristo and such other words for 'noble' in other Indo-european languages. In fact, outside Indian and ancient Iranian language, the word arya has no cognates[citation needed]In Sanskrit, later this term came to signify anyone of good and noble character.
1. aryá- or aryŕ- is an adjective meaning "kind", "favorable", or "devoted". 2. aryáḥ or áryaḥ is a noun meaning "master" or "lord". 3. ā´rya- is an adjective derived from the second of the above meaning "respectable", "honorable", or "noble"; also "belonging to the brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, or vaiśya varṇas." 4. ā´ryaḥ is a noun corresponding to the adjective above, meaning "an honorable or respectable man", "a master", "an owner", "a member of the three highest varṇas" (named above), or particularly "a Vaiśya."
The two last forms are the most common, and are the subject of this article.
The important Sanskrit lexicon Amarakośa (ca. 450 AD) defines ārya thus: "An ārya is one who hails from a noble family, of gentle behavior and demeanor, good-natured and of righteous conduct. (mahākula kulinārya sabhya sajjana sadhavah.)"
In Pāli and other Prakrits, ārya developed various forms such as ariya, ayya, ajja, and aje. The last of these gave rise to the honorific term -ji, which is used following a proper name, for example in Gandhiji.
Ārya- was also frequently used as a prefix of honor attached to names, and sometimes as an integral part of a person's name. E.g., Āryāsaṅga is the name of a Buddhist philosopher and author [2], and Āryabhaṭa is the name of an Indian mathematician.
ārya is in general either a term of approbation or refers to one's standing in the varṇa system: an arya is a free man and not a member of a lower caste or a slave. Roughly, 'arya' is a follower of vedic traditions and take vedas as the nodal point of their religious and social identity. At an early period, the cultural area where the varna system was used, along with the linguistic area where Indic languages were spoken, would have been nearly the same. This region (northern and central India; the Indus and Ganges plains) was called Āryāvarta, meaning "abode of the noble people". At present, these cultural and linguistic spheres overlap but are quite distinct from each other. That is how 'aryavarta' is defined in manusmriti. Later the vedic culture spread through much of the Indian subcontinent and the word has come to mean Bharat in general
The Western interpretation of ārya as the name of a particular race became known in India in the 19th century and was generally accepted by Hindus and Hindu nationalists, though combined with religious self-identification. This shows the success of western cultural imperialism which defines the Hindu-selfdefinition of 'arya' as something different taken out of it's historical and social context. Vivekananda remarked: "...it is the Hindus who have all along called themselves Aryas. Whether of pure or mixed blood, the Hindus are Aryas; there it rests." (Vivekananda, Complete Works vol.5).
The relationship of ancient Bharatvarsha to modern India's national boundaries:
quote: Bhārata, sometimes Bhāratavarsha (Bhārat or Bhāratvarsha in Hindi) is the name in Sanskrit and many languages of India for northern India. The Hindi form is also an official name of the Republic of India, and possibly the earliest name given to the nation. (Article 1 of the Constitution of India - 'India that is Bharat shall be a Union of States.'). In Sanskrit, it is pronounced as [bʱaːrət̪ə] while in Hindi as [bʱaːrət̪].
.....
The name "Bhārata" (in the sense of India) is derived from either of two ancient Hindu kings named Bharata, though it is more commonly accepted that the name derives from that of the son of Dushyanta, whom the Mahabharata credits with bringing the whole of Bharatavarsha under his rule and securing the title of an emperor. He was said to have first conquered all of the known world, which was duly named after him in his honor. Hence his descendants were called as the Bhāratas. In all the classical and religious works of Hinduism, such as the Mahabharata, the Ramayana and the Puranas, Bhārat is the name used for what is today known as the Indian subcontinent.
The Vishnu Purana (2.3.1) defines Bharata as follows: "The country that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bharata [Bharata-varsha]; there dwell the descendants of Bharata [Bharati santatih]."
However, some would dispute the idea that Bharatvarsha actually extended that far and covered the WHOLE subcontinent. As I posted earlier, some in Pakistan feel that the historical peoples of this people are actually part of Pakistani history, not Indian history and that the extent of India as defined by the Bharatvarsha is nonsense made up by the British as it was the British who extended the borders of India to the extent we see today.
quote: Historical Bharata extends to what are today Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh and even by some accounts, portions of eastern Afghanistan. The Maurya Empire, under Emperors Chandragupta Maurya and Ashoka the Great, Mughal Empire and the Maratha are the other times the similar extent of land and peoples have been united under a single political entity, but the social, cultural and economic links are complex and originated nine thousand years ago. This expanse has variously been reduced and increased, and was at its largest under Emperors like Chandragupta Maurya, Ashoka the Great, Samudragupta, Chandragupta Vikramaditya, Alauddin Khilji, Akbar the Great, Aurangazeb, Maratha and lastly under the British.
