THE SUMERIANS AND OTHERS IN THE “NEAR EAST” WERE BLACK! FROM EGYPTSEARCH.COM

by

from egyptsearch.com

CLICK ON AND SEE GREAT PICTURES OF BLACKS!

Author Topic: Africa, Semites, and the “Near East”
Neith-Athena
Member
Member # 10040

Rate Member posted 28 November, 2007 05:08 PM
——————————————————————————–
I have broached this topic before, but would like to do so more fully now. Are there any languages besides the Elamites’ (probably related to Dravidian) or the Sumerians’ (a language isolate” in the “Near East” that are not Semitic? Did total linguistic replacement take place? Would the linguistic evidence, the archaeological and anthropological, and the genetic evidence not lead scholars to admit the pivotal role of Africans (not to dismiss the contributions of others) to the development of the “Near East”? Any responses would be appreciated.

Thanks.
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 102 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2006 | IP: Logged |

Clyde Winters

Member
Member # 10129

Member Rated:
posted 28 November, 2007 09:25 PM
——————————————————————————–
Yes. The thing you have to understand is that the Sumerian, Elamite and Dravidian languages are related. Not only are they related to one another they are also related to the Niger Congo languages especially : Mande, and Wolof.

The original inhabitants of South and West Asia were the Anu people. A catastrophe took place and many of the Anu centers of civilization outside the Nile Valley were destroyed.

The Sumerians were negroes , just like Africans.

Sumerian King Gudea

. [/qb]

Between 3500 and 2500 BC Kushite people from the Saharan highlands speaking Sumerian began to occupy Mesopotamia. Around the same time these Kushites entered Mesopotamia, the contemporary Syrian types began to migrate from the mountain areas into the valley areas settled by Sumerians. These mauranding nomads were called Gutians.

Gutians

In the history text these Gutians are protrayed as Sumerians. In reality the Gutian leaders of Lagash are not mentioned in any of the Sumerian King list.

.
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 2509 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006 | IP: Logged |

Clyde Winters

Member
Member # 10129

Member Rated:
posted 28 November, 2007 09:30 PM
——————————————————————————–
The Sumerians were differentiating themselves from the Gutians.

Gutian ….. Sumerian

Gutian

Sumerian King Gudea

Note the different handshake of the Sumerian and the Gutians. Much of the art published relating to Sumerians, are often pictures of the Gutians when they ruled Lagash.

No Gutian kings of Lagash are mentioned in the Sumerian King List.
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 2509 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006 | IP: Logged |

Mystery Solver
Member
Member # 9033

posted 28 November, 2007 10:09 PM
——————————————————————————–

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Neith-Athena:

I have broached this topic before, but would like to do so more fully now. Are there any languages besides the Elamites’ (probably related to Dravidian) or the Sumerians’ (a language isolate” in the “Near East” that are not Semitic?
——————————————————————————–

Scanty evidence of writing that can be traced back further in time than the dates approximated for the above mentioned groups, makes it difficult to determine how many more different languages may have been spoken in the region, besides or prior to the predominance of Semitic speaking groups in the region as seen today. It has even been suggested that…

perhaps there is an initial influence of Egyptian writing on Mesopotamia because there are signs on Mesopotamian objects that are only “readable” from the standpoint of the Egyptian language, but not the Mesopotamian language..

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Neith-Athena:

Did total linguistic replacement take place?
——————————————————————————–

It is safe to assume that prior to the movement of proto-Afrasan groups into the region, that this region would have had groups which spoke non-Afrasan languages. Over time, some languages eventually died out, while new ones developed from pre-existing branches. Given this, even if it is said that Afrasan languages didn’t ‘totally’ replace any pre-existing languages, it can be safely said that Afrasan languages largely replaced them.

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Neith-Athena:

Would the linguistic evidence, the archaeological and anthropological, and the genetic evidence not lead scholars to admit the pivotal role of Africans (not to dismiss the contributions of others) to the development of the “Near East”? Any responses would be appreciated.
——————————————————————————–

Already has. See above; almost the entire “Near Eastern” region from the Levant onwards is dominated by Afrasan languages. Upper Paleolithic and/or early Neolithic expanded PN2-derived lineages have virtually become markers for the spread of the farming economy. “Neolithic” era crania in the Levant have been characterized as a composite of distinctive modal patterns, certain aspects of which suggest strong affinities with specimens from the Upper Nile Valley. Certain new lithic [hence "Neolithic"] tools dated to a time frame prior to the “Neolithic agriculture” economy of the Levant, have been linked back to north Africa.

Related discussion amongst the many: Neolithic farmers, early semitic and Mesopotamia
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 1622 | Registered: Sep 2005 | IP: Logged |

Clyde Winters

Member
Member # 10129

Member Rated:
posted 28 November, 2007 10:10 PM
——————————————————————————–
History as written today is nothing but falsehood. For example, here is a Sumerian:

But instead of showing Sumerians in textbooks scholars provide pictures of Gutians from Lagash:

Without the concept of race the lie being taught that the Sumerians were non-Blacks–Gutians– will exist forever, since text book publishers only publish what they want us to believe.You can continue to follow the Eurocentrists propaganda that erases Blacks from ancient history–I would rather stick to reality.

.
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 2509 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006 | IP: Logged |

rasol
Member
Member # 4592

posted 28 November, 2007 10:41 PM
——————————————————————————–

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Without the concept of race the lie being taught that the Sumerians were non-Blacks–Gutians– will exist forever, since text book publishers only publish what they want us to believe.
——————————————————————————–

I agree 100% that the Sumerians are misrepresented.

Indeed, the concept of race, which is itself a misrepresentation of biology is in part culpable for this misrepresentation, and never has been and never will be able to provide resolution.

Race in anthropology is a dead end debate, and you actually illustate this with your photos.

Advocates of race, can and will argue that this statue is caucasian, while you counter argue that is negro.

Such and argument has never progressed beyound shouting across a table.

This is one reason why most anthropologist no longer attempt to ascribe pseudo-scientific race classifications to ancient populations.

Race, in anthropology, is fatally flawed concept, it is percieved as -necessary- only for those whose thinking caged by European racists of the 17th century, who provided a world view, that some misguided Africanist scholars are still -reacting- to with racialist -counter myths-.

Modern African scholars are pursuing a revolutionary [as opposed to reactionary] discourse, which rethinks human history in terms that moot the old-dead-end race arguments.
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 11664 | Registered: Jun 2004 | IP: Logged |

Clyde Winters

Member
Member # 10129

Member Rated:
posted 28 November, 2007 10:45 PM
——————————————————————————–
The languages spoken in ancient Mesopotamia and the Levant have changed overtime. The first people to dominate the area were the Sumerians. The language spoken by the Sumerians was adopted by the nomadic people living in the area, especially the Gutians.

Akkadian

The Sumerians were conquered by the Akkadians the Akkadians spoke a Semitic language. The linguistic evidence makes it clear that the Akkadians originated in the Sudan,migrated across East Africa into Arabia and replaced the Sumerians as the dominate group in Mesopotamia. The Gutians, once the Akkadians took over the region replaced Sumerian with the Semitic language spoken by the Akkadians. Since Akkadian times Semitic has been the dominate language in Mesopotamia.

Anoth group of Semitic speakers settled the Levant.These people were a great naval power called the Cananites and Phonesians.

The linguistic evidence makes it clear that the Akkadians originated in Africa.

According to Haupt, in 1878, Akkadian , Minaean
and Ethiopic all belong to the same group of Semitic
languages, even though they are separated in time and
by great geographical distance. This is surprising
considering the fact that Ethiopic and Akkadian are
separated by many hundreds of years. The best example
of this unity is the presence of shared archaicism
. The linguistic feature of shared
archaicism is the appearance of the vowel after the
first consonant of the imperfect.

For example, one of the most outstanding features
of Ethiopian Semitic languages, is the presence of a vowel following the
first consonant in the verb form known as the
imperfect, e.g., yi quattul (using the hypothetical
verb consonants q-t-l, yi is the person marking
prefix) or yi k’ettl ‘he kills’. In Southwest Semitic
the form of the perfect is yu qtul-u . Here we have
the same hypothetical q-t-l form, but there is no
vowel following the first consonant of the verb root.

It is common in non-African languages to form words with two consonants. African languages usually have a vowel separting each consonant in a word e.g., unasema kiswahilli “Can you speak Swahilli’.

The fact that Akkadian has shared archaicism with Ethiopian Semitic
languages shows that at the time the
Akkadians and Ethiopic speakers separated these groups
had dialectical unity. The lack of this trait in
Arabic and Hebrew shows that they have been influenced
by the Indo-European speakers who invaded Palestine
and Arabia between 1300 B.C. and 900 B.C.

Semitic verb root

code:
——————————————————————————–

Akkadian Ethiopic/S.Arabiankl ‘to be dark’ ekelu Soqotri okil ‘to cover’mr ‘to see’ amaru Geez ammara;Tigre amarabr ‘to catch’ baru Soqotri b’rdgh ‘remove’ daqu Geez dagba ‘to perforate’kdn ‘to protect’ kidin Tigre kadna

——————————————————————————–

I call the Semitic languages , Puntite languages since there homeland was probably in the region the Egyptians called Punt.

The Cushitic substratum has strongly influenced
the phonology, morphology, syntax and vocabulary of
the Puntite languages.

code:
——————————————————————————–

Cushitic English SemiticSaho la wild cow *la-atSomali la id. id.

——————————————————————————–

This supports the view of I.M. Diakonoff that the
Semitic speakers and A-Group lived in close proximity
in ancient times. Archaeological evidence also supports this reality. A common ceramic style associated with ancient cultures in Northeast Africa and Arabia is the Tihama culture.

The Tihama pottery was related to the C-Group and Kerma people. This supports the movement of some of these groups into the Horn from this region and explains why the Akkadian and Ethiopic are closely related.

The evidence discussed above makes
it clear that Arabia, was probably not the original
homeland of the Semitic speakers. Modern Ethiopians and the Akkadians
originated in Africa, not Arabia.

Find out more about the Tihama culture here

Fattowich web page
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 2509 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006 | IP: Logged |

rasol
Member
Member # 4592

posted 28 November, 2007 10:52 PM
——————————————————————————–
^ Very interesting. Good post.
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 11664 | Registered: Jun 2004 | IP: Logged |

Mystery Solver
Member
Member # 9033

posted 28 November, 2007 11:04 PM
——————————————————————————–

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

The first people to dominate the area were the Sumerians.
——————————————————————————–

Would depend on time frame. For instance, who was dominant in the area during the “Natufian” inhabitation there?
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 1622 | Registered: Sep 2005 | IP: Logged |

Clyde Winters

Member
Member # 10129

Member Rated:
posted 28 November, 2007 11:12 PM
——————————————————————————–
Rasol

I wish we could separate the history of the Middle East from race, but it is impossible to do so because of the desire of Eurocentrists to make Semitic speakers members of the “white” race.

