Black People : Israelites in Indian History - Let me introduce myself

Not open for further replies.


Well-Known Member
There is a lot of genetic evidence supporting the fact that the Indian Brahmins descend from the Jews too. For example, the haplotype J2a. Within India, the haplotype J2a is more common among the upper castes and decreases in frequency with the caste level. This can be explained by the assimilation of local J2a (and R2) people from Central Asia, by the R1a Indo-European warriors who descended from modern Russia (Sintashta culture) and established themselves for a few centuries in southern Central Asia, immediately north of the Hindu Kush (including the Oxus civilization) before moving on to conquer the Indian subcontinent. J2a would have reached southern Central Asia with the expansion of Middle Eastern people during the Neolithic and mixed with the local hunter-gatherers belonging chiefly to R2 (and possibly some pre-Indo-European R1a).

Also J2a seems older, consistent with a larger effective population size, whereas R1a1 is found at a higher frequency and is NOT limited to Brahmins!!! Thus the haplotype J2a is the nucleus of the priestly caste! In the Indian population J2a is EXCLUSIVELY found in Brahmins!!! That's very logical because the Brahmins form the priest caste (and the highest caste) in India. And many Brahmins (especially the Bengali Brahmins) claim their origins to the Levi tribe of ancient Israel. Similarities include ritual cleansing, dietary law, fasting etc just to name a few. The Levites formed the priest clan in the tribes of Israel, and was established by Aaron, the brother of Moses. By the way, the very word "Aryan" derives from the name Aaron, the founder of the Levitical priesthood, NOT from Sanskrit!!! The Hebrew language is actually the oldest language on Earth, but more about that subject later. But that's also the reason why there is a significant portion of brahmins with the Cohen Modal Haplotype (the haplotype of the Hebrew priest clan).

However, not all Brahmins can trace their ancestry to ancient Israel. There are groups in Tamil Nadu who adopted the Brahmin customs, mastered the vedas and got into the fold.

Also Godfrey Higgins concluded in his book "Anacalypsis" that the Jews were actually a tribe of Hindu or Persian nomades or shepherds on page 367. This fits my conclusion in my previous post. Remember that he also concluded that the ancient Jews, residing in Asia Minor, were a tribe of Black Buddhists, and that Abraham is Brahma and Sarai Saraiswati. So this confirms that the Medes, Achaemenids and the Sassanids were really Black Semites again.

Real Aryan.jpg





In his book "Anacalypsis" Godfrey Higgins asked himself whether the Brahmins descend from the Jews or the Jews descend from the Brahmins:

"Now, what am I to make of this? Were these Brahmins Jews, or the Jews Brahmins?" Vol.I, p.771. I think it's the first.


Well-Known Member
The haplogroup J is a typical Semitic haplogroup. It originated in the Middle East, and is divided into the northern J2 and the southern J1. J2 originated in northern Mesopotamia, and spread westward to Anatolia and southern Europe (J2 is by far the most common variety in Europe), and eastward to Persia and India. J2 is related to the Ancient Etruscans, Minoans, southern Anatolians, Phoenicians, Assyrians and Babylonians.

So J2 originated in Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq and Iran). But in India J2 is an exclusive gene marker in Brahmins. So this proves that foreign forces indeed penetrated India because J2 originated OUTSIDE India!!! The Brahmins descend from the Aryans, so Aryans are absolutely NOT native to India!!! And thus it's not inaccurate to state that the gene marker J2a is the ultimate gene marker of the Brahmins.

This also means that the Indian Brahmins are genetically related to the Bhuba of the Lemba clan from South Africa for a large part. Profound scientific research pointed out that the Lemba carry the Cohen Modal Haplotype in a very high percentage (53.8% and is the highest percentage in the world!). Many Brahmins, on the other hand, carry the Cohen Modal Haplotype as well as I already mentioned in my previous post. I'm convinced that the original Aryan invaders and Brahmins looked exactly like the Lemba! And that conclusion is certainly NOT too far to fetched seen from the genetic evidence!!!


Members of the Lemba clan. This is what the original and true Aryan invaders and Brahmins may have looked like.


The Indian Brahmins also carry the gene markers R2 and R1a1, but are not limited to them. Haplogroup R originated in Central Asia (the Russian Steppes), and thus is foreign to India too. This confirms again the fact that a foreign army urged India inside, and that Aryans aren't native to India. Haplogroup R is considered a Caucasian haplogroup, but scientific research has pointed out that Blacks can carry haplogroup R as well. The Black race is the very first race on this planet, so haplogroup R must have appeared in Blacks first logically. The Medes/Colchians lived in the Caucasus region, the Russian Steppes ad Armenia for a while. The Median Empire stretched from Azerbaijan to north and Central Asia and Afghanistan. It's perfectly possible that the first haplogroup R appeared in the Medes. The original Median DNA is E3b as mentioned earlier in my previous messages. Perhaps they moved to the Caucasus Mountains and developed haplogroup R there. Then they went on to the Middle East, and developed haplogroup J2 there, maybe. But it's not sure. Bear in mind that that certainly does *NOT* mean that Whites descend from Blacks!!! The pure inferior races (such as Caucasoids and Mongoloids) absolutely do *NOT* descend from us!!!!!! That's the big mistake the moronic race deniers always make! They stupidly think that race doesn't exist because there is no single gene or set of genes unique to any racial group. Well, true scientists (*NOT* pseudo-scientists who deny race!!!) rationally conclude that the idea that a race must possess specific genes found only in that race and never in another race is a BIG MISCONCEPTION!!! Because racial differences are a result of PATTERNS of differences in gene frequencies! There is no gene for race. There are genes for race. Race is defined by the correlation structure of a cluster of genes (alleles). *NEVER* forget that race denial was invented by the Illuminati kikes to cover up the scientifically proven fact of Black racial superiority!!!!!!!!! To cover up the scientifically proven fact that Blacks are 100% pure Cro-Magnon or Homo Sapiens Sapiens, and to cover up the scientifically proven fact that Whites and Mongols carry APE DNA, are therefor genetically CLOSER to animals and therefor biologically/genetically/racially INFERIOR to Blacks!!!!!!!!! Here is an interesting scientific study about race for dummies and race deniers from the Youtube Channel: Part I and Part II.