Looking at the King who supposedly unified these lands results in him originating in the Pakistan/Afghanistan area:
quote: According to excerpts in the Mahabharata, Dushyanta is said to have ruled, either directly or through his governors, from Gandhara (present day Kandahar in Afghanistan) to the Vindhyas(central Indian mountains) and beyond, and from Sindhu, (present day Pakistan) to Vanga, (present day Bangladesh).
Historians interpret Dushyanta as having been one of the earliest Indo-Aryan kings of the Indian subcontinent.
But why do scholars interperet this as an INDO ARYAN king and not just an NATIVE NON ARYAN North Indian? These are the kinds of assumptions and statements that ASSIGN IndoAryan (white) ancestry to peoples where there WAS NONE. Just as the early kings and dynasties of Egypt were labelled as of caucasoid Eurasian stock.
The son of Dushyanta is Bharata, from which the name Bharatvarsha (the whole subcontinent of India) gets its name. But does he represent a IndoAryan ruling race?
quote: Bharata's paramount position as founder of modern India is imbibed in the consciousness of Indians, but mainly through sources of Hindu mythology and Hindu religious works. Archeological evidence of Bharata's kingdom and reign is scarce.
Bharata is construed by many historians as having been an Indo-Aryan king, and as king he unified all of the Indian subcontinent with the Dravidian peoples and other indigenous peoples as his subjects.
Again, all of this adds up to being mostly LEGENDARY MYTHS with no EVIDENCE to back them up. There are no dates here, no locations, no artifacts and no ruins. However, the ACTUAL ruins and artifacts from ancient India leave no doubt that the people were NOT IndoAryans in ANY sense of the word. But modern depictions of these epics and dieties ALL LOOK WHITE. It makes one wonder then whether these MYTHS, written in around the 3rd century B.C. actually reflect any REAL history or is it a contrived doctrine promoting IndoAryan supremacy. NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with the REAL history of ancient India and is tantamount to using the Bible as the basis of REAL history in the Levant.
The caste system:
quote: Some researchers believe that the caste system began with the Indo-Aryan migration to India[3]. However, the theory of Indo-Aryan migration itself is a highly disputed topic[4][5]. The critics claim that it was formulated to undermine the historical significance of India, and was exploited by the British to show that they had the right to invade India, as the Indians supposedly themselves were invaders[6].
Although many Hindu scriptures contain passages that can be interpreted to sanction the caste system, they also contain indications that the caste system is not an essential part of the Hindu religion. The Vedas place very little importance on the caste system, mentioning caste only rarely and in a cursory manner. In the Vedic period, there also seems to no discrimination against the Shudras (which later became an ensemble of the so-called low-castes)[7]. Later scriptures such as Bhagavad Gita and Manusmriti state that the four varnas are created by God. A varna is a division of the society that consists of many sub-castes or Jātis. Manusmriti and some other shastras mention four varnas: The Brahmins (teachers, scholars and priests), the Kshatriyas (kings and warriors), the Vaishyas (traders, landowners and some artisan groups), and Shudras (agriculturists, service providers, and some artisan groups). Another group of untouchables excluded from the main society was called Parjanya or Antyaja.
Therefore, all of these things, from legendary history to the fabrication of an Aryan race, to the incessant images of white dieties and historical figures atypical of MOST of the Indian population and UNLIKE the ACTUAL historical and archaeological artifacts, exists only to promote one thing: WHITE supremacy.
The origins of ancient Indian culture and civilization belong in the hands of the INDIGENOUS Indians, most of whom are DARK in complexion and have NOTHING to do with ARYANS or any sort of European. This concoction of IndoEuropean lingustics is only a charade, which attempts to link Indian history and European history in a Eurocentric fashion, where Indian populations, culture and history derive from WHITES. Actually it is the other way around, dark skinned Indians CREATED their own civilizations and by spreading across Pakistan, Afghanistan and into Iran and Iraq, influenced the development of the ancient civilizations there and gave rise to language and writing. Also, there are ties between India and ancient Egypt, as I have shown before, which cements the ties between the dark skinned populations of India and Africa prior to the advent of WHITE supremacy. Also, the civilizations of South and South East Asia also were derived from the spread of dark South Asian and South Indians who went across Asia into Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam.