The controversy surrounding the Kushite/African/Black origins of the Elamites, Sumerians, Akkadians and “Assyrians” is simple and yet complicated. It involves both the racism exhibited toward the African slaves in the Western Hemisphere and Africans generally which led to the idea that Africans had no history ; and the need of Julius Oppert to make Semites white, to accommodate the “white” ancestry of European Jews.

To understand this dichotomy we have to look at the history of scholarship surrounding the rise of Sumero-Akkadian studies. The study of the Sumerians, Akkadians. Assyrians and Elamites began with the decipherment of the cuneiform script by Henry Rawlinson. Henry Rawlinson had spent most of his career in the Orient. This appears to have gave him an open mind in regards to history. He recognized the Ancient Model of History, the idea that civilization was founded by the Kushite or Hamitic people of the Bible.

As result, Rawlinson was surprised during his research to discover that the founders of the Mesopotamian civilization were of Kushite origin. He made it clear that the Semitic speakers of Akkad and the non-Semitic speakers of Sumer were both Black or Negro people who called themselves sag-gig-ga “Black Heads”. In Rawlinson’s day the Sumerian people were recognized as Akkadian or Chaldean, while the Semitic speaking blacks were called Assyrians.

Rawlinson identified these Akkadians as Turanian or Scythic people. But he made it clear that these ancient Scythic or Turanian speaking people were Kushites or Blacks.

A major supporter of Rawlinson was Edward Hincks. Hincks continued Rawlinson’s work and identified the ancient group as Chaldeans, and also called them Turanian speakers. Hincks, though, never dicussed their ethnic origin.

A late comer to the study of the Sumerians and the Akkadians was Julius Oppert. Oppert was a German born of Jewish parents. He made it clear that the Chaldean and Akkadian people spoke different languages. He noted that the original founders of Mesopotamia civilization called themselves Ki-en-gi “land of the true lords”. It was the Semitic speakers who called themselves Akkadians.

Assyrians called the Ki-en-gi people Sumiritu “the sacred language”. Oppert popularized the Assyrian name Sumer, for the original founders of the civilization. Thus we have today the Akkadians and Sumerians of ancient Mesopotamia.

Oppert began to popularize the idea that the Sumerians were related to the contemporary Altaic and Turanian speaking people, e.g., Turks and Magyar (Hungarian) speaking people. He made it clear that the Akkadians were Semites like himself . To support this idea Oppert pointed out that typological features between Sumerian and Altaic languages existed. This feature was agglutination.

The problem with identifying the Sumerians as descendants from contemporary Turanian speakers resulted from the fact that Sumerian and the Turkish languages are not genetically related. As a result Oppert began to criticize the work of Hincks (who was dead at the time) in relation to the identification of the Sumerian people as Turanian following the research of Rawlinson.

It is strange to some observers that Oppert,never criticized Rawlinson who had proposed the Turanian origin of the Ki-en-gi (Sumerians). But this was not strange at all. Oppert did not attack Rawlinson who was still alive at the time because he knew that Rawlinson said the Sumerians were the original Scythic and Turanian people he called Kushites. Moreover, Rawlinson made it clear that both the Akkadians and Sumerians were Blacks. For Oppert to have debated this issue with Rawlinson, who deciphered the cuneiform script, would have meant that he would have had to accept the fact that Semites were Black. There was no way Oppert would have wanted to acknowledge his African heritage, given the Anti-Semitism experienced by Jews living in Europe.

Although Oppert successfully hid the recognition that the Akkadians and the Sumerians both refered to themselves as sag-gig-ga “black heads”, some researchers were unable to follow the status quo and ignore this reality. For example, Francois Lenormant, made it clear, following the research of Rawlinson, that the Elamite and Sumerians spoke genetically related languages. This idea was hard to reconcile with the depiction of people on the monuments of Iran, especially the Behistun monument, which depicted Negroes (with curly hair and beards) representing the Assyrians, Jews and Elamites who ruled the area. As a result, Oppert began the myth that the Sumerian languages was isolated from other languages spoken in the world evethough it shared typological features with the Altaic languages. Oppert taught Akkadian-Sumerian in many of the leading Universities in France and Germany. Many of his students soon began to dominate the Academe, or held chairs in Sumerian and Akkadian studies these researchers continued to perpetuate the myth that the Elamite and Sumerian languages were not related.

There was no way to keep from researchers who read the original Sumerian, Akkadian and Assyrian text that these people recognized that they were ethnically Blacks. This fact was made clear by Albert Terrien de LaCouperie. Born in France, de LaCouperie was a well known linguist and China expert. Although native of France most of his writings are in English. In the journal he published called the Babylonian and Oriental Record, he outlined many aspects of ancient history. In these pages he made it clear that the Sumerians, Akkadians and even the Assyrians who called themselves şalmat kakkadi ‘black headed people”, were all Blacks of Kushite origin. Eventhough de LaCouperie taught at the University of London, the prestige of Oppert, and the fact that the main centers for Sumero-Akkadian studies in France and Germany were founded by Oppert and or his students led to researchers ignoring the evidence that the Sumerians , Akkadians and Assyrians were Black.

In summary, the cuneiform evidence makes it clear that the Sumerians, Akkadians and Assyrians recognized themselves as Negroes: “black heads”. This fact was supported by the statues of Gudea, the Akkadians and Assyrians. Plus the Behistun monument made it clear that the Elamites were also Blacks.

The textual evidence also makes it clear that Oppert began the discussion of a typological relationship between Sumerian and Turkic languages. He also manufactured the idea that the Semites of Mesopotamia and Iran, the Assyrians and Akkadians were “whites”, like himself. Due to this brain washing, and whitening out of Blacks in history, many people today can look at depictions of Assyrians, Achamenians, and Akkadians and fail to see the Negro origin of these people.

To make the Sumerians “white” textbooks print pictures of artifacts dating to the Gutian rule of Lagash, to pass them off as the true originators of Sumerian civilization. No Gutian rulers of Lagash are recognized in the Sumerian King List.

.
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 2509 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006 | IP: Logged |

Clyde Winters

Member
Member # 10129

Member Rated:
posted 28 November, 2007 11:26 PM
——————————————————————————–

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

The first people to dominate the area were the Sumerians.
——————————————————————————–

Would depend on time frame. For instance, who was dominant in the area during the “Natufian” inhabitation there?
——————————————————————————–

The founders of civilization in South West Asia were the Anu people, archaeologists call Natufians. By 13,000 BC, according to J.D. Clark (“The origins of domestication in Ethiopia”, Fifth Panafrican Congress of prehistory and quaternary Studies, Nairobi,1977) the Natufians were collecting grasses which later became domesticated crops in Southwest Asia.

In Palestine the Natufians established intensive grass collection. The Natufians used the Ibero-Maurusian tool industry (see F. Wendorf, The
History of Nubia, Dallas,1968, pp.941-46). These
Natufians , according to Christopher Ehret ( “On the antiquity of agriculture in Ethiopia”, Jour. of African History 20, [1979], p.161) were small stature folk who spread agriculture throughout Nubia into the Red Sea. The Natufians took the Ibero-Maurusian tools into Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.

The Natufians practiced evulsion of the incisors the same as Bantu people and inhabitants of the Saharan fringes. At this early date the Bantu were probably still in the Saharan highlands along with other Niger-Congo, Cushitic and etc., contemporary African groups. There are traditions among these people that when they settled much Africa, most regions were already occupied by small blacks probably San and/or Khoisan.

I believe that the Natufians given the craniometric evidence for this group probably were San and/or Khoisan . Up to today many Khoisan people live in East Africa, the origination point for the Natufian people. I would guess that the Natufians spoke a Khoisan language.

.
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 2509 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006 | IP: Logged |

Mystery Solver
Member
Member # 9033

posted 29 November, 2007 12:02 AM
——————————————————————————–

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

The first people to dominate the area were the Sumerians.
——————————————————————————–

Would depend on time frame. For instance, who was dominant in the area during the “Natufian” inhabitation there?
——————————————————————————–

The founders of civilization in South West Asia were the Anu people, archaeologists call Natufians.
——————————————————————————–

You know this because…?

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

In Palestine the Natufians established intensive grass collection. The Natufians used the Ibero-Maurusian tool industry (see F. Wendorf, The
History of Nubia, Dallas,1968, pp.941-46).
——————————————————————————–

What do you think of as “Ibero-Maurusian”? Why that designation, when we are dealing with new microlithic tools originating in mainland Africa and transferred into the Levant via the Nile Valley?

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

I believe that the Natufians given the craniometric evidence for this group probably were San and/or Khoisan .
——————————————————————————–

What cranio-metric evidence has led you to that conclusion?

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

Up to today many Khoisan people live in East Africa, the origination point for the Natufian people. I would guess that the Natufians spoke a Khoisan language.
——————————————————————————–

No Khoisan language is known to occur in the “Near East”, but Afrasan languages do predominate in that region from the Levant downwards. What markers linguitics-wise and genetics-wise, would help us learn about this close Natufian-Khoisan linkage you speak of?
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 1622 | Registered: Sep 2005 | IP: Logged |

Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
posted 29 November, 2007 04:43 AM
——————————————————————————–

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Rasol

I wish we could separate the history of the Middle East from race, but it is impossible to do so because of the desire of Eurocentrists to make Semitic speakers members of the “white” race.

The controversy surrounding the Kushite/African/Black origins of the Elamites, Sumerians, Akkadians and “Assyrians” is simple and yet complicated. It involves both the racism exhibited toward the African slaves in the Western Hemisphere and Africans generally which led to the idea that Africans had no history ; and the need of Julius Oppert to make Semites white, to accommodate the “white” ancestry of European Jews.

To understand this dichotomy we have to look at the history of scholarship surrounding the rise of Sumero-Akkadian studies. The study of the Sumerians, Akkadians. Assyrians and Elamites began with the decipherment of the cuneiform script by Henry Rawlinson. Henry Rawlinson had spent most of his career in the Orient. This appears to have gave him an open mind in regards to history. He recognized the Ancient Model of History, the idea that civilization was founded by the Kushite or Hamitic people of the Bible.

As result, Rawlinson was surprised during his research to discover that the founders of the Mesopotamian civilization were of Kushite origin. He made it clear that the Semitic speakers of Akkad and the non-Semitic speakers of Sumer were both Black or Negro people who called themselves sag-gig-ga “Black Heads”. In Rawlinson’s day the Sumerian people were recognized as Akkadian or Chaldean, while the Semitic speaking blacks were called Assyrians.

Rawlinson identified these Akkadians as Turanian or Scythic people. But he made it clear that these ancient Scythic or Turanian speaking people were Kushites or Blacks.

A major supporter of Rawlinson was Edward Hincks. Hincks continued Rawlinson’s work and identified the ancient group as Chaldeans, and also called them Turanian speakers. Hincks, though, never dicussed their ethnic origin.

A late comer to the study of the Sumerians and the Akkadians was Julius Oppert. Oppert was a German born of Jewish parents. He made it clear that the Chaldean and Akkadian people spoke different languages. He noted that the original founders of Mesopotamia civilization called themselves Ki-en-gi “land of the true lords”. It was the Semitic speakers who called themselves Akkadians.

