Deluge of Atlantis

Deluge of Atlantis
Deluge of Atlantis

Monday, November 18, 2013

Letter from Jayasree, Indians and Polynesians

Jayasree Saranathan  jayasree.saranathan@....com
   Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 2:08 AM
To: Dale Drinnon daledrinnon@....com

  Easter island - Polynesians show links to Tamil-culture. In an upcoming article,  I will bring out the similarity between Lapita pottery designs to Tiryns artifacts. The Incas and Peru (there is a Tamil word 'peru' meaning big) also show Tamil influence. There is presence of Tamil and sanskrit words in the Incas. The Aymara of Incas resemble Ayar of Tamil and even Ay, the pharaoh of the 18th dynasty of Egypt. Women plaiting their hair is seen in the Incas, Chinese, Tamils and Etruscans. Like this there are other similarities indicating a common culture or spread of a common culture in the South Pacific ocean and South Indian Ocean with a branch entering Mediterranean sea after going round the African continent. We must look for their presence in coastal west Africa too.

Coming to Orejones [of Peru], I could not get material by google search. Did they have long ears or wore ornaments to elongate their ears? [Yes to both]

On Jesus, I have not analysed the Buddhist influence, nor even the life of Jesus. But one thing I can say. Buddhism is older than what people think now. There are records to show that the first Buddha called Shakya Muni was born around 1000 BC. His meditative posture is seen in Mohenjadaro seals thus taking the concept of such meditative / yogic practices to 5000 years BP. Shakya Muni cult was widespread throughout Asia including West Asia and Siberia too. There is every chance to believe that those concepts had influenced Europeans. The Jewish kabbalah is an adaptation of the Meditative technique which is akin to raising the inner self through 'kabala" - the head (It is Kabaalam in Tamil and Kapaala in sanskrit - both  means cranium or skull). There is every chance that Jesus was influenced by Buddhism that had already made its presence in west Asia before his birth. 

  regards, Jayasree


800px-AhuTongariki, from Wikipedia


http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-SmiHawa-t1-body-d4.html#n69

Hawaiki: The Original Home of the Maori; with a Sketch of Polynesian History

Chapter IV. The Polynesians Originated in India

Chapter IV. The Polynesians Originated in India.

In considering the traditions of the various branches of the Polynesian race, as to their origin, it is undoubtedly the case, that these all point to the west as the direction by which they entered the Pacific. Those authors who have had a sufficient knowlege of the race and their traditions to be able to form an opinion on the subject, have all agreed in this particular.* Ellis, in his "Polynesian Researches," 1829, after several years residence in Tahiti, came to this conclusion; though he subsequently seems rather to have modified it by suggesting that they first crossed the Pacific to the coasts of North America and thence back to the islands. Fornander in his "Polynesian Race," 1878, who has certainly studied the traditions available to him, more than most writers, also believed they came from India, but prior to that from Saba, on the south-east coast of Arabia. F. D. Fenton, late Chief Judge of the Native Land Court, N.Z., in his "Suggestions for page 65a History of the Maori People," 1885, followed Fornander and elaborated his theory. Dr. Wyatt Gill, the author of "Myths and Songs of the South Pacific," 1876, is also of the same opinion, though his researches seem to have carried him little further to the west than Samoa and Fiji. There are other writers who have supported this theory and furnished further information on the subject, deduceable principally from the Science of Philology— amongst whom may be mentioned Edward Tregear, Dr. John Fraser, Dr. D. Macdonald.
Whether the race can be traced further back than Indonesia with any degree of certainty, is a moot point; but the writer is of opinion that it is a fair deduction from the traditions, that they can be traced as far back as India..
In order to support the theory of an Indian origin, I will first quote what Mr. J. R. Logan says on the subject; a gentleman who by his extensive philological knowledge should be an authority. He moreover had, from his long residence in Indonesia, a personal knowledge of the races and languages still spoken there, and also, to judge by several references, some acquaintance with the Polynesians themselves. His opinion is, that the Polynesians formed part of the very ancient "Gangetic Race," which had been in India from remote antiquity, but which became modified from time to time by contact with Tibetan, Semitic and other races. It would seem indeed, if we compare the Mythology of the Polynesians with those of the most ancient mythologies of the old world, that there are sufficient points of similarity to hazard the conjecture that the race is the remnant of one of the most ancient races of the world, who have retained in its primitive forms, much of the beliefs that gave origin to the mythology of Assyria. But this is too large a subject to enter on here.
 
 

Hawaiki: The Original Home of the Maori; with a Sketch of Polynesian History

Contents.

 
Outline of theory by Sir John Fraser:
 
My explanation of the whole matter under discussion is briefly this: The main officina gentium for Oceania long, long ago was India. The whole extent of that peninsula was at a very early period, probably more than twenty centuries before the Christian era, occupied by a pure [African] race, which I call Hamite; later on, there came into it a Cushite race, also black [=African, the use of Black is inapproptriate but African is correct-DD], but more mixed than the Hamites. These two black [lighter and darker brown] races gradually spread onwards into Further India, Indonesia, Australia, Melanesia, and the whole of the eastern islands of the Pacific—the Hamites first and the Cushites after them. Traces of these black races are to be found in all of these regions, and often of the two races apart, as in Australia and the New Hebrides; for the northern Ebūdans are in many respects very different from the southern, and the Tasmanians differed somewhat from the Australians. In Malacca there are dwarf blacks, as in the heart of Africa, and there are negroid blacks in the Philippines and even in Japan. In Eastern Polynesia the aboriginal black population must have been very scanty, as these islands are so far removed from the Asian continent, and consequently the traces of their occupation have been swamped by the - [253] subsequent flow of Polynesian immigrants; but I ascribe the cyclopean structures on Ponape Island and Easter Island to these earliest settlers (for the black races everywhere—in India, Babylonia, Egypt—have shown a liking for hugeness of architecture); and in some of the islands of the eastern Pacific, as Mangaia, the inhabitants are at this hour decidedly blacker and coarser than other Polynesians, as if from a larger infusion of black blood mingling with the brown men. Fiji also has two black races, those of the interior and those of the coast, and these show important differences in customs; so also in New Guinea. In many of the Indonesian islands there are aboriginal black races in the mountains of the interior, and so also in various places in Further India. In fine, I think it could be established with the utmost probability that two [African] races, proceeding from India in succession, peopled the whole of the islands of Oceania.
Then, long after the Aryans [Indo-Aryans linguistically, Satem branch Indo-Europeans] had taken possession of the Indian plain, a Prâkrit-speaking fair race from the two Indias came to occupy the chief islands in Indonesia, driving the black aborigines into the mountains there, or further east towards New Guinea and Fiji; these are the ancestors of the present brown Polynesians. The incomers may have intermingled to some extent with the blacks, but probably not much, for the brown Polynesians are mainly Caucasian in physique and character.4
Then, in the more recent centuries of the Christian era, a race of [Inner-Asian]Mongolian origin came into Indonesia from the Further Peninsula and drove the Polynesian ancestors from their possessions. Some of the expelled fled to the coasts of New Guinea; of these, the present Motuans are examples; others, and the greater quantity, seem to have passed northwards, then eastwards, past the north coast of New Guinea and onwards to Samoa, avoiding the Papuak and Fijian islands, which were occupied by the original blacks in force, and in such numbers and so fiercely as to prevent any settlement of invaders. From Samoa, as an original seat, the Polynesians have spread into all the other islands, absorbing or, in some cases, amalgamating with the native blacks. On my theory, the Mongolians who came to Indonesia adopted mostly the language of the conquered Caucasians (just as the Japanese are now adopting English), and when fresh bands of Mongolians arrived and enabled them to master all the islands, they all continued to speak that dialect which is now called the Malay, and is the lingua franca of the East.
On this theory, there must be a close connexion between the Polynesian and the Malayan languages, but not because the Polynesian is taken from the Malay. The process in my opinion was quite the - [254] reverse; they[the languages] both came from the same stock, and the Malayan is Polynesian as to its origin. And, just as the Maldivean is evidently a mixture both of the Aryan Pâli language of India and of the speech of the Dravida blacks of the Dekkan, so the languages of the Melanesian region and of Samoa and New Zealand show a resemblance in their vocabularies, being all, more or less, the product of a similar union, and sprung in the distant past from the same original sources in India.
 
 
 
[This theory places the Polynesian ancestors in Fiji-Samoa in 400-500BC. This has to be moved back a thousand years earlier and the culture is then Lapita]


[HAMITES are the brown peoples of Northern Africa including the Egyptians. Fraser is using it more in the sense of the Ethiopians. Cushites are closer to Egyptians and Early Arabians/Sabaens. Fraser is obviously not very strict in his classification, but he does indicate that when the Africans got out as far as Indonesia they were like the  Melanesians and Negritos or Pygmys.  He misuses the word "Negro" in a couple of places where it should still be "Negrito" (Pygmy) but otherwise this part is probably pretty standard Anthropologically,  albeit overly simplified (It would seem that there were later mutual connections between tropical Africa and Melanesia that did not involve anyone else) The word "Aryan" as he uses it is recognizable but is now obsolete as a reference to speakers of Sanscrit and related languages. The main brunt of the argument is linguistic, though, and runs for many pages, and I think the linguistics hold up for both India and Polynesia being connected to India by their vocabulary roots alone. The Megalith-builders were an earlier branch and as Fraser indicates, associated with the Melanesians as builders in the Pacific, an important point.-DD]

No comments:

Post a Comment

This blog does NOT allow anonymous comments. All comments are moderated to filter out abusive and vulgar language and any posts indulging in abusive and insulting language shall be deleted without any further discussion.