Again, this has NOTHING to do with so-called "Afrocentrism", "Black supremacism" or "Afronazism"!!! It's just absolute RACE REALISM!!!

However, the genetic studies confirm the Aryan Invasion Theory!
Last edited:


Well-Known Member
We already know that the Black Aryans invented the Indian caste system, but we still don't know how it originated. Well, now I will explain how it originated, but I will give you a review of the racial make-up of the Dravidians first.

I think that many of you already know that true, racially pure Dravidians - just like the Aryans - are members of the Black race. I already said that the "Out-Of-Africa" nonsense is invented to make us believe that we are all the same, all equal and one big family, and to cover up Black superiority again. Well, to make it clear: Africa is NOT the birthplace of the WHOLE Black race!!! Only a few Blacks originated in Africa, and MOST Blacks originated OUTSIDE Africa (I will make a special thread about this subject another time)!!! You must know that at the beginning the world looked very different from now! Pangaea, a super continent that existed during the late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic eras 300 to 180 million years ago, broke up into Laurasia and Gondwana.


Fifty million years later (130 million years ago), flowers evolved and, in 120 million years ago, the line of birds separated from other reptiles. The classical, politically correct thesis is that modern humans or Homo Sapiens Sapiens have originated 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. But what the politically correct morons never will tell you is that there were also remains of Homo Sapiens Sapiens found in the Narmada valley of Central India when it was still attached to the African continent! So this could mean that the Homo Sapiens Sapiens could have originated in Asia (India) viewed from modern geographical standards even if India was still attached to Africa. Don't forget that the continents Lemuria and Atlantis existed either back then, and was inhabited by Black peoples. However, here is archaeological, genetic, and linguistic evidence supporting the fact that the Dravidians were Negroids who came to India during the Neolithic and not the Holocene period:

n the sub-continent of India, there were several main groups. The traditional view for the population origins in India suggest that the earliest inhabitants of India were the Negritos, and this was followed by the Proto-Australoid, the Mongoloid and the so-called mediterranean type which represent the ancient Egyptians and Kushites (Clyde A. Winters, "The Proto-Culture of the Dravidians, Manding and Sumerians",Tamil Civilizations 3, no.1(1985), pp.1-9. ( ). The the Proto-Dravidians were probably one of the cattle herding groups that made up the C-Group culture of Nubia Kush (K.P. Aravanan, "Physical and Cultural Similarities between Dravidian and African", Journal of Tamil Studies, no.10
(1976, pp.23-27:24. ).

Genetics as noted by Mait Metspalu et al writing in 2004, in “Most extant mtDNA boundaries in South and Southwest Asia were likely shaped during the initial settlement of Eurasia by anatomically modern humans." Click here for more information.

Mait Metspalu wrote:
Language families present today in India, such as Indo-European, Dravidic and Austro-Asiatic, are all much younger than the majority of indigenous mtDNA lineages found among the present day speakers at high frequencies. It would make it highly speculative to infer, from the extant mtDNA pools of their speakers, whether one of the listed above linguistically defined group in India should be considered more “autochthonous” than any other in respect of its presence in the subcontinent (p.9).

B.B. Lal ("The Only Asian expedition in threatened Nubia:Work by an Indian Mission at Afyeh and Tumas", The Illustrated London Times , 20 April 1963) and Indian Egyptologist has shown conclusively that the Dravidians originated in the Saharan area 5000 years ago. He claims they came from Kush, in the Fertile African Crescent and were related to the C-Group people who founded the Kerma dynasty in the 3rd millennium B.C. (Lal 1963) The Dravidians used a common black-and-red pottery, which spread from Nubia, through modern Ethiopia, Arabia, Iran into India as a result of the Proto-Saharan dispersal.

B.B. Lal (1963) a leading Indian archaeologist in India has observed that the black and red ware (BRW) dating to the Kerma dynasty of Nubia, is related to the Dravidian megalithic pottery. Singh (1982) believes that this pottery radiated from Nubia to India. This pottery along with wavy-line pottery is associated with the Saharo-Sudanese pottery tradition of ancient Africa .

Aravaanan (1980) has written extensively on the African and Dravidian relations. He has illustrated that the Africans and Dravidian share many physical similarities including the dolichocephalic indexes (Aravaanan 1980,pp.62-263; Raceand,2006), platyrrhine nasal index (Aravaanan 1980,pp.25-27), stature (31-32) and blood type (Aravaanan 1980,34-35;,2006). Aravaanan (1980,p.40) also presented much evidence for analogous African and Dravidian cultural features including the chipping of incisor teeth and the use of the lost wax process to make bronze works of arts (Aravaanan 1980,p.41).

There are also similarities between the Dravidian and African religions. For example, both groups held a common interest in the cult of the Serpent and believed in a Supreme God, who lived in a place of peace and tranquility ( Thundy, p.87; J.T. Cornelius,"Are Dravidians Dynastic Egyptians", Trans. of the Archaeological Society of South India 1951-1957, pp.90-117; and U.P. Upadhyaya, "Dravidian and Negro-African", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 5, no.1
) .

There are also affinities between the names of many gods including Amun/Amma and Murugan . Murugan the Dravidian god of the mountains parallels a common god in East Africa worshipped by 25 ethnic groups called Murungu, the god who resides in the mountains .

There is physical evidence which suggest an African origin for the Dravidians. The Dravidians live in South India. The Dravidian ethnic group includes the Tamil, Kurukh,Malayalam, Kananda (Kanarese), Tulu, Telugu and etc. Some researchers due to the genetic relationship between the Dravidians and Niger-Congo speaking groups they call the Indians the Sudroid (Indo-African) Race (RaceandHistory,2006).

Dravidian languages are predominately spoken in southern India and Sri Lanka. There are around 125 million Dravidian speakers. These languages are genetically related to African languages. The Dravidians are remnants of the ancient Black population who occupied most of ancient Asia and Europe.

Linguistic Evidence

1.1 Many scholars have recognized the linguistic unity of Black African (BA) and Dravidian (Dr.) languages. These affinities are found not only in the modern African languages but also that of ancient Egypt. These scholars have made it clear that lexical, morphological and phonetic unity exist between African languages in West and North Africa as well as the Bantu group.

1.2 K.P. Arvaanan (1976) has noted that there are ten common elements shared by BA languages and the Dr. group. They are (1) simple set of five basic vowels with short-long consonants;(2) vowel harmony; (3) absence of initial clusters of consonants; (4) abundance of geminated consonants; (5) distinction of inclusive and exclusive pronouns in first person plural; (6) absence of degrees of comparison for adjectives and adverbs as distinct morphological categories; (7) consonant alternation on nominal increments noticed by different classes; (8)distinction of completed action among verbal paradigms as against specific tense distinction;(9) two separate sets of paradigms for declarative and negative forms of verbs; and (l0) use of reduplication for emphasis.

1.3 There has been a long development in the recognition of the linguistic unity of African and Dravidian languages. The first scholar to document this fact was the French linguist L. Homburger (1950,1951,1957,1964). Prof. Homburger who is best known for her research into African languages was convinced that the Dravidian languages explained the morphology of the Senegalese group particularly the Serere, Fulani group. She was also convinced that the kinship existed between Kannanda and the Bantu languages, and Telugu and the Mande group. Dr. L. Homburger is credited with the discovery for the first time of phonetic, morphological and lexical parallels between Bantu and Dravidians

1.6 By the 1970's numerous scholars had moved their investigation into links between Dr. and BA languages on into the Senegambia region. Such scholars as Cheikh T. N'Diaye (1972) a Senegalese linguist, and U.P. Upadhyaya (1973) of India , have proved conclusively Dr. Homburger's theory of unity between the Dravidian and the Senegalese languages.

1.7 C.T. N'Diaye, who studied Tamil in India, has identified nearly 500 cognates of Dravidian and the Senegalese languages. Upadhyaya (1973) after field work in Senegal discovered around 509 Dravidian and Senegambian words that show full or slight correspondence.

1.8 As a result of the linguistic evidence the Congolese linguist Th. Obenga suggested that there was an Indo-African group of related languages. To prove this point we will discuss the numerous examples of phonetic, morphological and lexical parallels between the Dravidian group: Tamil (Ta.), Malayalam (Mal.), Kannanda/Kanarese (Ka.), Tulu (Tu.), Kui-Gondi, Telugu (Tel.) and Brahui; and Black African languages: Manding (Man.),Egyptian (E.), and Senegalese (Sn.)

6.1 Dravidian and Senegalese. Cheikh T. N'Diaye (1972) and U.P. Upadhyaya (1976) have firmly established the linguistic unity of the Dravidian and Senegalese languages. They present grammatical, morphological, phonetic and lexical parallels to prove their point.

6.2 In the Dravidian and Senegalese languages there is a tendency for the appearance of open syllables and the avoidance of non-identical consonant clusters. Accent is usually found on the initial syllable of a word in both these groups. Upadhyaya (1976) has recognized that there are many medial geminated consonants in Dravidian and Senegalese. Due to their preference for open syllables final consonants are rare in these languages.

6.3 There are numerous parallel participle and abstract noun suffixes in Dravidian and Senegalese. For example, the past participle in Fulani (F) -o, and oowo the agent formative, corresponds to Dravidian -a, -aya, e.g., F. windudo 'written', windoowo 'writer'.

6.4 The Wolof (W) -aay and Dyolo ay , abstract noun formative corresponds to Dravidian ay, W. baax 'good', baaxaay
'goodness'; Dr. apala 'friend', bapalay 'friendship'; Dr. hiri
'big', hirime 'greatness', and nal 'good', nanmay 'goodness'.

6.5 There is also analogy in the Wolof abstract noun formative suffix -it, -itt, and Dravidian ita, ta, e.g., W. dog 'to cut', dogit 'sharpness'; Dr. hari 'to cut', hanita 'sharp-ness'.

6.6 The Dravidian and Senegalese languages use reduplication of the bases to emphasize or modify the sense of the word, e.g., D. fan 'more', fanfan 'very much'; Dr. beega 'quick', beega 'very quick'.

6.7 Dravidian and Senegalese cognates.
English Senegalese Dravidian
body W. yaram uru
head D. fuko,xoox kukk
hair W. kawar kavaram 'shoot'
eye D. kil kan, khan
mouth D. butum baayi, vaay
lip W. tun,F. tondu tuti
heart W. xol,S. xoor karalu
pup W. kuti kutti
sheep W. xar 'ram'
cow W. nag naku
hoe W. konki
bronze W. xanjar xancara
blacksmith W. kamara
skin dol tool
mother W. yaay aayi
child D. kunil kunnu, kuuci
ghee o-new ney
Above we provided linguistic examples from many different African Supersets (Families) including the Mande and Niger-Congo groups to prove the analogy between Dravidian and Black African languages. The evidence is clear that the Dravidian and Black African languages should be classed in a family called Indo-African as suggested by Th. Obenga. This data further supports the archaeological evidence accumulated by Dr. B.B Lal (1963) which proved that the Dravidians originated in the Fertile African Crescent.

The major grain exploited by Saharan populations was rice ,the yam and pennisetum. McIntosh and McIntosh (1988) has shown that the principal domesticate in the southern Sahara was bulrush millet. There has been considerable debate concerning the transport of African millets to India. Weber (1998) believes that African millets may have come to India by way of Arabia. Wigboldus (1996) on the other hand argues that African millets may have arrived from Africa via the Indian Ocean in Harappan times.

Both of these theories involve the transport of African millets from a country bordering on the Indian Ocean. Yet, Weber (1998) and Wigboldus (1996) were surprised to discover that African millets and bicolor sorghum , did not reach many East African countries until millennia after they had been exploited as a major subsistence crop at Harappan and Gujarat sites.

This failure to correlate the archaeological evidence of African millets in countries bordering on the Indian Ocean, and the antiquity of African millets in India suggest that African millets such as Pennisetum and Sorghum must have come to India from another part of Africa. To test this hypothesis we will compare Dravidian and African terms for millet.

Winters (1985) has suggested that the Proto-Dravidians formerly lived in the Sahara. This is an interesting theory, because it is in the Sahara that the earliest archaeological pennisetum has been found.

Millet impressions have been found on Mande ceramics from both Karkarchinkat in the Tilemsi Valley of Mali, and Dar Tichitt in Mauritania between 4000 and 3000 BP. (McIntosh & McIntosh 1983a,1988; Winters 1986b; Andah 1981).

Given the archaeological evidence for millets in the Sahara, leads to the corollary theory that the Dravidians share analogous terms for millet with African groups that formerly lived in the Sahara. If the Africans and the Dravidians share the same genes and culture, then that indicates that the Dravidians belong to the Black race too.

The linguistic and anthropological data make it clear that the Dravidian speaking people were part of the C-Group people who formed the backbone of the Niger-Congo speakers. It indicates that the Dravidians took their red-and-black pottery and the cultivation of millet with them from Africa to India or vice versa. The evidence makes it clear that the genetic evidence indicating a Holocene migration to India for the Dravidian speaking people is wrong. The Dravidian people given the evidence for the first cultivation of millet and red-and-black pottery is firmly dated and put these cultural elements in the Neolithic. The evidence makes it clear that genetic evidence can not be used to effectively document historic population movements.

There is mtDNA data uniting Africans and Dravidians:

Can Parallel Mutation and neutral genome selection explain Eastern African M1 consensus HVS-1 motifs in Indian M haplogroup.

Similarities between Dravidian speakers and Africans.
Last edited:


Well-Known Member
Here is more scientific evidence that the Dravidians are members of the Black race:

The original Dravidian haplotype T and the African haplotype T:

"{The Case For Y-DNA haplogroup T as a Dravidian leadership group marker

So, is there any way that the cultural evidence and the genetic evidence can be reconciled? It turns out that there is a way.

Y-DNA haplotype T is a particularly plausible candidate for this transmission.

Y-DNA haplotype T is most common in the pre-Aryan Dravidian area of India. For example, more than 22% of Telagu speaking men in India have this Y-DNA haplotype, and in some South Asian populations it exceeds 50%. This percentage is on the same order of magnitude as, but somewhat lower than, the genetic contribution of the formative Indo-Aryan population in parts of South Asia that were never Dravidian, as expected from a population that is believed to have arrived in India somewhat earlier.

Y-DNA haplotype T is also virtually absent from the areas associated with strong Indo-Aryan influences, so its presence in South Asia isn't likely to be a result of admixture of Sumerian and Harappan populations in connection with their long trade associations with each other by sea and possibly also by land. Matrilineally inherited mtDNA evidence also supports this conclusion:

West Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups H, JT and W represent 6–7% of north and central tribes, which are located in the area where Indo-European languages are spoken. In contrast, these west Eurasian mtDNA types are virtually absent in south tribes, which are located where Dravidian languages are spoken. This might reflect different responses of local people to the Indo-European settlement of India. In the north and center, Indo-Europeans may have admixed with local people, concomitant with the spread of Indo-European languages. In contrast, in the southern part of India, local populations may have challenged the arrival of Indo-European newcomers, resulting in limited admixture, reduction of tribal population sizes and retention of their original languages, thus explaining why Dravidian languages survived the spread of Indo-European languages in south India.

Tibeto-Burman language speakers in South Asian tribes have strong East Asian genetic as well as linguistic affinities in both mtDNA and Y-DNA which are found nowhere else in South Asia, suggesting that "these populations remained relatively isolated....."

"The populations in South India where Y-DNA haplotype T is most prevalent coincide strongly with the linguistically inferred proto-Dravidian homeland within India. See also here.

Type T is also one of the few Y-DNA haplotypes not of the E type that are found in a Fulani population of West Africa, where about one in six Fulani men in Cameroon are currently of that type, and the Fulani speak a Niger-Congo language family language quite close linguistically to the proto-Dravidian language.

The Y-DNA T haplotype is also found in the Horn of Africa, in the Nile River basin, in the Fertile Crescent and in low frequencies in places where the non-Atlantic part of the Neolithic expansion took place. In the Nile River basin proper, Y-DNA haplotype T is most common in Upper Egypt and Sudan.

Sergent makes the observation, and I offer it for what it's worth, which may not be very much, that "the resemblances among Nubians, proto-dynastic Egyptians, Dravidians and what was formerly called "Hamites" appear henceforth through multivaried cranial measurements "as being very evident," and that among the so-called "Hamites" (in reality of the kushitic languages, that is to say the linguistic family called semito-hamite), the Somalis and Galla are black-skinned, it is probable that the Dravidians have conserved their color on leaving Africa; their installation in the Indian tropical zone could have subsequently only confirmed and augmented this pigmentation...."

{ One plausible scenario is that mutations that distinguish Y-DNA haplotype T from its direct ancestor Y-DNA haplotype K, are part of the migration out of a "Eurasian Eden" (probably South Asia or Persian) into the Fertile Cresent that also brings Y-DNA haplotype R1 with it, probably prior to the Neolithic Revolution.

When agriculture arrives from the Fertile Cresent in Egypt, where it arrived before it did anywhere else but the Fertile Cresent and the Indus River Valley, men with Y-DNA haplotype T settle in the Nile River Valley and become part of the core population of the agricultural era of the Nile River Valley. Other men from the Fertile Cresent with Y-DNA haplotype T are part of the population that brings agriculture to Europe in the LBK population that brings agriculture to Eastern and Central Europe.

Sometime later, a group of Y-DNA haplotype T Egyptians continue towards the source of the Nile, which splits in two directions, the Blue Nile makes its way East to Ethiopia. The other branch extends to the West until it reaches the divide between the Lake Chad inland basin, and the Nile River basin. An exploring group on foot looking for the source of the Nile and forking to the West would easily end up in the Chad Basin and from there to the home of the Fulani in the Sahel, where the crops that make their way to India have their origins.

Another group of men, with Y-DNA haplotype R1b1a (also known as R1b-V88) is also found primarily in North Cameroon, where it is spoken mostly by Chadic language speakers. The relatively undiluted mix of Y-DNA haplotypes of these men, compared to those with Y-DNA haplotype T suggests that the haplotype T group arrived long before the R1b-V88 group did.

In the Sahel these Y-DNA haplotype T men learn Sahel agriculture (the only kind of agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa until the Bantu people develop tropical agriculture many years later), and adopt a Niger-Congo family language. The Sahel crops have origins on the opposite sides of the Sahel and Y-DNA haplotype T is not widespread in sub-Saharan Africa, so they are unlikely to have domesticated these crops themselves. Trade conducted by the Mesopotamian or Egyptians with the Harappans brings them the discovery that there is some place suitable for Sahel crops in South Asia which can be reached by ship. These men set out up the Nile Valley to Egypt with their crops to Mesopotamia to South India, or alternately to the Horn of Africa to South India. One of these possibilities seems most likely.

It isn't clear if the Y-DNA haplotype T in Ethiopia and Somolia and Tanzania has its origins from Egyptian sea traders migrating inland, or from people moving up the Nile and taking the Blue Nile fork rather than the White Nile fork and head East as well as West. Either way, Sahel farmers in Ethiopia could bring crops and culture, as well as their Y-DNA haplotype T from Ethiopia to South Asia by boat.

But, a Fulani source seems more likely than an Ethopian one, because otherwise it is hard to explain why the men bringing Sahel crops to South Asia would speak a Niger-Congo language, although this could have been the language of the region prior to an influx of Afro-Asiatic languages from Egypt and the Middle East. The Kordofanians (who have a relatively high frequency of Y-DNA haplotype T) may be a relict population that is the most direct linguistic and cultural descendant of the East African Niger-Congo language speaking population, something supported by the fact that they are believed to be the oldest layer of people in the Nuba Mountain area of Sudan which has been a refugium for many layers of peoples over past millenia.

Also, Sahel crops may have come relatively late to East Africa: "Wiegboldus (1996) found no evidence of millet and bicolour sorghum being cultivated in East African countries until late antiquity, millennia after African millets were being cultivated in the Sahara, West Africa" and in South Asia . . . Wigboldus,J.S. (1996). Early presence of African millets near the Indian Ocean. In J. Reade, The Indian Ocean (pp.75-86), London: The British Museum."

A third possibility is that the Fulani or a kindred people with high levels of Y-DNA T traded back and forth all the way to the West African coast and took a boat from there, but there is considerably less evidence of sea trade reaching that far around 2500 BCE. "} Here is the source.

One of the principal groups to use millet in Africa are the Northern Mande speaking people (Winters, 1986). The Norther Mande speakers are divided into the Soninke and Malinke-Bambara groups. Holl (1985,1989) believes that the founders of the Dhar Tichitt site where millet was cultivated in the 2nd millenium B.C., were northern Mande speakers.

To test this theory we will compare Dravidian and Black African agricultural terms, especially Northern Mande. The linguistic evidence suggest that the Proto-Dravidians belonged to an ancient sedentary culture which exitsed in Saharan Africa. We will call the ancestor of this group Paleo-Dravido-Africans.

The Dravidian terms for millet are listed in the Dravidian Etymological Dictionary at 2359, 4300 and 2671. A cursory review of the linguistic examples provided below from the Dravidian, Mande and Wolof languages show a close relationship between these language. These terms are outlined below:
Kol sonna --- --- ----

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

Malinke (AF) suna bara, baga de-n, doro koro

Tamil connal varaga tinai kural

Malayalam colam varaku tina ---

Kannanda --- baraga, baragu tene korale,korle

*sona *baraga *tenä *kora
It is clear that the Dravidian and African terms for millet are very similar. The Proto-Dravidian terms *baraga and *tena have little if any affinity to the African terms for millet.

The Kol term for millet ‘sonna’, is very similar to the terms for millet used by the Wolof ‘suna’ ( a West Atlantic Language), and Mande ‘suna’ (a Mande language). The agreement of these terms in sound structure suggest that these terms may be related.

The sound change of the initial /s/ in the African languages , to the /c/ in Tamil and Malayalam is consistent with the cognate Tamil and Malayalam terms compared by Aranavan(1979 ,1980;) and Winters ( 1981, 1994). Moreover, the difference in the Kol term ‘ soona’,which does retain the complete African form indicates that the development in Tamil and Malayalam of c < s, was a natural evolutionary development in some South Dravidian languages. Moreover, you will also find a similar pattern for other Malinke and Dravidian cognates, e.g., buy: Malinke ‘sa, Tamil cel; and road: Malinke ‘sila’, Tamil ‘caalai’.


Well-Known Member
So the Homo Sapiens Sapiens could have originated in India as well. Maybe they were genetically engineered by the Annunaki there before the Annunaki went to the Abzu (Africa), and genetically engineered the well known Cro-Magnon man there. Or maybe those creatures who inhabited India in prehistorical times were humanoid Aliens themselves. But you can see a very interesting documentary about that subject on the Youtube Channel by the American freelance researcher Michael Cremo called "Forbidden Archaeology".

Anyway, the Dravidians were racially related to the ancient Elamites and Sumerians. Many researchers and experts state that the Sumerians originated in South Africa, and then went to Mesopotamia. This matches with the scientifically proven theory that the Annunaki genetically engineered the Sumerians in South Africa, and then took them to the Middle East which the Annunaki called "the Eden". And I told you already in my previous posts that only some Blacks originated in Africa. Perhaps it are the Sumerians and Elamites. Here is the scientific evidence that the Dravidians, Elamites and Sumerians are racially related to each other:


The British Orientalist and writer from the 19th century Henry Rawlinson used the Book of Genesis to find the identity of the Mesopotamia. He made it clear that the original inhabitants of Babylonia were represented by the name Nimrod and were represented by the family of Ham: Kushites, Egyptians and etc. This name came from the popularity among these people of hunting the leopard (Nimri). And as noted in earlier post the Egyptian and Nubian rulers always associated leopard spots with royalty, just as Siva is associated with the feline. As a result, Rawlinson used an African language Galla, to decipher the cuneiform writing.

The Sumerians and Elamites came from Africa, like the founders of the Indus Valley civilization. This is why the Elamite and Sumerian languages are closely related to African and Dravidian languages.

The Kushites when they migrated from Middle Africa to Asia continued to call themselves Kushites. This is most evident in place names and the names of gods. The Kassites, chief rulers of Iran occupied the central part of the Zagros. The Kassite god was called Kashshu, which was also the name of the people. The K-S-H, name element is also found in India. For example Kishkinthai, was the name applied to an ancient Dravidian kingdom in South India. Also it should be remembered that the Kings of Sumer, were often referred to as the " Kings of Kush".

The major Kushite tribe in Central Asia was called Kushana. The Kushan of China were styled Ta Yueh-ti or "the Great Lunar Race". Along the Salt Swamp, there was a state called Ku-Shih of Tibet. The city of K-san, was situated in the direction of Kushan, which was located in the Western part of the Gansu Province of China.


The Elamites later conquered Sumer. They called this line of Kings,he "King of Kish'.
This term has affinity to the term Kush,that was given to the Kerma dynasty, founded by the C-Group people of Kush. It is interesting to note that the Elamite language, is closely related to the African languages including Egyptian and the Dravidian languages of India.

The most important Kushite colony in Iran was ancient Elam. The Elamites called their country KHATAM or KHALTAM (Ka-taam). The capital of Khaltam which we call Susa, was called KHUZ (Ka-u-uz) by the Aryans, NIME (Ni-may) by the people of Sumer, and KUSHSHI (Cush-she) by the Elamites.In the Akkadian inscriptions the Elamites were called GIZ-BAM (the land of the bow). The ancient Chinese or Bak tribesmen which dominate China today called the Elamites KASHTI. Moreover, in the Bible the Book of Jeremiah (xlxx,35), we read "bow of Elam". It is interesting to note that both Khaltam-ti and Kashti as the name for Elam, agrees with Ta-Seti, the ancient name for Nubia located in the Meroitic Sudan.

Portrait of an ancient Susian.jpg

There is textual evidence supporting a relationship between the founders of Sumer, Elam and Dilmun. Col. Henry Rawlinson , used textual evidence to determine that a link existed between the Mesopotamians to their ancestors in Africa . Rawlinson called these people Kushites.

There is a positive relationship between crania from Africa and Eurasia. The archaeologist Marcel-Auguste Dieulafoy (Dieulafoy,2004) and Hansberry (1981) maintains that their was a Sub-Saharan strain in Iran . These researchers maintain that it was evident that an Ethiopian dynasty ruled Elam from a perusal of its statuary of the royal family and members of the army ( Dieulafoy, 2004; Dieulafoy, 2010;Hansberry,1981). Dieulafoy (2010 ) noted that the textual evidence and iconography make it clear that the Elamites were Africans, and part of the Kushite confederation .Dieulafoy (2010) made it clear that the Elamites at Susa were Sub-Saharan Africans.


Marcel Dieulafoy and M. de Quatrefages observed that the craniometrics of the ancient Elamites of Susa indicate that they were Sub-Saharan Africans or Negroes (Dieulafoy,2010).
Ancient Sub-Saharan African skeletons have also been found in Mesopotamia (Tomczyk et al, 2010). The craniometric data indicates that continuity existed between ancient and medieval Sub-Saharan Africans in Mesopotamia (Ricault & Waelkens,2008).

Dieulafoy, J. 2004. The Project Gutenberg EBook of Perzi, Chaldea en Susiane, by Jane Dieulafoy. Retrieved 04/04/10, here.

Dieulafoy, M.A.2010.. L' Acropole de Suse d'après les fouilles exécutées en 1884, 1885, 1886, sous les auspices du Musée du Louvre. Retrieved 04/04/10 from this Website.

Rawlinson,H. “ Letter read at the meeting of the Royal Asiatic Society on February 5, 1853”, The Athenaeum, (No. 1321) ,p.228.

Rawlinson,H. “Note on the early History of Babylonia”, Journal Royal Asiatic Soc., 15, 215-259.

Ricaut,F.X. and Waelkens.2008. Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzatine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements, Hum Biol, 80(5):535-564.

Tomczyk,J., Jedrychowska-Danska, K., Ploszaj,T & Witas H.W. (2010). Anthropological analysis of the osteological material from an ancient tomb (Early Bronze Age) from the middle Euphrates valley, Terqa (Syria) , International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, Retrieved 04/04/10 from (

And here is another picture of an Elamite of Susa:



Well-Known Member
The ancients were sure the Kushites had founded the Elamite civilization. According to Strabo, the Roman geographer the first Elamite colony of Susa, was founded by Tithonus, a King of Kush, and father of Memnon. Strabo in Book 15,chapter 3,728, wrote that "In fact, it is claimed that Susa was founded by Tithonus Memnon's father, and that his citadel bore the name Memnonium. The Susians are also called Cissians; and Aeschylus, calls Memnon's mother Cissia.


The most important Kushite colony in Iran was Elam. The Elamites like other Africans practiced the custom of matrilineal descent.


The history of Elam is usually divided into three periods the Kings of Awan, Kings of Simashki and the Sukkalmah period. For over 300 years the Elamite Kings of Awan ruled Elam, and much of Mesopotamia. Much of this period is unknown.
During the 3rd Millennium B.C., the Elamites and Su people (a term used for mountain people in the Western Zagros) sacked Ur. The King of the Dynasty of Simaskhi, led to Elamite rule in Sumer. The first king of the Simashki Dynasty was Girnamme.

In Sumer, the Elamites contributed much to Sumerian civilization. The Elamite Kings of Sumer were called the Kings of Kish.

After a Sumerian King of Kish pushed the Elamites out of Mesopotamia, Elam went into a period of chaos until around 2500 B.C., when King Peli became the ruler of Elam. After Peli, there were six other Elamite Kings until Elam was conquered by Sargon of Akkad.

Before the Sukkalmah period (c.1900-1500 B.C.) much of what we know about Elam comes from the Akkadian sources. This period is called the Sukkalmah period, because the rulers of Elam were called Sukkalmah ‘grand regent”. The Elamite title for king ws sunkir.

During the Sukkahmah Dynasty there was a tripartite system of rule. The Susa text indicate that there was a senior ruler called sukkalmah ‘grand regent’ of Elam and Shimashki, he was usually the brother of the sukkahmah, and a junior co-regent, entitled sukkal of Susa. This nephew was usually from the maternal side of the King’s family. Thus the sukkal of Susa was often called the ruhusak ‘sister’s son’

The first rulers of the Sukkamah period was Eabarat (=Eparti). He was followed by the ruhusak Addahushu, the “sukkal and magustrate of the people of Susa”. He is known mostly for his building of several temples and the erection of his “justic stele” outlining the laws of Elam .

The Elamites/Old Susians were probably descendants of the Mande people. This is obvious in the language and names of the Elamite Kings. I hope you remember the book Roots, the main character Kunte Kinte. His name is interesting because we have the following ruler during the Sukkalmah Dynasty: Kutur-Nahhunte I (c. 1752) who conquered southern Babylonia The name Kutur Nahhunte, would correspond to a popular Mande name Kunte among the Mande speaking people. The Elamite name Peli, is also popular among the Mande, in the form of Pe, this name was also common among the Olmec people of ancient Mexico.

It should also be noted that the Mande term for people is Si, this corresponds to the word Su, used to designate the mountain people of Elam. The Elamite term Su would correspond to the Mande term Si-u (the /u/ is the plural suffix in the Mande language).

By the 2nd Millennium B.C., a new more aggressive dynasty appeared in Elam. The Kings of this Dynasty called themselves ‘divine messenger, father and king’ of Susa and Anzan. One of the rulers of this Dynasty was Shutruk-Nahhunte. Shutruk-Nahhunte, like Kutur invaded Mesopotamia and took Babylon around 1160B.C.

After Kutur took Babylon, the Elamites ruled Babylon until Hammurabi defeated the Elamite King Rin-Sin. Later the Elamites were driven from Larsa and other Sumerian cities back to the Susiana plains.


Well-Known Member
The Land Known as Elam

The features which the proto -Indian culture and the Mesopotamian culture have in common may quite possibly be explained by the fact that the people who created the oldest Indian civilisation and the first men to develop the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates were cognate peoples speaking Dravidian languages. Or perhaps they were simply one and the same people. It is also possible that the Dravidian languages may have been common to other peoples besides the Ubaids and the proto-Indians.

The region east of the Tigris, in Iran, called Khuzistan, was once known as Elam. A civilisation flourished there 5,000 years ago with city-states, a distinctive culture and a written language. Scholars find that the culture of the Elamites had many features in common with that of Mesopotamia, and even more so with the proto-Indian culture.

The Elamites spoke and wrote a language with which it has been impossible so far to find affinities. Linguists have attempted, unsuccessfully, to demonstrate that Elamite is related to the Turanian (Ural-Altaic, Turkic and Mongolic languages), to the numerous Caucasian languages, or to the dead languages of Asia Minor (Hurrian, Kassite, etc.). “The only hypothesis supported by a few indicative facts is that of an Elamo-Dravidian relationship,” says the eminent Soviet historian and linguist I. Dyakonov in his monograph Languages of Ancient Asia Minor. Dyakonov cites examples showing affinities between Elamite and the languages used by the Dravidians. In the Dravidian languages the root “ketu” means “perish” or “be destroyed”. In the Elam language it means “destroy”. The word for “day” in Elamite is “nan” whereas in the Dravidian languages this root “nan” means “morning”, “dawn” and ~”day”*. The root “pan” in Elamite means “reach” while in the Dravidian languages it means “flec” or “evade”.

Languages borrow words from one another, of course, Besides, sounds and meanings may accidentally coincide (for example, both in English and Kabardinian, a language of the Caucasus Mountains, the numeral 2 sounds the same, although there is no relationship between the two languages). But the important thing is that Elamite and the Dravidian languages have many common grammatical structures, and grammatical structures are never borrowed. This speaks either of ancient affinities or of contacts over a long period of time. Both phonetically and morphologically Elamite is similar to the Dravidian languages. And the pronouns are so similar that, says Dyakonov, they sometimes fully coincide”.

The affinities between Elamite and the Dravidian languages have led Dyakonov to assume that “tribes related by language to the Elamites and the Dravidians were scattered throughout Iran, or at any rate, throughout southern Iran, in the fourth and third millennia B. C. and perhaps later as well. Besides, traces of Dravidian toponymy (true, they do not date back to any definite period) have evidently been found on the Arabian Peninsula, while traces of an admixture of the Dravidoid (South Indian) race have been noted, say some researchers, in several regions of southern Iran.” Later the dark-~skinned Dravidians, or peoples related to them linguistically and racially1 were forced out of Iran or were completely assimilated by the newcomers. True, Herodotus, who lived in the fifth century B.C., still called the inhabitants of Baluchistan, a country situated between India and Elam, “Asiatic Ethiopians” (that is, “Asiatic Negroes”), which might mean that dark-skinned people inhabited the area between Iran and India as late as about 2,500 years ago.

It is fully possible that Elamite and the Ubaid languages branched off from the common Dravidian stock at an early date, and this explains the similarities and the differences between them.

There might be another explanation. The Dravidian languages, the language of the Ubaids who preceded the Sumerians, and Elamite might all go back to a more remote common language. They might be three branches of that language.

Most of the Elamite texts are written in the cuneiform script that the Elamites borrowed from their Western neighbours, the Akkadian and the Sumerians, in the middle of the third millennium B. C. Before that the Elamites used hieroglyphics. And still earlier they had a pictorial graphic system called proto-Elamite.

Proto-Elamite writing has not yet been deciphered. In appearance the texts and the pictorial characters are very like protoSumerian, the earliest Mesopotamian writing. The inhabitants of Mesopotamian also wrote on clay tablets using a pictorial-linear form of writing and, like the proto-Sumerian texts, they were evidently also household accounts and business documents.

A third proto-writing, characters of which have been found at Harappa, Mohenjo-Daro and other prehistoric sites on the Indian subcontinent, has affinities with the characters in proto-Sumerjan and proto-Elamite scripts. The earliest Mesopotamian texts are written in Sumerian, as recent studies by A. Vaiman of the Soviet Union have shown, although the first inhabitants of the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates were not Sumerians but Ubaids, who spoke a language cognate with the Dravidian languages.

The language of the proto-Elamite texts, probably the earliest form of the Elamite language, differs from the language of the proto-Sumerian inscriptions. Proto-Indian texts conceal the Dravidian language rather than the Sumerian or Elamite; therefore, proto-Sumerian writing cannot provide a key with which to decipher the mysterious scripts of the Indian subcontinent and Elam, especially since proto-Sumerian writing has been only partially deciphered. Scholars can read only 250 of the 800 characters in proto-Sumerjan writing. Still, the similarity among the characters of the three proto writings leads one to think that they were derived from a single common ancestor. After all, the cuneiform script later invented by the Sumerians was used to record the Akkadian, Elamite, Urartearn, Hittite and other languages that bear no resemblance to Sumerian. One can find a common basic stock of similar characters among the characters used in proto-Surmerian, proto-Elamite and proto-Indian writing.

Philologists and toponymises use the term “substratum when speaking of languages place-names that precede the languages and names they are studying. When it comes to the characters in early writings we may also speak of a “substratum”, an initial pictorial graphic system that came before the proto-Surnerian, proto-Elamite and proto-Indian writings. Since the proto-Sumerian texts are the oldest, and the first inhabitants of Mesopotamia, before the Sumerians, were the ‘~Ubaid” to designate the oldest system of writing (This was not writing in the full sense of the word but sooner a language of drawings, the pictography that preceded archaic forms of writing). The system existed in Mesopotamia before the Sumerians came there. The Sumerians adopted the system and used it to develop their own writing, the proto-Sumerian, in the same way that they adopted and developed other Ubaid material and intellectual achievements.

The same thing may have happened on both the Indian subcontinent and Elam. The similarity of the proto-Indian, proto-Elamite and proto-Sumerian scripts is again explained by their Dravidian basis. The Ubaid language is perhaps a cognate language, like the language of the Elamites and the proto-Indians. Dravidian “basic writing”, like a Dravidian “basic language”, may have existed in remote antiquity. The Ubaid, proto-Indian and Elamite pictorial characters may be offshoots of that “basic script”, in the same way that the Ubaid, Elamite proto-Indian languages are offshoots of the “parent Dravidian language”.

Here you see a picture of a modern man still living on an ancient Elamite side. The dark-skinned man is clearly a descendant of the ancient Elamites as you can see on his kinky/frizzy hair.



Well-Known Member
Eurafrican was an old term that referred to the old Mediterranean type which is euphemism for Negro, just like the term Armenoid. The Elamites, Sumerians, Tamil and Mande speakers formerly lived in the Sahara. In ancient times these people were called Kushites, and were related to what genetic linguists call "the C-Group people".

Alright, let's examine the Aryan Invasion in detail now. Did you know that the Aryans were the SLAVES of the indigenous Dravidian kings first? Black Civilization had begun and flourished and spread around the world. The Black Dravidian civilization (now divided as OBC, Dalits, Muslims and Adivasis) build enormous forts, castles surrounded by beautiful garden and orchards (called as heaven in Iran) and monuments in the whole Gondwana continent. The Dravidians had also a kind of caste system, but it was very different from the Aryan caste system which is now known as the very popular Indian Caste System.

Laurasia people then were in pre-barbaric stage because Laurasia was late in the development of life. Aryan clans began to migrate to the plateau of Iran began since 2nd millennium BC as a result of difficult environment in “Airyana Vaejo ” their homeland in Laurasia. They settled in jungles outside the Dravidian territory and used to steel the cattle of the Dravidians.

The Dravidians out of pity gave some of them food who then became servile and were allowed to settle outside the periphery of township. Their head full lice were shaven, were compelled to bath and wear a cloth around as a precondition to enter the workplace. Aryan belief that bathing in river / pond assures entry in heaven has roots in this precondition.

They were given a rope to work in fields which became mark for skilled Aryan labourers and symbolized as sacred thread or “Janeu”. Skilled Aryans considered themselves twice born or Dwija. The Dravidian civilization provided them food etc. therefore Aryans called the Dravidians (OBC, Dalits, Muslims and Adivasis) “Deva” meaning ‘giver’. Aryans always feared of driven back to jungle which they use to call hell due to extremely difficult living conditions.

Herodotus mentions that Magians {Aryan priests} not only killed anything with their own hands but make a special point in doing so; ants, snakes, animals, birds – no matter what, they kill them indiscriminately. (Herodotus, Histories 1.140; tr. Aubrey de Sélincourt). This reveals that Aryans ate anything in their homeland i.e. Airiana Vaijo.

The Dravidians who carried them to township were called “Devdoots” or messengers of Deva. The word “Bhagwan” was used for all resourceful Dravidians who lived in heaven i.e. big building surrounded by gardens.

The Aryans use to arrange “Yagnas” in their settlement where flesh and “Somras” (wine ) were served by Aryan beautiful women who lured the Dravidians to extract benefits. Many Aryan women thus secured entry in royal families and gradually made full grip over the Dravidians by addicting them to Somras and other drugs. Because of the immoral activities in Yadna and their disastrous effects, the Dravidian masses perceived Yadnyas as evil. The brave Dravidians used to destroy these Yadnyas whereas degraded Dravidians used to protect them.

‘Angra mainyu’ means “evil spirit” or “evil mind” or “evil thought. ‘Angra mainyu’ is identified with the Daevas that deceive mankind and themselves. In Zoroaster’s view the daevas are “wrong gods” that are to be rejected…. Zurvanism was a branch of Zoroastrianism believes that both Ahura Mazda (MP: Ohrmuzd) and Angra Mainyu (Ahriman) were twin brothers. (Angra Mainyu From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) “The Ahura (Asura) signifies ‘god’. The Zoroastrian chief god is called Ahura-Mazda, ‘the wise Lord’ (here is more information about THE MAGI – Zoroaster – Edward Fudge).

The Dravidians did not drink Sura (wine) hence were called Asura or Ahura.

Here is a picture of a man of the modern Dravidian tribe. Some Tamil Dravidians still call themselves "Eelam" (Elamites) and claim descent from that area (ancient Elam).


This is a picture of a modern Tamil/Dravidian man:


And this is a picture of a modern Tamil/Dravidian girl:

A Dravidian Girl.jpg

A picture of a Dravidian Indian man bringing a gift (a dromedary) to the Persian king Darius I. The Dravidian Indian man is often confused with an Arab by historians. The Arabs of that time had kinky hair and were black-skinned. This man has straight hair and black skin so is much more likely a Dravidian.

A Dravidian Indian.jpg

Apollyon ... we appreciate the information you're sharing ... but ... is it yours?

You're posting gigantic chunks of other people's property ... looks like ... rather than providing a snippet and link.

Rule #11 requires a snippet and link ... if you don't own the property or have permission from its owner.

Can we talk about this?




Well-Known Member
Apollyon ... we appreciate the information you're sharing ... but ... is it yours?

You're posting gigantic chunks of other people's property ... looks like ... rather than providing a snippet and link.

Rule #11 requires a snippet and link ... if you don't own the property or have permission from its owner.

Can we talk about this?


Alright, sister Destee. But the site contains too much redundant information, so I shorten and edit the text. That's all. By the way, I've shown you a lot of links in my last posts. But do you want to see the link? Then I will show it when I'm done discussing this subject. OK?
Not open for further replies.