Assyrians called the Ki-en-gi people Sumiritu “the sacred language”. Oppert popularized the Assyrian name Sumer, for the original founders of the civilization. Thus we have today the Akkadians and Sumerians of ancient Mesopotamia.

Oppert began to popularize the idea that the Sumerians were related to the contemporary Altaic and Turanian speaking people, e.g., Turks and Magyar (Hungarian) speaking people. He made it clear that the Akkadians were Semites like himself . To support this idea Oppert pointed out that typological features between Sumerian and Altaic languages existed. This feature was agglutination.

The problem with identifying the Sumerians as descendants from contemporary Turanian speakers resulted from the fact that Sumerian and the Turkish languages are not genetically related. As a result Oppert began to criticize the work of Hincks (who was dead at the time) in relation to the identification of the Sumerian people as Turanian following the research of Rawlinson.

It is strange to some observers that Oppert,never criticized Rawlinson who had proposed the Turanian origin of the Ki-en-gi (Sumerians). But this was not strange at all. Oppert did not attack Rawlinson who was still alive at the time because he knew that Rawlinson said the Sumerians were the original Scythic and Turanian people he called Kushites. Moreover, Rawlinson made it clear that both the Akkadians and Sumerians were Blacks. For Oppert to have debated this issue with Rawlinson, who deciphered the cuneiform script, would have meant that he would have had to accept the fact that Semites were Black. There was no way Oppert would have wanted to acknowledge his African heritage, given the Anti-Semitism experienced by Jews living in Europe.

Although Oppert successfully hid the recognition that the Akkadians and the Sumerians both refered to themselves as sag-gig-ga “black heads”, some researchers were unable to follow the status quo and ignore this reality. For example, Francois Lenormant, made it clear, following the research of Rawlinson, that the Elamite and Sumerians spoke genetically related languages. This idea was hard to reconcile with the depiction of people on the monuments of Iran, especially the Behistun monument, which depicted Negroes (with curly hair and beards) representing the Assyrians, Jews and Elamites who ruled the area. As a result, Oppert began the myth that the Sumerian languages was isolated from other languages spoken in the world evethough it shared typological features with the Altaic languages. Oppert taught Akkadian-Sumerian in many of the leading Universities in France and Germany. Many of his students soon began to dominate the Academe, or held chairs in Sumerian and Akkadian studies these researchers continued to perpetuate the myth that the Elamite and Sumerian languages were not related.

There was no way to keep from researchers who read the original Sumerian, Akkadian and Assyrian text that these people recognized that they were ethnically Blacks. This fact was made clear by Albert Terrien de LaCouperie. Born in France, de LaCouperie was a well known linguist and China expert. Although native of France most of his writings are in English. In the journal he published called the Babylonian and Oriental Record, he outlined many aspects of ancient history. In these pages he made it clear that the Sumerians, Akkadians and even the Assyrians who called themselves şalmat kakkadi ‘black headed people”, were all Blacks of Kushite origin. Eventhough de LaCouperie taught at the University of London, the prestige of Oppert, and the fact that the main centers for Sumero-Akkadian studies in France and Germany were founded by Oppert and or his students led to researchers ignoring the evidence that the Sumerians , Akkadians and Assyrians were Black.

In summary, the cuneiform evidence makes it clear that the Sumerians, Akkadians and Assyrians recognized themselves as Negroes: “black heads”. This fact was supported by the statues of Gudea, the Akkadians and Assyrians. Plus the Behistun monument made it clear that the Elamites were also Blacks.

The textual evidence also makes it clear that Oppert began the discussion of a typological relationship between Sumerian and Turkic languages. He also manufactured the idea that the Semites of Mesopotamia and Iran, the Assyrians and Akkadians were “whites”, like himself. Due to this brain washing, and whitening out of Blacks in history, many people today can look at depictions of Assyrians, Achamenians, and Akkadians and fail to see the Negro origin of these people.

To make the Sumerians “white” textbooks print pictures of artifacts dating to the Gutian rule of Lagash, to pass them off as the true originators of Sumerian civilization. No Gutian rulers of Lagash are recognized in the Sumerian King List.

.
——————————————————————————–

Please provide citations from Rawlins, et al that says these people were “blacks”. Please provide citations from the Behistun monument that “clearly” shows that these people identified themselves as blacks or from Africa. I don’t see anything that supports what you are saying.
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 2434 | Registered: May 2005 | IP: Logged |

Clyde Winters

Member
Member # 10129

Member Rated:
posted 29 November, 2007 09:12 AM
——————————————————————————–

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Rasol

I wish we could separate the history of the Middle East from race, but it is impossible to do so because of the desire of Eurocentrists to make Semitic speakers members of the “white” race.

The controversy surrounding the Kushite/African/Black origins of the Elamites, Sumerians, Akkadians and “Assyrians” is simple and yet complicated. It involves both the racism exhibited toward the African slaves in the Western Hemisphere and Africans generally which led to the idea that Africans had no history ; and the need of Julius Oppert to make Semites white, to accommodate the “white” ancestry of European Jews.

To understand this dichotomy we have to look at the history of scholarship surrounding the rise of Sumero-Akkadian studies. The study of the Sumerians, Akkadians. Assyrians and Elamites began with the decipherment of the cuneiform script by Henry Rawlinson. Henry Rawlinson had spent most of his career in the Orient. This appears to have gave him an open mind in regards to history. He recognized the Ancient Model of History, the idea that civilization was founded by the Kushite or Hamitic people of the Bible.

As result, Rawlinson was surprised during his research to discover that the founders of the Mesopotamian civilization were of Kushite origin. He made it clear that the Semitic speakers of Akkad and the non-Semitic speakers of Sumer were both Black or Negro people who called themselves sag-gig-ga “Black Heads”. In Rawlinson’s day the Sumerian people were recognized as Akkadian or Chaldean, while the Semitic speaking blacks were called Assyrians.

Rawlinson identified these Akkadians as Turanian or Scythic people. But he made it clear that these ancient Scythic or Turanian speaking people were Kushites or Blacks.

A major supporter of Rawlinson was Edward Hincks. Hincks continued Rawlinson’s work and identified the ancient group as Chaldeans, and also called them Turanian speakers. Hincks, though, never dicussed their ethnic origin.

A late comer to the study of the Sumerians and the Akkadians was Julius Oppert. Oppert was a German born of Jewish parents. He made it clear that the Chaldean and Akkadian people spoke different languages. He noted that the original founders of Mesopotamia civilization called themselves Ki-en-gi “land of the true lords”. It was the Semitic speakers who called themselves Akkadians.

Assyrians called the Ki-en-gi people Sumiritu “the sacred language”. Oppert popularized the Assyrian name Sumer, for the original founders of the civilization. Thus we have today the Akkadians and Sumerians of ancient Mesopotamia.

Oppert began to popularize the idea that the Sumerians were related to the contemporary Altaic and Turanian speaking people, e.g., Turks and Magyar (Hungarian) speaking people. He made it clear that the Akkadians were Semites like himself . To support this idea Oppert pointed out that typological features between Sumerian and Altaic languages existed. This feature was agglutination.

The problem with identifying the Sumerians as descendants from contemporary Turanian speakers resulted from the fact that Sumerian and the Turkish languages are not genetically related. As a result Oppert began to criticize the work of Hincks (who was dead at the time) in relation to the identification of the Sumerian people as Turanian following the research of Rawlinson.

It is strange to some observers that Oppert,never criticized Rawlinson who had proposed the Turanian origin of the Ki-en-gi (Sumerians). But this was not strange at all. Oppert did not attack Rawlinson who was still alive at the time because he knew that Rawlinson said the Sumerians were the original Scythic and Turanian people he called Kushites. Moreover, Rawlinson made it clear that both the Akkadians and Sumerians were Blacks. For Oppert to have debated this issue with Rawlinson, who deciphered the cuneiform script, would have meant that he would have had to accept the fact that Semites were Black. There was no way Oppert would have wanted to acknowledge his African heritage, given the Anti-Semitism experienced by Jews living in Europe.

Although Oppert successfully hid the recognition that the Akkadians and the Sumerians both refered to themselves as sag-gig-ga “black heads”, some researchers were unable to follow the status quo and ignore this reality. For example, Francois Lenormant, made it clear, following the research of Rawlinson, that the Elamite and Sumerians spoke genetically related languages. This idea was hard to reconcile with the depiction of people on the monuments of Iran, especially the Behistun monument, which depicted Negroes (with curly hair and beards) representing the Assyrians, Jews and Elamites who ruled the area. As a result, Oppert began the myth that the Sumerian languages was isolated from other languages spoken in the world evethough it shared typological features with the Altaic languages. Oppert taught Akkadian-Sumerian in many of the leading Universities in France and Germany. Many of his students soon began to dominate the Academe, or held chairs in Sumerian and Akkadian studies these researchers continued to perpetuate the myth that the Elamite and Sumerian languages were not related.

There was no way to keep from researchers who read the original Sumerian, Akkadian and Assyrian text that these people recognized that they were ethnically Blacks. This fact was made clear by Albert Terrien de LaCouperie. Born in France, de LaCouperie was a well known linguist and China expert. Although native of France most of his writings are in English. In the journal he published called the Babylonian and Oriental Record, he outlined many aspects of ancient history. In these pages he made it clear that the Sumerians, Akkadians and even the Assyrians who called themselves şalmat kakkadi ‘black headed people”, were all Blacks of Kushite origin. Eventhough de LaCouperie taught at the University of London, the prestige of Oppert, and the fact that the main centers for Sumero-Akkadian studies in France and Germany were founded by Oppert and or his students led to researchers ignoring the evidence that the Sumerians , Akkadians and Assyrians were Black.

In summary, the cuneiform evidence makes it clear that the Sumerians, Akkadians and Assyrians recognized themselves as Negroes: “black heads”. This fact was supported by the statues of Gudea, the Akkadians and Assyrians. Plus the Behistun monument made it clear that the Elamites were also Blacks.

The textual evidence also makes it clear that Oppert began the discussion of a typological relationship between Sumerian and Turkic languages. He also manufactured the idea that the Semites of Mesopotamia and Iran, the Assyrians and Akkadians were “whites”, like himself. Due to this brain washing, and whitening out of Blacks in history, many people today can look at depictions of Assyrians, Achamenians, and Akkadians and fail to see the Negro origin of these people.

To make the Sumerians “white” textbooks print pictures of artifacts dating to the Gutian rule of Lagash, to pass them off as the true originators of Sumerian civilization. No Gutian rulers of Lagash are recognized in the Sumerian King List.

.
——————————————————————————–

Please provide citations from Rawlins, et al that says these people were “blacks”. Please provide citations from the Behistun monument that “clearly” shows that these people identified themselves as blacks or from Africa. I don’t see anything that supports what you are saying.
——————————————————————————–

Of course you wouldn’t understand anything I am saying you believe that the only Africans to influence history lived in Egypt. But other scholars know the truth.