However the evidence for the origins of this South Asian culture among the aboriginal dark skinned populations of these places has been systematically erased. In India, the REAL history of India is replaced by myths featuring WHITE Indo Aryan images, unlike the actual images and artifacts from the time period. Images of dieties from ancient sites in India have been defaced, erasing the OBVIOUS dark complexioned features. Elsewhere in South Asia, the same process has taken place, with the original features of the BLACK buddhas in the caves of India, replaced by the modern Chinese controlled system of Bhuddism centered in Tibet. Ancient sites throughout South Asia have been destroyed, damaged and defaced by war, looters and those attempting to erase the real history of these regions. All of which is to promote the advancement of Northern Eurasian populations over aboriginal South Indian black populations, left over from the original migrations of people OUT of Africa.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
That is COMPLETELY different from the REAL IndoEuropeans who invaded India starting in the 500 B.C.E. and established the kingdoms and states in Northwest India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
What evidence do you have that Indo-Europeans entered Indo-Pakistan at this time instead of earlier.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
However the evidence for the origins of this South Asian culture among the aboriginal dark skinned populations of these places has been ystematically erased
If this is true why do me have information on the 1)megalithic cultures of South India; 2) the earliest Brahmi or Tamili inscriptions (c.800 BC)found in South India; and 3) the South Indian Empires of : Cholas, Pandyas and Cheras?
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
^ Why? You are supporting claims based upon implied familiarity with the work.
Either *you* don't know the work, or *he* doesn't have the answer.
Either way, there is no reason for anyone to credit your thread/claims until you address the question.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
You start with specific claims of Yoruba and Japanese "relationship".
When it suits you , you switch to "Nigerian", which is neither a language or group of related languages.
You then use words like Tai which may be found in "Japan" but are not necessarily of Japanese origin.
When we show you how easy it is to produce such superfluous noise and call it, "evidence" - you counter by stating that the terms in question are not of "English" origin...which was never claimed and is moot to the reasons for citing them.
You can' read. I have made no claims about Japanese-Nigerian relations. These claims were made by Mr. Baiye, whoes web site began this discussion.
Why do you continue put words in my mouth?
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
That is COMPLETELY different from the REAL IndoEuropeans who invaded India starting in the 500 B.C.E. and established the kingdoms and states in Northwest India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
What evidence do you have that Indo-Europeans entered Indo-Pakistan at this time instead of earlier.
I already posted the evidence. The Achaemenid empire was part of the Persian empire. The Greeks came after the Persians. Then came the Kushan populations from Tajikistan into Pakistan, Afghanistan and India. ALL of which are Indo Europeans, with ACTUAL VERIFIABLE historical and archeological evidence to back them up.
Prior to that any presence of Indo Europeans is based on MYTH and conjecture based on LINGUISTICS which is FLAWED and based PURELY around the idea of an Aryan invasion. And, even with that, the dates of Aryan invasion center on 1200 B.C. long after the Indus valley had long gone. These Aryans then created Sanskrit from which the language of India derives. But how is it that the great Indus valley civilization had no language? The answer is they did and that it is the BASIS of Sanskrit NOT INDO ARYANS. The only reason Aryans are given credit for this inigenous language is because of loan words found in sanscrit from Persia and India. However, it must be remembered that the flow of civilization was FROM Inda and into Iran, not the other way around. THAT is the real reason for the similarities in language. Not some ancient Aryan invasion. The Indus Valley civilization was INDIGENOUS and had NOTHING to do with IndoAryan whites. The idea of such is mainly due to the invention of British scholars in the 19th century. HOWEVER, there is TRUTH to the fact that IndoEuropean groups did invade India beginning in around 600 B.C. into the Middle Ages.
quote: The Harappans of the Indus Valley have left profuse archaeological records over a vast region - from the borders of Iran and beyond Afghanistan to eastern UP and Tapti valley, and must have supported over 30 million people and believed to be living an advanced civilization. And yet these people have left absolutely no literary records. Sounds incredible! The Vedic Aryans and their successors on the other hand have left us a literature that is probably the largest and most profound in the world. But according to the AIT there is absolutely no archaeological record that they ever existed. Either on the Indian soil or outside its boundaries. So we have concrete history and archeology of a vast civilization of 'Dravidians' lasting thousands of years that left no literature, and a huge literature by the Vedic Aryans who left no history and no archaeological records. The situation gets more absurd when we consider that there is profuse archaeological and literary records indicating a substantial movement of Indian Aryans out of India into Iran and West Asia around 2000 BC.
So, how can all these obvious anomalies and serious flaws be reconciled? By accepting the truth that the so-called Aryans were the original people habitants of the townships along the Indus, Ravi, Saraswati and other rivers of the vast northern region of the Indian subcontinent. And no invasion by nomadic hordes from outside India ever occurred and the civilization was not destroyed but the population simply moved to other areas, and developed a new syncretic civilization and culture by mutual interaction and exchange of ideas.
The Vedic seers in Vedic literature have proclaimed and practiced the following all-embracing, catholic, and harmonious principles for a peaceful coexistence of various communities. How can such people be accused of annihilater of a civilization, murderer of innocent people, and destroying large number of cities?
....
Now, based on what has been presented above, following facts about an ancient and glorious period of India clearly emerge:
1. The Aryan Invasion and Racial theories, and Aryan-Dravidian conflicts are a 19th century fabrication by some European scholar. They are being exploited even now for political reasons. 2. The hymns of Rigveda had been composed and completed by 3700BC, this can be scientifically proved. 3. The language of the Indus script is related to Sanskrit, the language of Vedas. 4. The Indus valley civilization should be aptly called as Saraswati Vedic civilization, as the new evidences and right interpretation of the archaeological findings indicate. 5. There is now strong evidence that the movement of the ancient Aryan people was from east to west, and this is how the European languages have strong association and origin in the Vedic Sanskrit language. 6. The ending of Indus Valley and the Saraswati civilization was due to the constant floods and drought in the Indus area and the drying up of the Saraswati river. This had caused a massive emigration of the habitants to safer and interior areas of the Indian subcontinent and even towards the west. 7. There was no destruction of the civilization in the Indus valley due to any invasion of any barbaric hordes. 8. The Vedic literature has no mention of any invasion or destruction of a civilization. 9. There is no evidence in any of the literature which indicate any Aryan-Dravidian or North-South divide, they were never culturally hostile to each other. 10. The population living in the Indus valley and surrounding the dried up Saraswati river practiced the Vedic culture and religion.
^ Why? You are supporting claims based upon implied familiarity with the work.
Either *you* don't know the work, or *he* doesn't have the answer.
Either way, there is no reason for anyone to credit your thread/claims until you address the question.
If you have a beef about Tai you must of course contact Mr.Baiye's work is the web page I site. If you disagree with his work contact him or any of the other people mentioned above contact them:
quote:
Baiye is not the first person to note the presence of African placenames in the Pacific. The first person to discuss this hypothesis was W.J. Page.
Williams John Page discussed the Lakato Hypothesis. The Lakato Hypothesis stated simply implies that the Melanesian people of Fiji were carried to the Pacific Islands by Indonesian maritime merchants after they had colonized parts of East and central Africa.
See the following: web page
A recent article on Nigerian place names in India was published by Dr. R. Balakrishnan titled "African roots of the Dravidian-speaking Tribes: A case in Onomastics", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 34(1) (2005),pp.153-202. Like Baiye, Dr. Balakrishnan found almost 500 Nigerian placenames, and 46 tribal names in Koraput, India; and 110 ethnonyms of Koyas in Nigeria. This led Dr. Balakrishnan to declare that :"However, the overwhelming evidence available from the toponymic corpuses of Koraput and Nigeria, and ethnonyms, surnames and personal names of Koyas seem more adequate to propose an African origin to the Koyas, the Dravidian speakers" (p.177)
It is interesting to note that we find Koya placenames in Nigeria, and Nigerian place names on the East Coast of India (Balakrishnan), Nigerian place names throughout the Pacific (Page) and Nigerian placenames and surnames in Japan (Baiye). This shows a direct spread of Nigerian place names from Africa, across the Indian Ocean into the Pacific. The discovery of common placenames in three different regions can not be accounted by coincidence.
The fact remains. It is significant that Nigerian placenames are found in India, throughout the Pacific and Japan.
If this is due to coincidence as you claim please show 400+ British placenames in India .
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
I already posted the evidence. The Achaemenid empire was part of the Persian empire. The Greeks came after the Persians. Then came the Kushan populations from Tajikistan into Pakistan, Afghanistan and India. ALL of which are Indo Europeans, with ACTUAL VERIFIABLE historical and archeological evidence to back them up.
Are you saying the Achaemenid were Indo-Europeans? They wrote in Elamite.
The contemporary Indo-Aryan speaking people speak Farsi in Iran.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
2. The hymns of Rigveda had been composed and completed by 3700BC, this can be scientifically proved.
Most dates for the Rig Veda have dated it to between 900-1200 BC. What scientific proof pushes the date for these records back to 3700 BC.
.
DougM
quote:
But how is it that the great Indus valley civilization had no language? The answer is they did and that it is the BASIS of Sanskrit NOT INDO ARYANS. The only reason Aryans are given credit for this inigenous language is because of loan words found in sanscrit from Persia and India.
Sanskrit and the Indus Valley writing is separated by 2200 years. What evidence do you have that indicates that the Indus Valley language is the foundation of Sanskrit?
8. The Vedic literature has no mention of any invasion or destruction of a civilization. 9. There is no evidence in any of the literature which indicate any Aryan-Dravidian or North-South divide, they were never culturally hostile to each other.
You are wrong on both counts.
You must have not read the Rg Veda. The Rg Veda makes considerable mention of their attack on the walled cities of the Dasas. Walled cities the Aryans destroyed and looted.
The Dravidians had confrontations with the Arya{ns), especially during the Pandya period when the Aryab Kings of the Dekkan invaded Tamil country. This war is discussed in the epic poem: Chilappathikaram.
If you want to find out more about the Aryans and Tamil please check out the following article:
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Review of Dr. Asko Parpolas' "The Coming of the Aryans". International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 18, no2 (1989) , pages 98-127.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
I already posted the evidence. The Achaemenid empire was part of the Persian empire. The Greeks came after the Persians. Then came the Kushan populations from Tajikistan into Pakistan, Afghanistan and India. ALL of which are Indo Europeans, with ACTUAL VERIFIABLE historical and archeological evidence to back them up.
Are you saying the Achaemenid were Indo-Europeans? They wrote in Elamite.
The contemporary Indo-Aryan speaking people speak Farsi in Iran.
.
True, the Aechmanids are on the periphery of Europe but still represent the waves of invaders FROM THE WEST into India. That is all I meant. They were followed by the Greeks and so on.
Now, what I am calling out is your OBVIOUS contradictory statements. If the Aechmanids wrote in Elamite, does that mean that they were NOT IndoEuropeans? If so, then HOW can people from this SAME AREA going into North India be therefore categorized by yourself as IndoEuropean?
Like I said, the culture of India spread FROM India/Pakistan and INTO the rest of Eurasia, giving rise to the IndoEuropean LANGUAGE, not PEOPLE. Language and people are TWO different things. There are remnants of these aboriginal dark skinned populations even in Iran, in the region of Baluchistan (once part of the western edge of the ancient Indus Valley civilzation).
http://www.iranchamber.com/provinces/21_sistan_baluchistan/21_sistan_baluchistan.php So when you hear about people talk about ancient Indian civilizations in and around NorthWest India, Pakistan and into Iran. Elamite, being a derivitive of ancient IndoIranian languages, is therefore NOT Indo European, as YOU have just testified. Therefore, the people of this region and the culture WAS NOT IndoEuropean either. But of course, you will now do another BACKFLIP and contradict yourself again.
MY point is that YOU do not provide consistent logical evidence to back up your hypothesis. First you start off proposing BLACK African origins for asian place names, IMPLYING that BLACKS were responsible for the major ancient cultures in India and Asia, then you turn RIGHT AROUND and contradict yourself by claiming that Indian culture, which is the basis of South Asian and much east Asian culture, is INDO EUROPEAN. Then you jump up and speak of Elamite as not being IndoEuropean, even though it is in the region where YOUR IndoEuropean originators came from. Dude, make up your mind which it is and stop playing silly games.
The modern concept of Indo European languages in India is rooted in a Eurocentric notion of the ORIGINS of Indian culture. For you to be parroting such nonsense is telling of your inability to do INDEPENDENT research and study to promote your OWN views.
Note: Baluchistan and Mehrgarh are important locations of Neolithic culture in ancient South Asia.
quote: Mehrgarh was an ancient settlement in South Asia and is one of the most important sites in archaeology for the study of the earliest neolithic settlements in that region. The remains are located in Balochistan, Pakistan, on the Kachi plain near the Bolan Pass, to the west of the Indus River valley and between the present-day cities of Quetta, Kalat and Sibi.
Mehrgarh is sometimes cited as the earliest known farming settlement in South Asia, based on archaeological excavations from 1974 (Jarrige et al). The earliest evidence of settlement dates from 7000 BCE. It is also cited for the earliest evidence of pottery in South Asia. Archaeologists divide the occupation at the site into several periods.
The chalcolithic people of Mehrgarh also had contacts with northern Afghanistan, northeastern Iran and even with the southern part of central Asia (B.B. Lal 1997: 287).
From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehrgarh
Balochistan is part of Western Pakistan, going into Iran:
quote: The province of Balochistan (or Baluchistan) (Urdu: بلوچستان) in Pakistan is the largest in the country by geographical area. It contains most of historical Balochistan and is named after the Baloch. Its neighbouring regions are Iranian Balochistan to the west, Afghanistan and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas to the north and Punjab and Sindh to the east. To the south is the Arabian Sea. The principal languages in the province are Baluchi, Pashto, Brahui, and Persian. The capital and largest city is Quetta. Balochistan is believed to be rich in mineral resources. It is also a major supplier of natural gas to the country.
The original populations of these areas were NOT Indo Europan WHITES, but Indo South Asian blacks. These are the populations which were part of the western edge of the Indus Valley civilizations and they were NOT White Aryans.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
2. The hymns of Rigveda had been composed and completed by 3700BC, this can be scientifically proved.
Most dates for the Rig Veda have dated it to between 900-1200 BC. What scientific proof pushes the date for these records back to 3700 BC.
.
DougM
quote:
But how is it that the great Indus valley civilization had no language? The answer is they did and that it is the BASIS of Sanskrit NOT INDO ARYANS. The only reason Aryans are given credit for this inigenous language is because of loan words found in sanscrit from Persia and India.
Sanskrit and the Indus Valley writing is separated by 2200 years. What evidence do you have that indicates that the Indus Valley language is the foundation of Sanskrit?
.
Why are you asking me to validate EUROCENTRIC NONSENSE? Why are YOU so keen on SUPPORTING such NONSENSE while at the same time touting yourself as an AFROCENTRIC?
I already posted earlier that the Aryas in the RgVeda have NOTHING TO DO WITH WHITE ARYANS. Arya means one who is a believer in the Vedas. Nothing else. All your questions will be answered if you read what I have posted and linked to.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
8. The Vedic literature has no mention of any invasion or destruction of a civilization. 9. There is no evidence in any of the literature which indicate any Aryan-Dravidian or North-South divide, they were never culturally hostile to each other.
You are wrong on both counts.
You must have not read the Rg Veda. The Rg Veda makes considerable mention of their attack on the walled cities of the Dasas. Walled cities the Aryans destroyed and looted.
The Dravidians had confrontations with the Arya{ns), especially during the Pandya period when the Aryab Kings of the Dekkan invaded Tamil country. This war is discussed in the epic poem: Chilappathikaram.
If you want to find out more about the Aryans and Tamil please check out the following article:
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Review of Dr. Asko Parpolas' "The Coming of the Aryans". International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 18, no2 (1989) , pages 98-127.
.
No Clyde you are wrong and you are going against the grain of modern Indian research on the topic that puts the RgVeda into the 3500 4000 B.C. timeframe. As I asked earlier, why are you accepting Eurocentric nonsense as fact, even as you CLAIM to be REFUTING such in the realm of history and archaeology concerning blacks in world history?
quote: The astronomical lore in Vedic literature provides elements of an absolute chronology in a consistent way. For what it is worth, this corpus of astronomical indications suggests that the Rg-Veda was completed in the 4th millennium AD, that the core text of the Mahabharata was composed at the end of that millennium, and that the Brahmanas and Sutras are products of the high Harappan period towards the end of the 3rd millennium BC. This corpus of evidence is hard to reconcile with the AIT, and has been standing as a growing challenge to the AIT defenders for two centuries.
quote: Baluchistan and Mehrgarh are important locations of Neolithic culture in ancient South Asia.
This is true. But Mehrgarh is not related to the Indus Valley civilization or Dravidian speaking people. People at Mehrgarh cultivated wheat. The People of the Indus Valley civilization like the Dravidians in South India cultivated African millets.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
True, the Aechmanids are on the periphery of Europe but still represent the waves of invaders FROM THE WEST into India. That is all I meant. They were followed by the Greeks and so on.
Now, what I am calling out is your OBVIOUS contradictory statements. If the Aechmanids wrote in Elamite, does that mean that they were NOT IndoEuropeans? If so, then HOW can people from this SAME AREA going into North India be therefore categorized by yourself as IndoEuropean?
Elamite is not an Indo-European language, so the speakers of this language could not be associated with the I-E speakers.
I have characterized no people as I-E speakers. I am just responding to your post.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you have a beef about Tai you must of course contact Mr.Baiye's work is the web page I site.
I have no beef. I am simply asking you questions about your claims in your thread.
You are striking poses in lieu of answers.
I don't mind and find it rather amusing.
quote:The fact remains. It is significant that Nigerian placenames are found in India, throughout the Pacific and Japan.
Again, as Nigerian is not language this claim makes no sense.
quote:If this is due to coincidence as you claim
Nope...I merely state the fact that you offer no proof for you claims of Yoruban migration to Japan.
You can't even answer the question - "when" this was supposed to happen. Therefore you offer wild claims but no specifics.
So there is little to discuss or refute. Word lists per se provide no evidence of anything to any *intelligent* person.
quote: please show 400+ British placenames in India.
Sorry, but I'm not stupid as you need your cheerleaders to be.
I don't chase non-sequiturs.
So let's cut thru the noise and to the chase, shall we.....(?)
Either tell us when the Yoruba migrated to Japan, or admit that your insinuation to that effect is bogus, and withdraw it.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: DougM
quote:
2. The hymns of Rigveda had been composed and completed by 3700BC, this can be scientifically proved.
Most dates for the Rig Veda have dated it to between 900-1200 BC. What scientific proof pushes the date for these records back to 3700 BC.
.
DougM
quote:
But how is it that the great Indus valley civilization had no language? The answer is they did and that it is the BASIS of Sanskrit NOT INDO ARYANS. The only reason Aryans are given credit for this inigenous language is because of loan words found in sanscrit from Persia and India.
Sanskrit and the Indus Valley writing is separated by 2200 years. What evidence do you have that indicates that the Indus Valley language is the foundation of Sanskrit?
.
Why are you asking me to validate EUROCENTRIC NONSENSE? Why are YOU so keen on SUPPORTING such NONSENSE while at the same time touting yourself as an AFROCENTRIC?
I already posted earlier that the Aryas in the RgVeda have NOTHING TO DO WITH WHITE ARYANS. Arya means one who is a believer in the Vedas. Nothing else. All your questions will be answered if you read what I have posted and linked to.
You are the one spreading nonesense when you claim the Rg Veda dates back to 3700 BC.
It is also nonesence to imply that the Aryans did not recognize a difference between themselves and the city dwellers of India when they arrived in the region.
.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote: please show 400+ British placenames in India.
I'm not stupid and don't chase non-sequiturs.
Either tell us when the Yoruba migrated to Japan, or admit that your insinuation to that effect is bogus, and withdraw it.
Again you keep implying that I am claiming the Yoruba migrated to Japan. This contention is made by Baiye.
Rasol
quote:
Nope...I merely state the fact that you offer no proof for you claims of Yoruban migration to Japan.
You can't even answer the question - "when" this was supposed to happen. Therefore you offer wild claims but no specifics.
So there is little to discuss or refute. Word lists per se provide no evidence of anything to any *intelligent* person.
Again I repeat that I am not making the claim that Yoruba visited Japan. This claim is made by Mr. Baiye. What I am saying is that Baiye presents convincing evidence that Yoruba names and place names appear in Japan.
The presence of Yoruba placenames from Africa to India, the Pacific Islands and thence to Japan indicate that they were taken to the area by people who presently live in Nigeria. Threfore it is up to you to explain how these placenames arrived in these diverse parts of the globe since coincidence can not account for the existence of common placenames and surnames in four different regions leading from Africa, to India (Indian Ocean region), the Pacific as far as Japan.
quote:The original populations of these areas were NOT Indo Europan WHITES, but Indo South Asian blacks. These are the populations which were part of the western edge of the Indus Valley civilizations and they were NOT White Aryans.
This is correct, though it is not clear that the Indian word Aryan actually originates among 'whites'.
Of course in modern times it has been appropriated by the NAZI's, so.....
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: DougM
quote:
2. The hymns of Rigveda had been composed and completed by 3700BC, this can be scientifically proved.
Most dates for the Rig Veda have dated it to between 900-1200 BC. What scientific proof pushes the date for these records back to 3700 BC.
.
DougM
quote:
But how is it that the great Indus valley civilization had no language? The answer is they did and that it is the BASIS of Sanskrit NOT INDO ARYANS. The only reason Aryans are given credit for this inigenous language is because of loan words found in sanscrit from Persia and India.
Sanskrit and the Indus Valley writing is separated by 2200 years. What evidence do you have that indicates that the Indus Valley language is the foundation of Sanskrit?
.
Why are you asking me to validate EUROCENTRIC NONSENSE? Why are YOU so keen on SUPPORTING such NONSENSE while at the same time touting yourself as an AFROCENTRIC?
I already posted earlier that the Aryas in the RgVeda have NOTHING TO DO WITH WHITE ARYANS. Arya means one who is a believer in the Vedas. Nothing else. All your questions will be answered if you read what I have posted and linked to.
You are the one spreading nonesense when you claim the Rg Veda dates back to 3700 BC.
It is also nonesence to imply that the Aryans did not recognize a difference between themselves and the city dwellers of India when they arrived in the region.
.
.
I did not say the RgVeda dates back to any particular time period. I only posted research from Indian researchers who claim that the RgVeda and other Epics are OLDER than the dates given by European historians.
Also Aryans in these Epics does NO REFER TO RACE. It only refers to a TRUE BELIEVER, as in believer in the Vedas.
From what I already posted:
quote: Ārya is a Sanskrit (आर्य) and Avestan word used by Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists and Jains, and has a variety of positive meanings, usually in religious contexts. It is not to be confused with the derived English adjective "Aryan", which in its socio-linguistic meaning refers to Indo-Iranians regardless of religion or spirituality.
"Arya" can also be spelled in the form of any of the following Sanskrit words:
Arya was thought to be related to the Indo-European word for "Aristocracy" for example the German word 'Ehre'. But 20th century linguists have given up the connection between Indo-iranian word arya with Ehre or Aristo and such other words for 'noble' in other Indo-european languages. In fact, outside Indian and ancient Iranian language, the word arya has no cognates[citation needed]In Sanskrit, later this term came to signify anyone of good and noble character.
1. aryá- or aryŕ- is an adjective meaning "kind", "favorable", or "devoted". 2. aryáḥ or áryaḥ is a noun meaning "master" or "lord". 3. ā´rya- is an adjective derived from the second of the above meaning "respectable", "honorable", or "noble"; also "belonging to the brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, or vaiśya varṇas." 4. ā´ryaḥ is a noun corresponding to the adjective above, meaning "an honorable or respectable man", "a master", "an owner", "a member of the three highest varṇas" (named above), or particularly "a Vaiśya."
The two last forms are the most common, and are the subject of this article.
The important Sanskrit lexicon Amarakośa (ca. 450 AD) defines ārya thus: "An ārya is one who hails from a noble family, of gentle behavior and demeanor, good-natured and of righteous conduct. (mahākula kulinārya sabhya sajjana sadhavah.)"
In Pāli and other Prakrits, ārya developed various forms such as ariya, ayya, ajja, and aje. The last of these gave rise to the honorific term -ji, which is used following a proper name, for example in Gandhiji.
Ārya- was also frequently used as a prefix of honor attached to names, and sometimes as an integral part of a person's name. E.g., Āryāsaṅga is the name of a Buddhist philosopher and author [2], and Āryabhaṭa is the name of an Indian mathematician.
ārya is in general either a term of approbation or refers to one's standing in the varṇa system: an arya is a free man and not a member of a lower caste or a slave. Roughly, 'arya' is a follower of vedic traditions and take vedas as the nodal point of their religious and social identity. At an early period, the cultural area where the varna system was used, along with the linguistic area where Indic languages were spoken, would have been nearly the same. This region (northern and central India; the Indus and Ganges plains) was called Āryāvarta, meaning "abode of the noble people". At present, these cultural and linguistic spheres overlap but are quite distinct from each other. That is how 'aryavarta' is defined in manusmriti. Later the vedic culture spread through much of the Indian subcontinent and the word has come to mean Bharat in general
The Western interpretation of ārya as the name of a particular race became known in India in the 19th century and was generally accepted by Hindus and Hindu nationalists, though combined with religious self-identification. This shows the success of western cultural imperialism which defines the Hindu-selfdefinition of 'arya' as something different taken out of it's historical and social context. Vivekananda remarked: "...it is the Hindus who have all along called themselves Aryas. Whether of pure or mixed blood, the Hindus are Aryas; there it rests." (Vivekananda, Complete Works vol.5).
quote:Again you keep implying that I am claiming the Yoruba migrated to Japan. This contention is made by Baiye.
You keep presenting these claims and attempting to 'support' them, but when we ask you for specifics, you excuse yourself from providing them by denying that you are trying to support these claims.
If you are honest you could always state flat out the following:
I, Clyde Winters do not support claims that Yoruba migrated to Japan. And moreover admit to having no proof whatsoever that Japanese get words like "Tai", from the Yoruba.
^ Just say the above, and the matter is settled. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic