ancient culture

Origin Of The Racist Term “Proto-Indo-European”

"History Is A Lie Agreed Upon" - Napoleon Bonaparte

Thank you for stopping by Papers In The Attic blog page. If this is your first time here, please feel free to browse though our menu on the right and view some of our previous articles. Stay Blessed!

Over the past few decades it seems that there has been a rising sense of racism in the so-called New Age Movement. I must say that while the “New Age Movement” seems to promote itself as a “bright” alternative to paganism, shamanism, and etc, it is actually the Left-Hand Path that embraces the true origins of certain indigenous rites and the culture that these rites come from. While I am sure that there may be some incidents of racism among Left-Hand Path groups and personas, my personal experience has been that the majority of LHPers are sensible individuals who are open to people of all groups and cultures, and willing embrace occult practices that originate with Third World nations. On the opposite side of the coin, we have the so-called “New Age Movement,” which absorbs some of the magical and occult practices of Third World Nations, but must first water-down these rites by “bleaching” some of the depictions of the gods and goddesses of a said path, while using linguistic sources that were completely fabricated to keep the masses ignorant. Some of this was touched on in a previous article entitled The Arra Sign, which can be accessed at the following link:

The reader is also encouraged to view the following link s well:

I was inspired to write this post due to my recent research into the word “Necro,” when I came across the following link:

“derived from the Greek word nekros, νεκρς (corpse; dead (literally or figuratively; also as noun)) …derived from the Proto-Indo-European root “nek“

The information cited above seems to imply that the Greek word nekros derives from a Proto-Indo-European term nek. I was curious to find out the meaning of Proto-Indo-Europoean. I knew that the Greek civilization was heavily influenced by both Egypt and Babylon. The following website goes into this in great detail

“Schools still teach that the Western civilisation is a child of Greece. Until a few decades ago, many schools did not mention the cultural achievements of Egypt or Sumer – and many schools in Europe still pay no attention to the Inca’s, Toltecs, etc. But when it comes to the Greek and Egyptian civilisations, it was made painfully clear that the Egyptian civilisation was “primitive” when compared to the cultural and specifically philosophical achievements of the Greeks. ..This situation is now slowly beginning to change, though the chasm between the Greek and Egyptian culture remains. Though geographically both countries are close to each other, and whereas many Greeks would later travel to Egypt, it is assumed that the Egyptians, a civilisation that predates the Greek civilisation by two millennia, never used that time to sail in the opposite direction. Though the ancient Egyptians had seaworthy boats – e.g. the funerary boat in the boatpit on the Gizeh plateau – the status quo is that they never sailed the Mediterranean Seas to Greece.”

While I am well aware that many anthropologists and scholars try to hide the fact that Greece and Rome were heavily influenced by ancient indigenous cultures, but I did not suspect that some among this group would actually create alternative theories to hide this truth. Common sense would dictate that ancient man was well aware of the origins of the languages that they spoke, and how some languages related to others. The history of the Rosetta Stone is one example of this Still I wanted to more about the Proto-Indo-European language that some linguists were connecting the origins of some Greek terms. Of course, I decided to look up the term and came up with some information in a Wikipedia article which states:

As there is no direct evidence of Proto-Indo-European language, all knowledge of the language is derived by reconstruction from later languages using linguistic techniques such as the comparative method and the method of internal reconstruction. Relationships to other language families, including the Uralic languages, have been proposed though all such suggestions remain controversial….Indo-European studies began with Sir William Jones making and propagating the observation that Sanskrit bore a certain resemblance to classical Greek and Latin. In The Sanscrit Language (1786) he suggested that all three languages had a common root, and that indeed they may all be further related, in turn, to Gothic and the Celtic languages, as well as to Persian..”

So I began to see some deceit amongst certain scholars. Many encyclopedias and scholars are noting that the origins of certain terms in Greek and other European languages are attributed to a language, Proto-Indo-European, that does not even exist! It is a theory that a few people made up, and they use this term to hide the true origin of certain words in the European language family as it would give way to how much influence certain indigenous cultures had on Europe. We can see this as the article continues:

“The Sanscrit 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 the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists; there is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and the Celtic, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanscrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same family.”

The above words were stated by Sir William Jones concerning the Sanscrit language and its structure being more advance than Greek or Latin. However, instead of Jones giving credence to the complex Sanscrit language itself, he then finds a need to say that they come from the same source, but while have no proof of the source is able to label the source of these language as Proto-Indo-European. I am not the only one who was able to see this form of racism in the making. Ellen Preckler and Rik Pinxten made the following observation in a book entitled; Racism in Metropolitan Areas, Volume 3, page 76:

Even the Aryan myth, so rightly discredited as racist by its centrality for Nazi ideology and the Holocaust, did have a complicated earlier history, for it originated, with late-eighteenth century Orientalist scholars like William Jones..”

Bruce Lincoln in the book, Theorizing Myth makes the following observation on page 94:

“First, the hypothesis for which Sir William Jones is most famous had deep antecedents and was always problematic. Most immediately, Jones was influenced by Jacob Bryant’s bibliocentric attempt to trace all world mythology back to Ham and all right religion to Shem….A more critical genealogy of the discourse need not minimize his gifts nor impeach his motives while treating Sir William’s genius, stature, and organizational and promotional talents as crucial factors that helped legitimate an enterprise in which various chauvinism (racists, nationalist, anit-Semitic, colonists, and imperialist) were-and remained-implicit. It is not hard to reemplot the story in the genres of tragedy and horror,…by following the discourse’s nineteenth and twentieth-century peregrinations, when Bryant’s Amonians and Jones’ “Hindu Race” acquired the name “Ayrans.” ….Since the atrocities of the Nazis in the Second World War, the term “Aryan” has virtually disappeared from polite conversation…Scholars who wish to pursue the discourse while marking their distance from its savory aspects now use the term “(Proto-) Indo-Europoean,” also a coinage of the nineenth century.”

From Lincoln’s observations we can see that Proto-Indo-European is a phrase that actually is used to replace Hitler’s understanding of what the term aryan means. Aside from Hitler’s definition of the term Aryan comes from the Sanscrit Arya, which means noble or spiritual. Any association of the term Aryan with an ethnic group or “race” is entirely based on Hitler’s use of the term. It is due to the merging of anthropology and racism that many have lost the link of how ancient societies connected thousands of years ago. Now what became of my research and trying to find the origins of the Greek term nekros? It seems to have come from the Egyptian goddess Nekhbet, upon which we find the following

“In Egyptian mythology, Nekhbet (also spelt Nechbet, and Nekhebit) was an early predynastic local goddess who was the patron of the city of Nekheb, her name meaning of Nekheb. Ultimately, she became the patron of Upper Egypt and one of the two patron deities for all of Ancient Egypt when it was unified…She was seen as a goddess who had chosen to adopt the city, and consequently depicted as the Egyptian white vulture, a creature that the Egyptians thought only existed as females (not knowing that, lacking sexual dimorphism, the males are identical). They were presumed to be reproducing via parthenogenesis…Egypt’s oldest oracle was the shrine of Nekhbet at Nekheb, the original necropolis or city of the dead. It was the companion city to Nekhen, the religious and political capital of Upper Egypt at the end of the Predynastic period (c. 3200–3100 BC) and probably, also during the Early Dynastic Period (c. 3100–2686 BC). The original settlement on the Nekhen site dates from Naqada I or the late Badarian cultures. At its height, from about 3400 BC, Nekhen had at least 5,000 and possibly as many as 10,000 inhabitants…The priestesses of Nekhbet were called muu (mothers) and wore robes of Egyptian vulture feathers.”


7 replies »

  1. I’m not sure I understand where you’re going here.

    First, I’m not sure that I agree that the ancient roots of language are undiscoverable. What linguists have found, for instance, is that certain sounds transform into others on a fairly consistent basis. Some of this is likely to be speculative, but that doesn’t mean there’s no basis for it.

    Second, I’d agree that ethnocentrism, and sometimes outright racism, did form an important part of the scholarship of the day. (I’d say the statement on Sanskrit from Wikipedia might depict the former, more likely than the latter, if using a secondary quote really tells us anything.) Nonetheless, we still use much of what they found, though the attitudes have had to be discarded. Much of the scholarship Gatewalkers still use in their practice is the result of Christian scholars trying to determine whether the Bible was true, for instance.

    Finally, I don’t see how someone who relies so much on the Sumer-Aryan Dictionary by Waddell can really get this upset about potential racism behind Proto-Indo-European. There’s a huge difference between the linguistic “I think Sanskrit and Greek have a common ancestor, rather than one derived from the other” and Waddell’s “white people did everything worthwhile in civilization.”


  2. I agree with you about your observations concerning Waddell. My intent in this discussion was to give the reader an alternative thought when it comes to the said term. In all honesty Dan, I began researching the term Nekros and one of our new staff members mentioned to me that this term also appears in some African dialects. So I was more looking into that, and came across the Proto-Indo-European language, and while I do understand some of the things that you are talking about and agree on some levels. You are correct that the Gate-Walking Community is limited to Christian scholarship, which has its own agenda. However, I must ask your opinion of this, as to how the language of such a great civilization as Greece is said to come from some theory, and on top of all of this, it’s put out as a fact. I don’t believe that’s honest scholarship, do you?

    Answer: It just seems more honest to me to cite the actual known origin of a word than relate it to theory. Sir William Jones had great admiration for Sanskrit and found it superior to the Greek and Latin language, which becomes a problem when the Western world was erroneously propagating the idea that Greece was the world’s first civilization, not Sumer, not Egypt, but Greece. So now these characters with all sorts of fancy degrees have to find a way to explain how is that so-called “inferior civilizations” possessed a more complex language structure than Greek or Latin? So you make up a language!!! It just seems more honest to me to cite the actual known origin of a word than relate it to theory.

    This may not have been entirely a racist thing, but in some ways, if this information conflicts with the scholars belief system, of which many were Christian, so maybe these scholars were trying to find a way to explain how they can still fit themselves in the Garden of Eden picture, while discovering languages that were more complex, and spoken by indigenous peoples, than the language that the Church attributed to Adam and Eve.

    You’re an intelligent person Dan. I am sure that you’re aware that even the Chinese language has some Sumerian root words in it, but I am not going to then make up a theory that they come from some other previous language and then make up a term for this language and start citing correspondences to this made up language in reference books. But this is pretty much what the origin of the Proto-Indo-European. Coupled by the fact that after Hitler was done with all his propaganda the principles that Hitler associated with the term Aryan needed a replacement term, which became Proto-Indo-European

    As far as Waddell goes, and this may give reason why i do use older references at times, his bigotry, which I have mentioned in any citation of him, actually reveals certain information in some detail that is rarely available through his bigotry.


  3. It is interesting to note that in Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” there is no mention of the Aryan racial theories nor the infamous “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”.
    The cause of Hitler’s virulent Antisemitism is elucidated in my Amazon Kindle eBook “Adolph & i”.
    Yes, I am promoting myself.


  4. Thanks. BTW: You are probably aware that the early Greeks were not racist like today’s powerful Americans, Europeans, Arabians. The Greeks typically gave credit to Egypt’s Imhotep, etc. The Romans were more racist, but racism really hit hard when Queen Isabella and the Catholic Church, etc used it to convince the avg white European that dark skin was a sign of inferiority, thus giving whites the mindset that the people they were killing in the New World were PAGAN, and inferior unless they converted to the white version of Egyptian and African religion, today called Christianity. The avg white person today is NOT racist, but somewhat deluded to not realize that their parents (Black Africans) are suffering because of the greed of the financially richest whites (and a few blacks that make it into the upper level of economic order). We must come together as humans and get rid of the greedy.


  5. The Eastern Mediterranean is the cradle of the whole west(Caucasoid countries with Abrahamic culture). Greece did not come out of nowhere, ever had a culture separate and independent of their Eastern Mediterranean brothers and never shared anything with the “Europeans(Germanic, Celts and Proto-Slavs)” who in fact were their slaves.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s