Col. Rawlinson the decipherer of the cuneiform writing makes it clear that the ancient Turanians were the“Hamitic Nations” mentioned in the Bible: Kush (Cush), Misraim (Egypt), Nimrud ( Sumerians and Elamites) and Canaan (Phonesians) (see: C.B. Rawlinson, “Notes on
the early history of Babylon”, Jour. Royal Asiatic Society (First Series) 15, p.230. ).

.
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 2509 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006 | IP: Logged |

Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Member Rated:
posted 29 November, 2007 12:29 PM
——————————————————————————–
^ Why is this thread being overrun with Winters fantasies?
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 10492 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005 | IP: Logged |

rasol
Member
Member # 4592

posted 29 November, 2007 12:45 PM
——————————————————————————–

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Rasol

I wish we could separate the history of the Middle East from race,
——————————————————————————–

We don’t need to separate

-history- of

-middle east- from

-race-

We need to separate

-fact-

from

-fiction-.

For example -> the *middle east* is a fictious historical entity.

It is invented by the British, with the esoteric geopolitical purpose of preventing Iran from claiming the rights to it’s own oil.

It is meant to describe and legitimize a zone of European political influence.

Before the British invented this term in the early 20th century – there is no reference to the *middle east* anywhere in the world.

Nor is there and equivalent term, or conception.

The term is completely non-native, unnatural, and superimosed upon non European people for the primary purposes of sublimating there native identities and interest.

Like the middle east – *race* is also false, and pseudo-scientific construct of Eurocentrists.

Therefore, to speak of the ‘racial history of the middle east’ is to surrender to Eurocentric brainwashing.

It is a discourse rooted in nonsense, and bounded by the constructs of Eurocentric racists.

The consequence of Africanists scholars who repeat this conception is to serve the interest of Eurocentrist.

As long as we remained ‘pinned down’ discussing the world in terms of a Eurocentric ideology of ‘race’ and ‘middle east’, then Eurocentrist prevail because they keep the conversation stalemated.

A stalemate always serves the interest of protectors of the status quo.

Remember this, the next time you claim King Tut is a Negro because he has prognathism, and Eurocentrist laugh and counter that he is a Caucasian because he has a high nasal bridge.

[both features are also found in the statues you posted]

You can’t win and argument in the context of a nonsensical dialectic that was designed -by your opponent- to begin with.

The very act of repeating after their racial dialectic, which is based on their root assumptions, is to be defeated by it.

I actually suspect that you are beginning to see this, Dr. Winters.
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 11664 | Registered: Jun 2004 | IP: Logged |

rasol
Member
Member # 4592

posted 29 November, 2007 01:26 PM
——————————————————————————–

quote:
——————————————————————————–
The controversy surrounding the Kushite/African/Black origins of the Elamites, Sumerians, Akkadians and “Assyrians” is simple and yet complicated. It involves both the racism exhibited toward the African slaves in the Western Hemisphere and Africans generally which led to the idea that Africans had no history ; and the need of Julius Oppert to make Semites white, to accommodate the “white” ancestry of European Jews.
——————————————————————————–

You can shorten this paragraph by saying that the controversy over the identiy of Kemetian, Kushites and Elamites rooted in racism….yes.

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Rawlinson was surprised during his research to discover that the founders of the Mesopotamian civilization were of Kushite origin. He made it clear that the Semitic speakers of Akkad and the non-Semitic speakers of Sumer were both Black or Negro people who called themselves sag-gig-ga “Black Heads”.
——————————————————————————–

I agree that Sumerians, like the Kemetians, referred to themselves as Blacks, that this reference is and always has been *ethnic* in character, and that this fact is so disturbing to Eurocentric racists, that they have gone to laughable lengths to invent alternate *explanations*, which for the most part, they don’t actually believe in, but assert effectively as pro-forma propaganda.

British scholar George Rawlinson is one of the 1st to translation Herodotus Histories correctly, in which Herodotus repeatedly refers to Egyptians, Ethiopians and others as Blacks.

EX:

- Still the Egyptians said that they believed the Colchians to be descended from the army of Sesostris. My own conjectures were founded, first, on the fact that they are black-skinned and have woolly hair

– Two black doves flew away from Egyptian Thebes, and while one directed its flight to Libya, the other came to them.

By calling the dove black the Dodonaeans indicated that the woman was an Egyptian.

http://www.piney.com/Heredotus2.html

It is interesting to observe in action – Eurocentrism at it’s most desparate and dissembling, tactics have included

- Deny use of the term ‘black’ to describe the Egyptians, and -blame- ‘afrocentric’ misreading – when in fact the early English language translations of Herodotus by Rawlinson and others *all* correctly translated Herodotus as saying such.

– Admit the use of the term black [thus contradicting the former denial], but claim that it doesn’t actually reference Egyptians, but rather Nubians.

Ex:
Herodotus believed this because the *Colchians were black skinned and woolly haired.*

For starters,Herodotus makes no claim that all of the Egyptians had these features and secondly black Nubian mercenaries served in the Egyptian army which would include Pharaoh Sesostris’s army.

http://yeyeolade.wordpress.com/category/black-is-beautiful/

^ This is a beautiful bit of dissembing.

It accuses others of misreading Herodotus, then puts words in Herodotus mouth [Nubians?] he never spoke, in order to evade what he actually said.

It ignores the fact that Herodotus is citing Black skin and Woolly hair as a *common feature* of Ethiopians, Egyptians and Colchians.

After all – he acribes Colchian and -Egyptian- origin, due to black skin and woolly hair -> not and Ethiopian origin due to *nubians* in Egyptian army.

It engages in the straw man argument that Herodotus did not state that *all* Egyptians or *all* Colchoi had these features. [he doesn't say *all* Ethiopians had them, for that matter].

Of course what is relevant is that Blackness is cited by Herodotus as a common denominator and defining characteristic of all 3 groups, which is of course, exactly what is at issue!

So yes, Eurocentrists are desparate liars, and….they know this.
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 11664 | Registered: Jun 2004 | IP: Logged |

rasol
Member
Member # 4592

posted 29 November, 2007 01:34 PM
——————————————————————————–

quote:
——————————————————————————–
What do you think of as “Ibero-Maurusian”? Why that designation, when we are dealing with new microlithic tools originating in mainland Africa and transferred into the Levant via the Nile Valley?
——————————————————————————–

^ As with Dr. Winters use of Cro-Magnon, it shows residual reliance on musty Eurocentric bogusness.
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 11664 | Registered: Jun 2004 | IP: Logged |

Yonis2
Member
Member # 11348

Member Rated:
posted 29 November, 2007 02:17 PM
——————————————————————————–

quote:
——————————————————————————–
rasol wrote:
For example -> the *middle east* is a fictious historical entity
——————————————————————————–

Couldn’t the same be said about Europe? I never see you say “Europe” is a fictious historical entity, why is that since you even acknowledge “European people” in the above post?
At the end of the day all these terms, middle east, europe, southeast asia etc are just political. Everyone knows that regardless if they were created 10, 100, 1000 or 10 000 years ago. Same with all nation states.
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 136 | Registered: Jul 2006 | IP: Logged |

Clyde Winters

Member
Member # 10129

Member Rated:
posted 29 November, 2007 02:43 PM
——————————————————————————–
The Semitic speakers were not the first people to live in the Area. Eventhough Sumerian is no longer spoken in the Middle east we know that the Sumerians lived in the region. Many Amerindian groups live in and near Chicago,Amerindian languages are no longer spoken in the Chicago region, and the average Chicagoan does not carry Amerindian genes. As a result, just because many people in the area today speak Semitic languages and carry “Semitic genes” does not mean that the Natufians, who belonged to a different culture and ethnic group (i.e., negroes) than any Semitic group living in the Levant today, is not proof that the Natufians were Semitic speakers.

We know the people were called Anu, because the Sumerian texts claim that the original people in the area were Anu or Anunaki. Egyptians claimed the first rulers of Egypt were also called Anu.

The archaeologist referred to these Khoisan speakers as Bushman Hottentots. W.E. B. DuBois, discussed these Negroes in the The World and Africa, pp.86-89. DuBois noted that “There was once a an “uninterrupted belt’ of Negro culture from Central Europe to South Africa” (p.88).These people were smaller than Semitic speakers. Below is one of the early articles on the Natufians

quote:
——————————————————————————–

BONES OF CANNIBALS A PALESTINE RIDDLE
Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
New York Times 1857; Aug 4, 1932; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 – 2003)
pg. 21

Negroid people of 5000 B. C.Unlike Any Modern Race Described by Keith.

ATE BODIES OF ENEMIES
Men, Short of Stature, Burned Bones of Dead After Burial, London Session Hears.
TEETH OF WOMEN DRAWN
Linking relics to Burnt Skeletons from Ur scientist speculate an old cremation custom.

Wireless to NEW YORK TIMES London Aug. 3

Seven or eight thousand years ago in what geologist call modern times a race of negroid cannibals lived In Palestine, burned the bones of their dead after burial, and devoured the bodies of their enemies.
Skulls and thighbones of this race were unearthed within the last four years, first at Shukbah near Jerusalem and later in caves at Mount Carmel, and because they puzzled the excavators who found them they received the new name “Natufians.”
Today the first authoritative account of them was given by Sir Arthur Keith to the congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences and showed them to be one of the greatest riddles of archaeology.
They were clearly a Negroid people, said Sir Arthur, with wide faces flat- noses and long large heads.
They were short of stature 5 feet 3 or 4 inches tall-and their thighs and legs were remarkably strong.
——————————————————————————–

.
quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

The first people to dominate the area were the Sumerians.
——————————————————————————–

Would depend on time frame. For instance, who was dominant in the area during the “Natufian” inhabitation there?
——————————————————————————–

The founders of civilization in South West Asia were the Anu people, archaeologists call Natufians.
——————————————————————————–

You know this because…?

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

In Palestine the Natufians established intensive grass collection. The Natufians used the Ibero-Maurusian tool industry (see F. Wendorf, The
History of Nubia, Dallas,1968, pp.941-46).
——————————————————————————–

What do you think of as “Ibero-Maurusian”? Why that designation, when we are dealing with new microlithic tools originating in mainland Africa and transferred into the Levant via the Nile Valley?

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

I believe that the Natufians given the craniometric evidence for this group probably were San and/or Khoisan .
——————————————————————————–

What cranio-metric evidence has led you to that conclusion?

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

Up to today many Khoisan people live in East Africa, the origination point for the Natufian people. I would guess that the Natufians spoke a Khoisan language.
——————————————————————————–

No Khoisan language is known to occur in the “Near East”, but Afrasan languages do predominate in that region from the Levant downwards. What markers linguitics-wise and genetics-wise, would help us learn about this close Natufian-Khoisan linkage you speak of?
——————————————————————————–

——————————————————————————–
Posts: 2509 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006 | IP: Logged |

Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
posted 29 November, 2007 02:52 PM
——————————————————————————–
The point that you are missing Mr. Winters is that the Anu were not the same as the San people. They may have been small statured, but that does not make them San. Just like Pygmies are not san people either, even though they are both indigenous African groups. The Anu were quite possibly closer to the Anu than the San, but seeing as no skeletal remains of these “anu” has been provided, how do we determine the relationship? Those skeletons referenced in the 1930s must still be around somewhere.
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 2434 | Registered: May 2005 | IP: Logged |

Clyde Winters

Member
Member # 10129

Member Rated:
posted 29 November, 2007 03:00 PM
——————————————————————————–

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Doug M:
The point that you are missing Mr. Winters is that the Anu were not the same as the San people. They may have been small statured, but that does not make them San. Just like Pygmies are not san people either, even though they are both indigenous African groups. The Anu were quite possibly closer to the Anu than the San, but seeing as no skeletal remains of these “anu” has been provided, how do we determine the relationship? Those skeletons referenced in the 1930s must still be around somewhere.
——————————————————————————–

What makes you so sure they are not the Anu? Please cite the craniometric differences between the Natufians and the San and Khoisan people that lead you to this conclusion.

.
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 2509 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006 | IP: Logged |

Keins

Member
Member # 6476

Member Rated:
posted 29 November, 2007 03:32 PM
——————————————————————————–
This is a great topic guys. And I must commend on the civility of the discussion and exchange of ideas, information and respectable disagreement!

Kodos!
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 297 | From: PA. USA | Registered: Jan 2005 | IP: Logged |

Yonis2
Member
Member # 11348

Member Rated:
posted 29 November, 2007 03:54 PM
——————————————————————————–

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Clyde Winters wrote:
just because many people in the area today speak Semitic languages and carry “Semitic genes” does not mean that the Natufians, who belonged to a different culture and ethnic group (i.e., negroes) than any Semitic group living in the Levant today, is not proof that the Natufians were Semitic speakers.
——————————————————————————–

What is “negroid” according to you Clyde Winters?
Are all people (according to your citation above)of “wide faces flat- noses and long large heads” ” constitute of negroid people to you? And if thats so, what exactly do connect all these people other than these features? What gives you the energy to fight for these “wide faces flat- noses and long large heads” people throughout your career, you consider them all being of common proto-“negroid” origin? What exactly is your point?
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 136 | Registered: Jul 2006 | IP: Logged |

Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Member Rated:
posted 29 November, 2007 04:11 PM
——————————————————————————–

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Yonis2:

Couldn’t the same be said about Europe? I never see you say “Europe” is a fictious historical entity, why is that since you even acknowledge “European people” in the above post?
At the end of the day all these terms, middle east, europe, southeast asia etc are just political. Everyone knows that regardless if they were created 10, 100, 1000 or 10 000 years ago. Same with all nation states.
——————————————————————————–

The only difference is that ‘Europe’ was created by Europeans to describe themselves and which they accepted.

Also, the term is based on a definite region based on actual geography/geology, with Europe being an actual subcontinent.

Neither of these things above can be said about “Middle East”.
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 10492 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005 | IP: Logged |

Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Member Rated:
posted 29 November, 2007 04:14 PM
——————————————————————————–

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by rasol:

quote:
——————————————————————————–
The controversy surrounding the Kushite/African/Black origins of the Elamites, Sumerians, Akkadians and “Assyrians” is simple and yet complicated. It involves both the racism exhibited toward the African slaves in the Western Hemisphere and Africans generally which led to the idea that Africans had no history ; and the need of Julius Oppert to make Semites white, to accommodate the “white” ancestry of European Jews.
——————————————————————————–

You can shorten this paragraph by saying that the controversy over the identiy of Kemetian, Kushites and Elamites rooted in racism….yes.

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Rawlinson was surprised during his research to discover that the founders of the Mesopotamian civilization were of Kushite origin. He made it clear that the Semitic speakers of Akkad and the non-Semitic speakers of Sumer were both Black or Negro people who called themselves sag-gig-ga “Black Heads”.
——————————————————————————–

I agree that Sumerians, like the Kemetians, referred to themselves as Blacks, that this reference is and always has been *ethnic* in character, and that this fact is so disturbing to Eurocentric racists, that they have gone to laughable lengths to invent alternate *explanations*, which for the most part, they don’t actually believe in, but assert effectively as pro-forma propaganda.

British scholar George Rawlinson is one of the 1st to translation Herodotus Histories correctly, in which Herodotus repeatedly refers to Egyptians, Ethiopians and others as Blacks.

EX:

- Still the Egyptians said that they believed the Colchians to be descended from the army of Sesostris. My own conjectures were founded, first, on the fact that they are black-skinned and have woolly hair

– Two black doves flew away from Egyptian Thebes, and while one directed its flight to Libya, the other came to them.

By calling the dove black the Dodonaeans indicated that the woman was an Egyptian.

http://www.piney.com/Heredotus2.html

It is interesting to observe in action – Eurocentrism at it’s most desparate and dissembling, tactics have included

- Deny use of the term ‘black’ to describe the Egyptians, and -blame- ‘afrocentric’ misreading – when in fact the early English language translations of Herodotus by Rawlinson and others *all* correctly translated Herodotus as saying such.

– Admit the use of the term black [thus contradicting the former denial], but claim that it doesn’t actually reference Egyptians, but rather Nubians.

Ex:
Herodotus believed this because the *Colchians were black skinned and woolly haired.*

For starters,Herodotus makes no claim that all of the Egyptians had these features and secondly black Nubian mercenaries served in the Egyptian army which would include Pharaoh Sesostris’s army.

http://yeyeolade.wordpress.com/category/black-is-beautiful/

^ This is a beautiful bit of dissembing.

It accuses others of misreading Herodotus, then puts words in Herodotus mouth [Nubians?] he never spoke, in order to evade what he actually said.

It ignores the fact that Herodotus is citing Black skin and Woolly hair as a *common feature* of Ethiopians, Egyptians and Colchians.

After all – he acribes Colchian and -Egyptian- origin, due to black skin and woolly hair -> not and Ethiopian origin due to *nubians* in Egyptian army.

It engages in the straw man argument that Herodotus did not state that *all* Egyptians or *all* Colchoi had these features. [he doesn't say *all* Ethiopians had them, for that matter].

Of course what is relevant is that Blackness is cited by Herodotus as a common denominator and defining characteristic of all 3 groups, which is of course, exactly what is at issue!

So yes, Eurocentrists are desparate liars, and….they know this.
——————————————————————————–

I concur. The only fallacy now is Winters claiming that all these black peoples were Africans or “Kushites”. The Sumerians and Elamites were NOT African Kushites and neither were the Dravidians despite the fact that they are all black.

We have been through the reasons numerous times.
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 10492 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005 | IP: Logged |

Yonis2
Member
Member # 11348

Member Rated:
posted 29 November, 2007 04:15 PM
——————————————————————————–

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Yonis2:

Couldn’t the same be said about Europe? I never see you say “Europe” is a fictious historical entity, why is that since you even acknowledge “European people” in the above post?
At the end of the day all these terms, middle east, europe, southeast asia etc are just political. Everyone knows that regardless if they were created 10, 100, 1000 or 10 000 years ago. Same with all nation states.
——————————————————————————–

The only difference is that ‘Europe’ was created by Europeans to describe themselves and which they accepted.

——————————————————————————–

Yes, but that still doesn’t make it less fictious than “middle east”.

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Also, the term is based on a definite region based on actual geography/geology, with Europe being an actual subcontinent.
——————————————————————————–

And how exactly does this differ from “middle east”? Neither Europe or Middle-East are continents of their own.
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 136 | Registered: Jul 2006 | IP: Logged |

alTakruri

Member
Member # 10195

Member Rated:
posted 29 November, 2007 07:22 PM
——————————————————————————–
No doubt about certain of them being Kushites.
Kushite was ancient vernacular for what we call
black when we speak of black people or blackfolks.
Major doubt about any of them being “colonies”
from the greater continental African landmass.
Of course Colchians are the exception being
that they were described in classical times
as an exode from Egyptian army (but what of
their womefolk? I mean Medea was ???).

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Djehuti:
The only fallacy now is Winters claiming that all these black peoples were Africans or “Kushites”. The Sumerians and Elamites were NOT African Kushites and neither were the Dravidians despite the fact that they are all black.

——————————————————————————–

——————————————————————————–
Posts: 3354 | From: the Takrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006 | IP: Logged |

Mystery Solver
Member
Member # 9033

posted 29 November, 2007 11:24 PM
——————————————————————————–

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

The Semitic speakers were not the first people to live in the Area.
——————————————————————————–

And you heard that they were, from where?

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

Eventhough Sumerian is no longer spoken in the Middle east we know that the Sumerians lived in the region. Many Amerindian groups live in and near Chicago,Amerindian languages are no longer spoken in the Chicago region, and the average Chicagoan does not carry Amerindian genes.
——————————————————————————–

Non-issue.

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

As a result, just because many people in the area today speak Semitic languages and carry “Semitic genes” does not mean that the Natufians, who belonged to a different culture and ethnic group (i.e., negroes) than any Semitic group living in the Levant today, is not proof that the Natufians were Semitic speakers.
——————————————————————————–

Another non-issue. You were asked for preponderance of evidence that shows strong links between Natufians and Khoisans.

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

We know the people were called Anu, because the Sumerian texts claim that the original people in the area were Anu or Anunaki. Egyptians claimed the first rulers of Egypt were also called Anu.
——————————————————————————–

How does this prove any link with the Natufians, even if one were to go with your idea that Sumerian texts’ reference to “Anunaki” is referencing the same group designated as “Anu” in the Nile Valley? The Natufian complex precedes the arrival or “appearance” of Sumerians in the region by a significant time gap.

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

The archaeologist referred to these Khoisan speakers as Bushman Hottentots. W.E. B. DuBois, discussed these Negroes in the The World and Africa, pp.86-89. DuBois noted that “There was once a an “uninterrupted belt’ of Negro culture from Central Europe to South Africa” (p.88).These people were smaller than Semitic speakers. Below is one of the early articles on the Natufians
——————————————————————————–

So stature is supposedly the determinant that you are going by, with this tenuous strong link between Natufians and Khoisans? How does this even address what was asked of you; i.e., the cranio-metric tendencies that suggest very strong link between Natufians and Khoisans, not to leave out genetic and linguistic evidence?
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 1622 | Registered: Sep 2005 | IP: Logged |

Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Member Rated:
posted 30 November, 2007 12:37 AM
——————————————————————————–

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Yonis2:

Yes, but that still doesn’t make it less fictious than “middle east”.
——————————————————————————–

It does if you consider the very real geographical and geological basis! Europe borders the rest of Asia by the Ural mountains and straits seperating it from Asia Minor. Now what natural borders define the “Middle East”??

quote:
——————————————————————————–
And how exactly does this differ from “middle east”? Neither Europe or Middle-East are continents of their own.
——————————————————————————–

But geologically Europe is a subcontinent in that it essentially is a continent of its own that was once seperate eons ago but later fused to the rest of Asia, so too is the case with India. What about “Middle East”? You cannot say the same about this political region.
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 10492 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005 | IP: Logged |

Marc Washington
Member
Member # 10979

Member Rated:
posted 30 November, 2007 04:40 AM
——————————————————————————–
Here are other images of the population in Mesopotamia before the deluge from the Steppes swept them away:

http://www.beforebc.de/400_neareast/02-16-500-SM.akk-57-050-08.html

http://www.beforebc.de/400_neareast/02-16-500-SM.bab-01.html

——————————————————————————–
Posts: 441 | Registered: May 2006 | IP: Logged |

Marc Washington
Member
Member # 10979

Member Rated:
posted 30 November, 2007 05:59 AM
——————————————————————————–
The thread deals with Africa, Semites, and the Near East. There is the possibility, or rather, history supports the fact that these three (before whites at any given stage entered theses societies) are one; and were the founding peoples and civilization of Europe as well:

http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/02-16-500-00-07.html

——————————————————————————–
Posts: 441 | Registered: May 2006 | IP: Logged |

Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
posted 30 November, 2007 08:01 AM
——————————————————————————–

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Doug M:
The point that you are missing Mr. Winters is that the Anu were not the same as the San people. They may have been small statured, but that does not make them San. Just like Pygmies are not san people either, even though they are both indigenous African groups. The Anu were quite possibly closer to the Anu than the San, but seeing as no skeletal remains of these “anu” has been provided, how do we determine the relationship? Those skeletons referenced in the 1930s must still be around somewhere.
——————————————————————————–

What makes you so sure they are not the Anu? Please cite the craniometric differences between the Natufians and the San and Khoisan people that lead you to this conclusion.

.
——————————————————————————–

Primarily because the ANU no longer EXIST, while the pygmies and San people DO EXIST and ARE NOT the same. That is why Pygmies are pygmies and San are San. Just because all three groups were short statured people DOES NOT MAKE THEM the same people, culturally, linguistically or ethnically.
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 2434 | Registered: May 2005 | IP: Logged |

Clyde Winters

Member
Member # 10129

Member Rated:
posted 30 November, 2007 08:17 AM
——————————————————————————–

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Doug M:
The point that you are missing Mr. Winters is that the Anu were not the same as the San people. They may have been small statured, but that does not make them San. Just like Pygmies are not san people either, even though they are both indigenous African groups. The Anu were quite possibly closer to the Anu than the San, but seeing as no skeletal remains of these “anu” has been provided, how do we determine the relationship? Those skeletons referenced in the 1930s must still be around somewhere.
——————————————————————————–

What makes you so sure they are not the Anu? Please cite the craniometric differences between the Natufians and the San and Khoisan people that lead you to this conclusion.

.
——————————————————————————–

Primarily because the ANU no longer EXIST, while the pygmies and San people DO EXIST and ARE NOT the same. That is why Pygmies are pygmies and San are San. Just because all three groups were short statured people DOES NOT MAKE THEM the same people, culturally, linguistically or ethnically.
——————————————————————————–

Archaeologist compared the skeletal remains of San and Khoisan people in South Africa and the ancient peoples of Europe and Asia, that is how it was determined that the same people who live in South Africa where spread throughout the world thousands of years ago.

You don’t know what you’re talking about. For example, Egyptians no longer exist as a monolithic group but linguuistics and anthropology have have shown us that they are related to Africans now living in other parts of Africa, in addition to the Coptic people who, in many cases fail to look phenotypically like the ancient Egyptians depicted in ancient Egyptian art.

Moreover, we may never really know the language spoken by the pygmies who have been found on every continent: the Americas, Africa and Asia. This is due to the fact that the languages they speak is usually the language spoken by majority population they live among.
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 2509 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006 | IP: Logged |

Neith-Athena
Member
Member # 10040

Rate Member posted 30 November, 2007 11:59 AM
——————————————————————————–

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by alTakruri:
No doubt about certain of them being Kushites.
Kushite was ancient vernacular for what we call
black when we speak of black people or blackfolks.
Major doubt about any of them being “colonies”
from the greater continental African landmass.
Of course Colchians are the exception being
that they were described in classical times
as an exode from Egyptian army (but what of
their womefolk? I mean Medea was ???).

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Djehuti:
The only fallacy now is Winters claiming that all these black peoples were Africans or “Kushites”. The Sumerians and Elamites were NOT African Kushites and neither were the Dravidians despite the fact that they are all black.

——————————————————————————–

——————————————————————————–

I was just about to write a post about that. We read Medea in one of my classes, and reading about her being from Colchis, then remembering what Herodotus said about them, I wondered whether she was Black or had Black ancestry. The English translation had no mention of ethnic reference. She kicks ass in the play, but I am not exactly sure I want a mother who kills her own children to be Black, as Black women already get enough bad press, with welfare mothers and all.
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 102 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2006 | IP: Logged |

Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Member Rated:
posted 30 November, 2007 04:09 PM
——————————————————————————–
^ The story that she kills her own children is a later rendition of the legend no doubt made by Greeks to further deomonize her. In earlier accounts, her children were murdered by political enemies of her marriage to Jason. Notice that in the story she was not only a princess but a high-priestess with great mystical power. It was only in later times that Greek men made her into an “evil witch” capable of killing her own children out of spite.

You’re right that in all the accounts (at least those I’ve read) there were no ‘racial’ or physical descriptions of her other than that she was beautiful.

Getting somewhat back to the topic why is there such a comparison in stature between San and Pygmies?? Yes, San are generally short but NOT like Pygmies which are much shorter thus the description ‘Pgymy’!
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 10492 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005 | IP: Logged |

tooSleepy
Junior Member
Member # 14307

Rate Member posted 01 December, 2007 03:38 AM
——————————————————————————–
This Akkadian hooked nose mask gives me Saudi vibe.

Saudi Men

——————————————————————————–
Posts: 12 | Registered: Oct 2007 | IP: Logged |

Clyde Winters

Member
Member # 10129

Member Rated:
posted 01 December, 2007 08:57 AM
——————————————————————————–
The picture you published regarding the Akkadians is a fake. It looks more “Saudi” because the artist’s who made the mask was trying to make it fit the contemporary people who live in the area.
Below you can compare the original and fake mask. The nose of the original is not hooked.
.

.

Sargon
Original

Fakes

.

.

Naram-Sin Original
.

.
Fake

——————————————————————————–
Posts: 2509 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006 | IP: Logged |

Mike111
Member
Member # 9361

Rate Member posted 01 December, 2007 10:39 AM
——————————————————————————–
Sleepy; were you seriously trying to suggest that the current rulers of Arabia are the indigenous people? Maybe you also think that current Iraqis, Iranians, Egyptians, Libyans, and those in the place now called Turkey are also indigenous people. Try Turks, with a little Greek and Roman thrown in – and the resultant mixtures.
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 48 | Registered: Oct 2005 | IP: Logged |

Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
posted 01 December, 2007 04:26 PM
——————————————————————————–

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The picture you published regarding the Akkadians is a fake. It looks more “Saudi” because the artist’s who made the mask was trying to make it fit the contemporary people who live in the area.
Below you can compare the original and fake mask. The nose of the original is not hooked.
.

.

Sargon
Original

Fakes

.

.

Naram-Sin Original
.

.
Fake

——————————————————————————–

Mr. Winters all of those images are of the same person and none of them are different from one another. This is a blatantly false misrepresentation of the artifacts that does not show what you are implying, which is any FAKE forms of these statues or busts that you can single out as being more “arab” like.

This is a lie and the post is nonsense.
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 2434 | Registered: May 2005 | IP: Logged |

Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Member Rated:
posted 01 December, 2007 05:08 PM
——————————————————————————–
^ LOL What else do you expect from Winters?
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 10492 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005 | IP: Logged |

tooSleepy
Junior Member
Member # 14307

Rate Member posted 02 December, 2007 03:15 AM
——————————————————————————–
lol Winter
Sorry dude it is the same mask with the impressed nose tip and his straight hair commend to a bun.

Sleepy; were you seriously trying to suggest that the current rulers of Arabia are the indigenous people? Maybe you also think that current Iraqis, Iranians, Egyptians, Libyans, and those in the place now called Turkey are also indigenous people. Try Turks, with a little Greek and Roman thrown in – and the resultant mixtures.

Haplogroup J
30000 thousand years not enough?
Haplogroup J is believed to have arisen 31,700 years ago (plus or minus 12,800 years) in the Near East (Semino et al. 2004). It is most closely related to Haplogroup I, as both Haplogroup I and Haplogroup J are descendants of Haplogroup IJ (S2, S22). Haplogroup IJ is in turn derived from Haplogroup F. The main current subgroups J1 and J2, which now account between them for almost all of the population of the haplogroup, are both believed to have arisen very early, at least 10,000 years ago.

Actually Europeans are the ones who are partly Middle Eastern spin-offs.
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 12 | Registered: Oct 2007 | IP: Logged |

Clyde Winters

Member
Member # 10129

Member Rated:
posted 02 December, 2007 08:44 AM
——————————————————————————–
The figure you posted is a fake as demonstrated above.

Haplogroup J could not have arisen in the Middle East around 30,000 years ago because the area was still occupied by Neanderthals. Moreover, around this time the Cro-Magnon people who were expansing eastward from Iberia carried the N haplogroup.

Moreover the J haplogroup is also found among the Ethiopians. Given the linguistic evidence that the Akkadians and Ethiopians were closely related suggest supports the Africaness of these people, not Arabness.

.

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by tooSleepy:
lol Winter
Sorry dude it is the same mask with the impressed nose tip and his straight hair commend to a bun.

Sleepy; were you seriously trying to suggest that the current rulers of Arabia are the indigenous people? Maybe you also think that current Iraqis, Iranians, Egyptians, Libyans, and those in the place now called Turkey are also indigenous people. Try Turks, with a little Greek and Roman thrown in – and the resultant mixtures.

Haplogroup J
30000 thousand years not enough?
Haplogroup J is believed to have arisen 31,700 years ago (plus or minus 12,800 years) in the Near East (Semino et al. 2004). It is most closely related to Haplogroup I, as both Haplogroup I and Haplogroup J are descendants of Haplogroup IJ (S2, S22). Haplogroup IJ is in turn derived from Haplogroup F. The main current subgroups J1 and J2, which now account between them for almost all of the population of the haplogroup, are both believed to have arisen very early, at least 10,000 years ago.

Actually Europeans are the ones who are partly Middle Eastern spin-offs.
——————————————————————————–

——————————————————————————–
Posts: 2509 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006 | IP: Logged |

Clyde Winters

Member
Member # 10129

Member Rated:
posted 02 December, 2007 10:37 AM
——————————————————————————–
This the original picture you posted it has nothing to do with the figure I posted. Note that the left eye in the figure you posted was normal, whereas the left eye in the figure below is missing. You should be ashamed of yourself. But like most Eurocentrists you don’t mind lying to advance a LIE.

.

.

.

.

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by tooSleepy:
This Akkadian hooked nose mask gives me Saudi vibe.

Saudi Men

——————————————————————————–

——————————————————————————–
Posts: 2509 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006 | IP: Logged |

alTakruri

Member
Member # 10195

Member Rated:
posted 02 December, 2007 11:08 AM
——————————————————————————–
Those aren’t different bust profiles.
The image was mirror flipped, that’s all.
Besides publishers mistakenly doing it
anyone with PhotoShop or Picasso or etc., can do it too.
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 3354 | From: the Takrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006 | IP: Logged |

Evergreen
Member
Member # 12192

Rate Member posted 02 December, 2007 01:59 PM
——————————————————————————–

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The Sumerians were conquered by the Akkadians the Akkadians spoke a Semitic language. The linguistic evidence makes it clear that the Akkadians originated in the Sudan,migrated across East Africa into Arabia and replaced the Sumerians as the dominate group in Mesopotamia.
——————————————————————————–

Evergreen Posts:

Domesticated Animals from Early Times by Juliet Clutton-Brock

Author(s) of Review: Juris Zarins
The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 45, No. 4 (Autumn, 1982), pp. 251-253

“The possibility of cattle pastoralism’s having originated in conjunction with early agricultural practices in southern
Egypt must now be seriously considered along with the possible diffusion of Neolithic cattle
pastoralism into the Sahara, south to East Africa, and across the Red Sea to the SinaiINegev and the Arabian peninsula.”
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 655 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006 | IP: Logged |

Evergreen
Member
Member # 12192

Rate Member posted 02 December, 2007 02:07 PM
——————————————————————————–

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by tooSleepy:

Haplogroup J
30000 thousand years not enough?
Haplogroup J is believed to have arisen 31,700 years ago (plus or minus 12,800 years) in the Near East (Semino et al. 2004). It is most closely related to Haplogroup I, as both Haplogroup I and Haplogroup J are descendants of Haplogroup IJ (S2, S22). Haplogroup IJ is in turn derived from Haplogroup F. The main current subgroups J1 and J2, which now account between them for almost all of the population of the haplogroup, are both believed to have arisen very early, at least 10,000 years ago.

Actually Europeans are the ones who are partly Middle Eastern spin-offs.
——————————————————————————–

Evergreen Writes:

What is the correlation between the evolution of modern Eurasian phenotype and haplogroup J. Cranial and genetic evidence indicates that the earliest Europeans shared phenotypic traits with modern and ancient Sub-Saharan Africans.
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 655 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006 | IP: Logged |

Evergreen
Member
Member # 12192

Rate Member posted 02 December, 2007 02:20 PM
——————————————————————————–

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE]I agree that Sumerians, like the Kemetians, referred to themselves as Blacks, that this reference is and always has been *ethnic* in character, and that this fact is so disturbing to Eurocentric racists, that they have gone to laughable lengths to invent alternate *explanations*, which for the most part, they don’t actually believe in, but assert effectively as pro-forma propaganda.
——————————————————————————–

Evergreen Writes:

It seems most probable that two types existed in the Tigres-Euphrates area by the early neolithic – a modified “Australoid” type that was spread from Australia, through India and into the vicinity of modern Iran/Iraq. There was also a semitic element that spread out of Africa and around the so-called fertile cresent during the early Holocene. A third, chariot-wielding element may have entered the region during the Bronze Age.
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 655 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006 | IP: Logged |

Evergreen
Member
Member # 12192

Rate Member posted 02 December, 2007 03:37 PM
——————————————————————————–

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Evergreen:
[QUOTE]
It seems most probable that two types existed in the Tigres-Euphrates area by the early neolithic – a modified “Australoid” type that was spread from Australia, through India and into the vicinity of modern Iran/Iraq. There was also a semitic element that spread out of Africa and around the so-called fertile cresent during the early Holocene. A third, chariot-wielding element may have entered the region during the Bronze Age.
——————————————————————————–

Evergreen Writes:

Further to this point, it seems that populations stretching from Senegal to Australia shared in the common M1 mtDNA lineage. These populations were Black and known as Eastern and Western Ethiopians (Blacks) by ancient Eurasians. These Black populations also seemed to have recognized their own Blackness with references to Kush/Kham/Ham/Kish evolving in relation to the emergence of chariot-wielding elements that may have entered the region during the EBA.
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 655 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006 | IP: Logged |

Evergreen
Member
Member # 12192

Rate Member posted 02 December, 2007 04:13 PM
——————————————————————————–

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Evergreen:
[QUOTE]

Further to this point, it seems that populations stretching from Senegal to Australia shared in the common M1 mtDNA lineage.
——————————————————————————–

Evergreen Writes:

In fact, this is where I would lean more toward the Clyde Winters/Marc Washnington camp. Not so much that I believe the Olmec were Nubians who fled the Nile when the Ptolmies closed down the temples in Aswan or that the Sumerians were ancient chariot-riding mandingoes from the Sahara. But I do believe that Europeans are closely aligned with Africans based upon the linear knowledge (science, mathematics, religion, writing, etc.) Africans imparted to Europeans during the current Quran (Holocene). Likewise, I believe Black-Asians are closely aligned with Africans based upon the instinctive knowledge (memory of Australian Aborigines) they took with them when they left Africa during the UP. Unlike northern Eurasians, Black-Asians RETAINED this African instinct in tandem with an essentially African physiology.
——————————————————————————–
Posts: 655 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006 | IP: Logged |

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins

Printer-friendly view of this topic Hop To: Select a Forum: Visiting Egypt Living in Egypt Ancient Egypt and Egyptology Music & Movies Politics Doing Business in Egypt Eat like an Egyptian Share Your Egyptian Experiences/Love & Marriage chat Religion Classifieds Egyptians Living Abroad Locate a friend or business in Egypt

Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

12 Responses to “THE SUMERIANS AND OTHERS IN THE “NEAR EAST” WERE BLACK! FROM EGYPTSEARCH.COM”

  1. Dan Bennett Says:

    Recieved some good information for further research. By the trend of the conversation it may seem a moot point to ask, but I still need some clarity: which civilisation came first Egyptian or Mesopotamian? The latest textbooks I have and much of the current scholarship gives precedence to Mesopotamian Civilisation. Much has been discussed here, very intelligently, regarding the common root of these civilisations. But dates have seemingly been pushed back to make the ‘fertile Cresent’ the origin of civilisation. And Catalhuyuk, in ancient Turkey, is being represented as the first city in many textbooks.

  2. dana marniche Says:

    Chatal Huyuk Sumer and Egypt were occupied by various people of Sub-Saharan and East African affiliation. The large Ubaidian types whom A. Sayce discovered to be Negroid had Natufian skeletal markings. The Halaf, Chatal Huyuk, Jericho and many of the neolithic groups around the Levan appear from their rock art and skeletal categorization to have been affiliated with taller East African types which Europeans liked to call Hamitic. While the shorter more gracile ones were supposedly connected to Nile Valley Mushabians.
    Archeology shows the people of Mesopotamia (and Zagros) and the Nile Valley were in contact with each other from a very early time period using tokens with similar markings that would become the early Egyptian hieroglyphs and Sumerian cuneiform as well. (Denise Schmandt-Beeserat, 1978 , The Earliest Precursor of Writing” in Prehistoric Times published by Freeman and Company. ) The tokens are said to date from the 9th millenium B.C. This continuity stretched to much further east as well. These reigions may have arisen simultaneously during the mesolithic.

  3. dana marniche Says:

    Actually meant to say the tokens would become early Elamite and Sumerian cuneiform, not the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs.

  4. Dan Bennett Says:

    Thanks for the info. Seems coherent. Will look into the matter further. I basically understand the ethnic and racial similarities and affliations in customs and culture. What I’m not getting, and from what you have stated, it is probably not all that important, is the dating of the earliest civilisation and whether it was Egytian or Sumerian. Yes, and I know the whole concept of who was the first people to become civilised depends upon our definition of civilisation. Another point is if the evidence proves that these different but culturally contected regions were populated by the same brown or black skinned africoid people why are high school history textbooks representing the inhabitants of Catal Huyuk as light skinned, bulbuous nosed asiatics or europeans either in paintings or through alabaster statues?

  5. Bill Games Says:

    There is some evidence for an early black civilization–the Sumerians very description of themselves!

    I’ve got a list of Sumerian words from the online PSD. It seems very strange to me few seemed of noticed this. I think it proves the case but I wish someone from the establishment would explain the traditional criteria for the translation that’s all over the internet.

    It seems suspicious that mainstream scholars want to avoid the question of phenotypes now when it comes to what the Sumerians and other first peoples might’ve looked like because genetics has proven we’re all human. This leaves the door open to suspicions that this is just another cover up, denial of facts, a mistranslation or not a proper translation of “black faced” or “black skinned”, a neutral choice is “black headed” to avoid being found out later perhaps, or embarrassed, I don’t quite understand this strange choice, if they wanted to cover it up they should’ve done so completely–perhaps it is unconscious, because if I’m not mistaken the translator (s) apparently had a choice of which terms to use. Instead they selected “head” with the hopes that people will misconstrue it as meaning hair which seems to be what has happened.

    I didn’t know a choice was involved until I checked the PSD.

    This is indeed an odd construction. It seems inconsistent with albeit our modern perception that the main feature, hair in this argument, would then make them call themselves the “dark haired” people rather than “black headed” people unless of course they suffered from black heads, a little levity there. Saying it is just a modern perception proves nothing if we don’t find other such odd constructions. There are a number of Old Babylonian words for hair so it isn’t that they lacked terms for hair why they would refer to the head alone.
    On one message board afrocentrics asserted that it meant the Sumerians were originally from Africa. A fellow responded with the view that it referred only to their hair, beards. Though this was a good point, I wasn’t convinced. The Sumerians some say liked shaving their heads to avoid lice and so wore wigs. We see shaven headed Sumerians sculpture. Hair is not that important to have except as wigs.
    So in order to prove that “black-headed” refers solely to brunettes, a dark “haired people”, it begs the question why we see Sumerians with shaved heads and no references or emphasis in texts of hair shaving being somehow “bad” or dark hair being a significant trait, praised, well regarded etc. Dark hair is never emphazied as being unique contrasted against foreign peoples who are not dark haired—and, given the region of Irag, Turkey, and Iran today, and the assumptions of permnent whiteness there now, “dark hair” being something unqiue there is impossible, it shouldn’t stand out at all if it was the substance of their persons. Substance hair is the body itself–since it defines who they are—if the emphasis is not there in other texts, why is this emphasis “head” used to describe their whole culture or their persons as a group, why would it matter to them to be described as “black-headed” with the current persumption that it means dark haired?

    Their darkness had to have regional significance if they were in contact with a different group or it’s a memory of ancestors who were in fact blacks of some sort.
    Psychologically a people that is dark haired, so obsessed with coiffure, beards, wigs etc. to name their ancestor thus, wouldn’t leave the hair part out of a description like their heads, and this is ironic given the Assyrians fancy hairstylings later…it’s not logical, it doesn’t make sense, this translation is an avoidance fear of the word “person” as the right choice. And we have in the dictionary this saĝgiga [HUMANKIND] (4x: Old Babylonian) wr. saĝ-gig2-ga “humankind” Akk. şalmat qaqqadi …how is this related to the standard use of the phrase “black-headed”?

    Here we have:

    saĝ [HEAD] (3582x: ED IIIa, ED IIIb, Old Akkadian, Lagash II, Ur III, Early Old Babylonian, Old Babylonian, unknown) wr. saĝ “head; person; capital” Akk. qaqqadu; rēšu

    Is the semi-colon after the first there to suggest that each is a distinct term; they’re not saying the head is {head-person-capital” all as one compound word, therefore a choice here is not arbitrary, no, a sensible choice has to be made for which of the three is most meaningful, is going to be applied to the next part which is:

    giggi [BLACK] (941x: ED IIIa, Ur III, Early Old Babylonian, Old Babylonian, 1st millennium) wr. giggi; gi6-gi6 “(to be) black” Akk. şalmu

    Which makes more sense saying black person or black headed? I don’t like to do an arm-chair psychoanalysis of individuals I don’t know but a recent study of white children shown images of whiteness to gradations of brown down to black consistently more often than not chose the whitest for all things good and the darkest for dumb, ugly, bad…is picking “head” some knee jerk translators reaction against the unconscious implication of “person”…”to be black persons–mankind” which seems like the correct translation to me.

    As to heads with hair we have sikipa [HEAD-HAIR] (4x: Old Babylonian) wr. siki-pa “head hair” but I don’t know where the Sumerian is, if this is it or not, as a loan word or a translation so I’m not sure how this relates. I wish Sumerians scholar a black Sumerian scholar would write on this phrase honestly. I’m not Sumerian scholar and this is speculative but based on the dictionary online.

    What other types of phrases appear so similar to this one in Sumerian texts, that is a phrase that disregards particulars, as this does skin, skull, hair and eyes while it absurdly separates one part of the anatomy, in this case, the head from the hair and the skin etc., to offer a vague description of appearance, vital here supposedly in terms of asserting Sumerian differences, that is their calling themselves “black-headed”) what does that mean? Black hair, black scalp, black scarves, black hats? And yet separated from the rest of the body, it’s anomalous and feels like translation noise or ambiguity which smells of racism. Is there any wiggle room on this translation to either hair or to skin? None. What are the words for hair and skin, and types of skin if any? The PSD offer words for skin, and people, brown and yet these are not used to describe a tribe, a family, a unique group, mountain people, plains people etc. What other peoples in history now or then described themselves so uniquely and yet so vaguely?

    I would think a fair and honest explanation of this one phrase would help provide a context for better informed debate or settle the matter.

    “dumusaĝ [FIRST-BORN] (66x: ED IIIb, Lagash II, Ur III, Old Babylonian) wr. dumu-saĝ “first-born”….It seems also that head is used to mean first in a series….”dubsaĝ [BEFORE] (76x: Old Akkadian, Ur III, Old Babylonian) wr. dub-saĝ “first; before” Akk. mahrû; qudmu”

    saĝgiga [HUMANKIND] (4x: Old Babylonian) wr. saĝ-gig2-ga “humankind” Akk. şalmat qaqqadi

    If I’m not mistaken, if I’m not misunderstanding the grammatical complexity here “sag” then isn’t just “head” meaning skull, face etc, the body part alone but can be “first”, first humankind? You see “sag” being used this way in other compound uses. Notice in the standard translation they don’t relate this to the word giggi…I don’t understand if salmat is related to salmu though it appears it might be or giggi relates to giga…I don’t know if it means “black mankind”. But I suspect it does.

    giggi [BLACK] (941x: ED IIIa, Ur III, Early Old Babylonian, Old Babylonian, 1st millennium) wr. giggi; gi6-gi6 “(to be) black” Akk. Şalmu

    Nevertheless to say “black-headed people” is not conclusive or necessary because there are other choices, the translator can select one of three items, “head”; “person”; “capital”; given those three choices and a fourth if “head” (capital, chief) as “sag” can also mean first, so it is foolish for racist to think or assume so confidently that it means a description of “dark haired” peoples, and this assumption is all over the internet; as I said there are words for hair at least in the Sumerian Dictionary in terms of Sumerian versions in Akkadian and Babylonian. To be black headed, what does black headed mean…when there are three choices given for Sag: head 3582x: ED IIIa, ED IIIb, Old Akkadian, Lagash II, Ur III, Early Old Babylonian, Old Babylonian, unknown) wr. saĝ “head; person; capital” Akk. qaqqadu; rēšu:
    head;person;capital…is the choice of head over the others a substitute for “person”?
    It’s not even clear if head in the accepted translation means chief or it means the skull, “first blacks”–it’s not clear what usage of “head” is being put forward here, the head of the line, the head of mankind etc. so to dismiss afrocentric concerns of faulty translation in this and other cases is not warranted…and which makes more logical sense, person or head—why would the ancients leave out the rest of their body and why is it that there is no emphasis on hair, beards etc as in phrases such as “the dark haired” ones, the “hairy ones”, “black hairs”, the “bearded fathers” etc., these would be appropriate if the people recognized hair as their distinctive mark, brown or black…it’s dubious that it means hair of any kind given the choices above…I think the mainstream scholars will have to explain what they think “head” itself designates to justify such a vague choice given the other two and more correct choice of “person”. The choice of first is even more profoundly threatening. They must give and answer with a criteria for this choices which seems to allow all sorts of people to assume it measn “dark haired”.

  6. Bill Games Says:

    I was given a clue, told of a phrase, “hairy gods and shaven mortals” relating to the Sumerians which also suggests that the assumption “black headed” means “dark haired” is even more unlikely since they used hair specifically to describe their gods in this phrase.

    But I don’t know the source for this phrase that seems related to the Sumerians and their gods. Hair was significant as it relates to the gods apparantly but not as it relates to mortals or the Sumerians would’ve called themselves outright the “dark-haired ones”, “children of the hairy ones”? Given that they liked shaving their heads to avoid lice. I think if it was really hair we’d hear about it already. But all we have is “black-headed” and assumption that it means hair.

  7. Bill Games Says:

    Perhaps hairy gods and shaven mortals relates to a Sumerian story? Any clues to the source of a supposd contrast between shaven heads and hairy gods?

    Personally I believe that the gods and goddesses of many peoples were their deified ancestors.

  8. Bill Games Says:

    Here an interest bit of commentary on the occurance of black in love poetry, this is a passage from “Figurative Language in the Near East” edited by Mindlin, Geller, Wansbrough…from the article on the Devotion:

    maš-ku naq-lat ki-ma di-q[a-ri]
    UnDiv 120 B 15–16

    She was white, like a gecko,
    Her skin was burnt, like a pot.

    The second word of the second line quoted is difficult, but since nak-lat ‘she was well made’ is improbable, naqlât ‘burnt’ is at least possible when the simile ‘like a pot’ can be explained from Maqlû III, 116 (cf. III, 172): a-leq-qa-kim-ma ša utūni dik-mi-nu ša diqāri I will take against you slag from a kiln, soot from a pot. The diqāru here is clearly a cooking pot which gets coated with soot from the fire, so black colour is implied, which, in the Love Lyrics, forms a suitable (if to us perhaps
    illogical) contrast to ‘white’ of the preceding line. Dark skin as a mark of beauty may occur in the Hebrew Song of Songs 1.5: literally ‘I am black and comely’, which can equally be rendered ‘I am black but/yet comely’.

    The two interpretations are of course contradictory, the first implying that the blackness is a mark of comeliness, the other that
    despite the blackness she is comely. The Love Lyrics support the first, but more evidence is needed. Finally, lovers can be so moved that they see the architecture and furniture participating in the welcome (or grief) over the beloved. Ištar, in proposing marriage to Gilgamesh, promises:

  9. Bill Games Says:

    You can see how whites interpreting the Sumerian texts can freely discusses all sorts of nuances and so forth related to construction and usage but when others try to show and discus the same when it comes to the implications of certain words and usage they are shouted down as black racists…the presumption of whites is so great that the clues to a black presence in the Near East is dismissed something illogical, they cannot even conceive of the idea, they don’t notice what it could possible mean logically.

  10. Bill Games Says:

    This from another article in Figurative Language in the Near East, the article that start with the title A Riding Tooth…here is confirmation that “head” doesnt mean hair…

    The words for head, Sumerian saĝ, Akkadian qaqqadum and rēšum, are extremely productive in the metaphoric (catachrestic) creation of new terms. I only refer to the use of ‘head’ for ‘slave’ as in Latin, to saĝ-níĝ-GA-ra=rēš makkūrim for the ‘available capital accounted for’ on account tablets which at least once is referred to in an Old Babylonian
    letter (in the accusative) as qaqqadī kaspim ‘the heads of (the) silver’.8 Related to this is Sumerian dub—saĝ ‘tablet head’ for the beginning of a cuneiform tablet9, and, once more transferred, used for ‘beginning’ in general.10 The beginning of a period may be called its ‘head’ as in kaqqad ebūrim11, ‘beginning of the harvest time’. In yet another letter we find the head in the adverbial accusative rēšam, ‘in the beginning’.12
    An area abounding in metaphoric terminology is the scholarly language of extispicy. On a sheep’s liver we find such structures as a city (or palace) gate with its door jambs

  11. Dan Bennett Says:

    Interesting insights Mr. Games. They may require some linguistic and assyriological expertise to develop further and answer thoroughly. I have just finished reading chapters 1-3 of Black Arabia & The African Origin of Islam. And in his book the scholar Wesley Muhammad has presented information using older and some of the most recent scholarship detailing the linguistic, archaeological, historic, genetic, etc. evidence and or arguments for an Afriasian(black) Arabian, Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Indian origin and development. I’m not finished the book and have to see where the gentleman is going with his analysis but it bears somewhat on the subject you discuss; which is of interest to many honest researchers. Dana Marniche who commented on some important and related issues above may be interested in this or aware of this book or it’s author also; her scholarship is referenced in the book. One of my main queries was which civilisation came first Egyptian or Sumerian. Muhammad posits Afrabia as the founder of Sumerian civilization and as a contributor to Egyptian early settlement and develop. The problem here is the predominate africentric veiw point for many years now has been that east/west Africans moving into the Sahara around 100,000 B. C., when the area was well watered and had many animals and lush vegetation, developed the rudiments of that would later go into the the Egyptian civilisation (ox drawn carts, chariots?, perhaps pictographic writing, animal husbandry, settled agricultural, and hunting communities, etc.) long before the Arabian Peninsula or any other area developed these things. The book, so far, is interesting and the scholarship impressive but the conclusion, after the author plows through books, and scholarly journals, unpublished manuscripts, other publications, and Internet articles, is basically in line with the Africentric veiw only Afrabia becomes the origin of ancient black civilisation.

  12. head lice treatment Says:

    home remedies for head lice…

    [...]THE SUMERIANS AND OTHERS IN THE “NEAR EAST” WERE BLACK! FROM EGYPTSEARCH.COM « BLACK IS BEAUTIFUL![...]…

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,654 other followers

%d bloggers like this: