The case for black Mesopotamians

[Brandon S. Pilcher]

I used to think that ancient Mesopotamian peoples such as the Sumerians, Akkadians, and Amorites were all olive-skinned like Iraqis living today, but now I am convinced that, at least in the beginning, they were black people.

First, we have evidence from Persian art of black people living in areas adjacent to Mesopotamia, namely the Elamites. Below, a photograph of a Persian depiction of an Elamite:



Since these Elamites lived at a similar latitude to early Mesopotamian peoples such as the Sumerians, it is reasonable to conclude that the early Mesopotamians themselves were also black, since they would have experienced similar amounts of UV rays.

Genetic data, combined with history, also implies a black origin of Mesopotamians. According to Heather L. Norton and Rick A. Kittles in their study “Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians”:

The frequency of the SLC24A5 111*A allele outside of Europe is largely accounted for by high frequencies in geographically proximate populations in northern Africa, the Middle East, and Pakistan (ranging from 62% to 100%).

The virtual absence of MATP 374*G–derived allele in the sub-Saharan African populations that we examined in the CEPH-Diversity Panel is consistent with the origin of this mutation outside of Africa after the divergence of modern Asians and Europeans. In contrast, the SLC24A5 111*A–derived allele is found at low frequencies in several sub-Saharan populations including the West African Mandenka and Yoruba, the Southern African San , and SouthWest Bantu. The relatively high frequencies of the derived allele in Central Asian, Middle Eastern, and North Africa seem likely to be due to gene flow with European populations.

When did this particular allele, originating in Europe but now so widespread in Southwest Asia, first appear?



What this means is that the Southwest Asians of today are olive-skinned because they have inherited a European gene that appeared no earlier than 12,000 years ago, and perhaps as recently as 5,300 years ago, well after civilization was first established in Mesopotamia and adjacent regions. For this gene to have become so widespread in Southwest Asia today, there must have been a large influx of Europeans into the region within the last 12,000 years, maybe even within the last 5,300 years.

The earliest movement of Europeans into Southwest Asia that I can think of is the Indo-European expansion, mapped here:



Red represents areas settled by Indo-Europeans up to 2500 BC, and orange the area settled by Indo-Europeans up to 1000 BC. As you can see, while we do have an Indo-European presence in northern Anatolia before 2500 BC, it isn't until 2500-1000 BC that the Indo-European presence in Southwest Asia becomes significant. Assuming the spread of Indo-European languages involved major population movements, it appears that it wasn't until well after Southwest Asian civilization had been established that large numbers of light-skinned people were in the area.

Before these white migrations, the inhabitants of Mesopotamia were probably black or at least very dark-skinned. Therefore, the first civilizations in the Near East can be considered to be black civilizations.

[anansi]

See the first Europeans in the video section
egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=pav&action=display&thread=47



In 8000 B.C. the Natufians -- a hunting-gathering people -- lived in the region around Jericho and the Dead Sea. They were first to cultivate this new mutation -- this modern wheat. They became the first farmers.

By then, the climate had been warming for 2000 years. Once the area had been fairly lush. Now it grew arid. Game moved north. The vegetation changed. But the wild grains did well in the drier climate. The Natufians began eating a lot more grain.

And here we come to a great riddle. How did modern wheat replace those wild grains? Isolated mutations died without human help. Was some human clever enough to recognize and pick out that lone stalk of fat wheat in a field of grain?

We used to think so. But maybe the drama played out in quite a different way. By 8000 B.C. the Natufians needed much more grain. They probably began doing some planting to create it. Once they did, the fat wheat had its chance. It was easier to harvest. The seeds stayed in place when you cut it. Every time the Natufians harvested seed, they got proportionately more of the mutations. They lost more of the wild grain.

It took only a generation or so of that before a single mutation took over. The result was an unexpected wedding. In no time at all, modern wheat dominated the fields. And that was both a blessing and a curse.

The Natufians unwittingly replaced the old wild wheat with far richer food. But it was a food that could survive only by their continued intervention. No more lilies of the field. From now on we would live better, but we would also be forever bound to this wonderful new food by the new technology of agriculture.

I'm John Lienhard, at the University of Houston, where we're interested in the way inventive minds work.

Let's see what physical anthropologists said they looked like:

"They were clearly a Negroid people, said Sir Arthur, with wide faces flat- noses and long large heads." 1932 NY Times (Discovery of the Natufians)

Larry Angel (1972): "one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters.(McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians..."

C.L. Brace (2005): "If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element."

From Djheuti...on E/S



The Natufian Culture One of the most remarkable ornaments is a collar from El Wad with twenty-five fragments of dentalia separating a particular type of bone bead, bilobate, called "twin-pendants" by D. Garrod. The elements of the necklace were found massed below the mandible and on the chest of an adult male subject (H.23), lying face down, with his knees bent up to the left of the skull. This same individual wore a decoration of dentalia on his forehead and a band of dentalia round one of his femurs. He was accompanied by another adult in the same position. Beneath them lay a young child. The tomb had been filled with stones. by François Valla and Ofer Bar Yosef
www.picturesofrecord.com/Natufian%2070.htm

[homeylu]

Truthcentric, you and others need to be careful before we venture off and hi-jack another civilization and define what you mean when you say the Mesopotamians were BLACK. Are you using the American social definition of Black or some other definition based solely on skin color?

Is there evidence to suggest that this civilization had origins in 'Tropical Africa', if so, it would be useful to provide the genetic studies to support this argument.

Otherwise, using your logic; all humans in Europe and Northern Asia were "Black" prior to 12,000 years ago, and I'm sorry but it makes for a very weak argument.


Anansi: I think you are proposing a separate thesis, which is that the Natufian culture is of African (more likely tropical African) origins.

Now would either one of you, or a third person, please tie the two arguments together. Is it being implied that the Natufian cultures is responsible for the Mesopotamian culture because it predates it by several thousand years? Or that it is responsible because they both lie in close proximity to eachother? is there a definitive relationship between the Jarmo culture and the Natufian culture? Or is there no relationship at all, and two separate arguments are simply being proposed for no reason whatsoever? Please clarify.

[Brandon S. Pilcher]

Apr 9, 2010 13:17:38 GMT -5 homeylu said:

Truthcentric, you and others need to be careful before we venture off and hi-jack another civilization and define what you mean when you say the Mesopotamians were BLACK. Are you using the American social definition of Black or some other definition based solely on skin color?

Is there evidence to suggest that this civilization had origins in 'Tropical Africa', if so, it would be useful to provide the genetic studies to support this argument.

Otherwise, using your logic; all humans in Europe and Northern Asia were "Black" prior to 12,000 years ago, and I'm sorry but it makes for a very weak argument.

By "black", I don't mean "recent origin from tropical Africa", I mean "dark-skinned". By this definition, southern Indians, Papuans, Australian aborigines, and Melanesians would qualify as black.

[homeylu]

Apr 9, 2010 14:29:02 GMT -5 Brandon S. Pilcher said:

By "black", I don't mean "recent origin from tropical Africa", I mean "dark-skinned". By this definition, southern Indians, Papuans, Australian aborigines, and Melanesians would qualify as black.

Thanks for the clarification. But I am still confused as to the basis of your argument, and how the posted picture supports your position.

You argue: " As you can see, while we do have an Indo-European presence in northern Anatolia before 2500 BC, it isn't until 2500-1000 BC that the Indo-European presence in Southwest Asia becomes significant."

Yet you accompany this argument with a picture of an Elamite soldier from King Darius' palace dated around 500 b.c. Is it your implication with this photo that remnants of these 'Black-skinned' Asians were still around even after the spread of "Indo-European" whiteness became more SIGNIFICANT??? Clarification please.

[anansi]

Apr 9, 2010 13:17:38 GMT -5 homeylu said:

Truthcentric, you and others need to be careful before we venture off and hi-jack another civilization and define what you mean when you say the Mesopotamians were BLACK. Are you using the American social definition of Black or some other definition based solely on skin color?

Is there evidence to suggest that this civilization had origins in 'Tropical Africa', if so, it would be useful to provide the genetic studies to support this argument.

Otherwise, using your logic; all humans in Europe and Northern Asia were "Black" prior to 12,000 years ago, and I'm sorry but it makes for a very weak argument.


Anansi: I think you are proposing a separate thesis, which is that the Natufian culture is of African (more likely tropical African) origins.

Now would either one of you, or a third person, please tie the two arguments together. Is it being implied that the Natufian cultures is responsible for the Mesopotamian culture because it predates it by several thousand years? Or that it is responsible because they both lie in close proximity to eachother? is there a definitive relationship between the Jarmo culture and the Natufian culture? Or is there no relationship at all, and two separate arguments are simply being proposed for no reason whatsoever? Please clarify.

Ok!! Homeylu ..here is a portion of an interview given by Christoher Ehret.

You will see was not an either or aether proposition that they were Africans or non African..Blacks for with the spread of the Afrisan languages into the"Middle East" roughly the same time as the Natufians. bringing with them their god concept and over-laying it with what ever was there before.

WHC: You describe two other groups. One of them is the Afrasans. Can you talk about them for a moment?

Ehret: These are people who have been called Afro-Asiatic and also Afrasian. I'm saying "Afrasan" because I'm trying to get "Asia" out. There is still this idea that the Afro-Asiatic family had to come out of Asia. Once you realize that it's an African family with one little Asian offshoot, well, that itself is a very important lesson for world historians.

We actually have DNA evidence which fits very well with an intrusion of people from northwestern African into southwestern Asia. The Y-chromosome markers, associated with the male, fade out as you go deeper into the Middle East.

Another thing about the Afrasans: their religious beliefs. Anciently, each local group had its own supreme deity. This is called "henotheism." In this kind of religion, you have your own god to whom you show your allegiance. But you realize that other groups have their own deities. The fact that they have deities different from yours doesn't mean their deities don't exist.

This kind of belief still exists. It's fading, maybe on its last legs, in southeastern Ethiopia, among people of the Omati group. They descend from the earliest split in the Semitic family. Way up in the mountains, they have this henotheism. They have a deity of their clan, or their small group of closely related clans. They have their priest-chief who has to see to the rites of that deity.

We see the same kind of thing in ancient Egypt. If we go to there, we discover that the Egyptian gods began as local gods. With Egyptian unification, we move from this henotheism to polytheism. To unify Egypt, after all, you have to co-opt the loyalty of local groups and recognize their gods. We have no direct evidence, but it's certainly implied by the things we learn about the gods in the written records we do have.

20

WHC: You seem to be suggesting that the Semitic monotheism ­ Jewish, Christian and Islamic monotheism ­ descends from African models. Is that fair?

Ehret: Yeah, actually it is. Look at the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." It's not like the Muslim creed, which is "There is no God but God." It's doesn't say "there is no god but Yahweh, and Moses is his prophet." It is an admittance that there are other gods. It is an example of henotheism. And the Hebrew tribes are like the Omati clan groups. The tribes are clans writ larger. Like the Omati clans, they track their ancestry back ten or fifteen generations to a common ancestor. And these common ancestors were twelve brothers. (Actually, there are thirteen. They have to turn two of them, Ephraim and Manasseh, into half tribes, because thirteen wasn't a good number. I always loved that. There are really thirteen tribes, but you have to combine two of them).

The Canaanite cities have an alternative Semitic structure: polytheism. There's Astarte and Baal and the various gods that you'll find in South Arabia. So it looks like in the early Semitic world, you have two coexisting religions. You have polytheism among the ones who are really more urbanized. Then you have henotheistic groups.

What I see here is that earlier Middle Eastern polytheism is influencing Semitic religion. After all, the early Semites were just a few Africans arriving to find a lot of other people already in the area. So they're going to have to accommodate. Some groups, maybe ones who live in peripheries, in areas with lower population densities, may be able to impose the henotheistic religion they arrived with.

21

WHC: How does a small group of Semites coming in from Africa transform the language of a region in which they are a minority?

Ehret: One of the archaeological possibilities is a group called the Mushabaeans. This group moves in on another group that's Middle Eastern. Out of this, you get the Natufian people. Now, we can see in the archaeology that people were using wild grains the Middle East very early, back into the late glacial age, about 18,000 years ago. But they were just using these seeds as they were. At the same time, in this northeastern corner of Africa, another people ­ the Mushabaeans? ­ are using grindstones along the Nile, grinding the tubers of sedges. Somewhere along the way, they began to grind grain as well. Now, it's in the Mushabian period that grindstones come into the Middle East.

Conceivably, with a fuller utilization of grains, they're making bread. We can reconstruct a word for "flatbread," like Ethiopian injira. This is before proto-Semitic divided into Ethiopian and ancient Egyptian languages. So, maybe, the grindstone increases how fully you use the land. This is the kind of thing we need to see more evidence for. We need to get people arguing about this.

And by the way: we can reconstruct the word for "grindstone" back to the earliest stage of Afrasan. Even the Omati have it. And there are a lot of common words for using grasses and seeds.
worldhistoryconnected.press.illinois.edu/2.1/ehret.html
really nice^check it out..

But I do believe that the Sumerians different language group were Black Asians possibly related to Dravidian ..the original Semetic speakers were Blacks from Africa.

As per the Sumerians they did not seem to be of so-called olive-skinned complexion..at-least not by their writings

Lament For Urim

The scorching potsherds made the dust glow (?) -- the people groan. He swept the winds over the black-headed people -- the people groan. Sumer was overturned by a snare -- the people groan. It attacked (?) the Land and devoured it completely. Tears cannot influence the bitter storm -- the people groan.

The Land's judgment disappeared -- the people groan. The Land's counsel was swallowed by a swamp -- the people groan. The mother absconded before her child's eyes -- the people groan. The father turned away from his child -- the people groan. In the city the wife was abandoned, the child was abandoned, possessions were scattered about. The black-headed people were carried off from their strongholds. Its queen like a bird in fright departed from her city. Ningal like a bird in fright departed from her city. All the treasures accumulated in the Land were defiled. In all the storehouses abounding in the Land fires were kindled. In its ponds Gibil, the purifier, relentlessly did his work

The storm which knows no mother, the storm which knows no father, the storm which knows no wife, the storm which knows no child, the storm which knows no sister, the storm which knows no brother, the storm which knows no neighbour, the storm which knows no female companion, the storm which caused the wife to be abandoned, which caused the child to be abandoned, the storm which caused the light in the Land to disappear, the storm which swept through, ordered in hate by Enlil -- father Nanna, may that storm swoop down no more on your city. May your black-headed people see it no more.

411-416May that storm, like rain pouring down from heaven, never recur. May that storm, which struck down all the black-headed living beings of heaven and earth, be entirely destroyed. May the door be closed on it, like the great city-gate at night-time. May that storm not be given a place in the reckoning, may its record be hung from a nail outside the house of Enlil.
41710th kirugu.
www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/section2/tr222.htm
See entire text interesting read.

[homeylu]

O.k. Anansi, I get your point; correct me if I'm wrong.

You are basically stating that earlier Mesopotamia was strictly a semitic speaking kingdom which language derived from a small group leaving Africa, and later it transformed into an Indo-Irania (Indo-European) kingdom with the Hittite invasions. So through languages and sometimes religion, we can tie the two above kingdoms together. Is this what you're stating?

I was already aware that the semitic language spoken in Ethiopian was older than the ones spoken in Asia by 1000 years. But after the split, I've always assumed the different versions continued to evolve on their own.

I completely agree that Afroasiatic, should simply be termed Afrasan, as it is rarely spoken outside the African continent. But I supposed I don't understand enough about languages to understand how the spread of a particular language branch could somehow be responsible for the culture that adopted the language. As I assumed and I stand to be corrected by someone more versed in languages, that they were 2 separate branches of Semitic languages, one that continued to evolve within Africa, and one that evolved outside of Africa in Asia for example.

[anansi]

Apr 10, 2010 7:15:45 GMT -5 homeylu said:

O.k. Anansi, I get your point; correct me if I'm wrong.

You are basically stating that earlier Mesopotamia was strictly a semitic speaking kingdom which language derived from a small group leaving Africa, and later it transformed into an Indo-Irania (Indo-European) kingdom with the Hittite invasions. So through languages and sometimes religion, we can tie the two above kingdoms together. Is this what you're stating?

I was already aware that the semitic language spoken in Ethiopian was older than the ones spoken in Asia by 1000 years. But after the split, I've always assumed the different versions continued to evolve on their own.

I completely agree that Afroasiatic, should simply be termed Afrasan, as it is rarely spoken outside the African continent. But I supposed I don't understand enough about languages to understand how the spread of a particular language branch could somehow be responsible for the culture that adopted the language. As I assumed and I stand to be corrected by someone more versed in languages, that they were 2 separate branches of Semitic languages, one that continued to evolve within Africa, and one that evolved outside of Africa in Asia for example.

Well kinda..I wouldn't called the earlier Semitic speakers from Africa a" Kingdom" ..at that stage more like a tribe or more likely a collection of tribes that shared a language and perhaps similar culture that wondered into the so-called Middle East/Mesopotamia but yes they would mixed with indo-Iranic speakers caution( Indo Iranic or Indo Ayran ) does not equal whites..although it did include whites,

[clydewin98]

Rawlinson was convinced that there was a relationship between the Sumerians and Africans. As a result he used two African languages: one Semitic and the other Cushitic to decipher the cuneiform writing. Rawlinson was sure that the ancient Nubians and Puntites founded Mesopotamian civilization.(1)

The Sumerians came from the Sahara before it became a desert. Affinities exist between Nubia ware and pottery from Ennedi and Tibesti.

These Saharan people were round-headed ancient Mediterranean type. They were often referred to as Cafsa or Capsians; a group of people not devoid of negroid characteristics according to J Desanges.(11) Wyatt MacGaffey, claims that the term "Mediterranean" is an anthropological euphemism for "Negro".

The boats of the Saharan people are similar to those found on ancient engravings of boats in Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley. Many of the boats found in the eastern desert of Egypt and among the Red Sea Hills show affinities to Mesopotamian models.

S.N. Kramer in The Sumerians, claimed that Makan was Egypt, Mekluhha was Nubia-Punt, and the Indus Valley was Dilmun. Today Dilmun is believed to be found near Arabia. But the archaeological evidence suggest that the Indus Valley which was settled by Dravidian speakers was the source of the lapis lazuli , which made Dilmun famous .(2)

Archaeological research has confirmed that cultural interaction existed between the contemporary civilizations of the 4th and 3rd millenia B.C. Extensive trade routes connected the Proto-Dravidians of the Indus Valley, with African people in Egypto-Nubia, and the Elamites and Sumerians. P. Kohl discovered that vessels from IVBI worshop at Tepe Yahya, have a uniform shape and design. Vessels sharing this style are distributed from Soviet Uzbekistan to the Indus Valley, and Sumerian, Elamite and Egyptian sites. (2) In addition, we find common arrowheads at Harappan sites, and sites in Iran, Egypt, Minoan Crete and Heladic Greece.

It appears that the locus for this distribution of cultural traditions and technology was the Saharan-Nubian zone or Kush. This would explain why the Sumerians and Elamites often referred to themselves as "ksh". For example the ancient Sumerians called their dynasty "Kish". The words "kish", "kesh" and "kush" were also names for ancient Nubia-Sudan.

The Elamites also came from Kush. According to the classical writer Strabo, Susa the centre of the Elamite civilization was founded by Tithonus, king of Kush.

B.B. Lal has shown conclusively that the Dravidians came from Nubia and were related to the C-Group people who founded the Kerma dynasty.(3) They both used a common black-and-red ware (BRW) which Lal found was analogous to ceramics used by the megalithic people in India who also used analogous pottery signs identical to those found in the corpus of Indus Valley writing. (4)


Singh believes that this pottery spread from Nubia, through Mesopotamia and Iran southward into India.(5) The earliest examples of this BRW date to the Amratian period (c4000-3500 B.C.).

This same BRW was found at the lowest levels of Harappan sites at Lothal and Rangpur. After 1700 B.C. This ceramic tradition spread southward into megalithic India.(6) It is also found in Uzbekistan and China. (12)

Dilmun was an important source of lapis lazuli. If the Indus Valley civilization was Dilmun as hypothesized by Kramer, it would explain the control of the Harappans/ or Dilmunites of this important metal.

The Indus Valley people spoke a Dravidian language.(7) The Harappans controlled the lazurite region of Badakhshan, and the routes to the tin and copper fields of central Asia.(8)

The major city of the Harappans/Dilmunites in the lapis lazuli region was Shortughai. Francefort believes that many lapis lazuli works were transported to Iran and Mesopotamia from Shortughai.(9) The BRW at Shortughai is typically Harappan.

When we put all of this evidence together we must agree that there is some historical evidence for a connection between the NKSD people. These people used similar arrow heads, red-and-black pottery, and intercultural vessels.This shows the common culture of these people.

Footnotes

(1)C.B. Rawlinson, "Notes on the early history of Babylon", Jour. Royal Asiatic Society (First Series) 15, p.230.

(2). Philip L. Kohl, "The balance of trade in the mid-Third millenium BC", Current Anthropology, 19 (1978), pp.463-492.

(3)B.B. Lal, "From megalithic to the Harappan: Tracing back the graffiti on pottery", Ancient India, 16 (1960).

(4)B.B. Lal, "The only Asian mission in threatened Nubia", The Illustrated London Times, 20 April 1963.

(5) H.N. Singh, History and Archaeology of Black-and-Red Ware , Delhi, 1982.

(6) C.A. Winters, "The Dravido-Harappan Colonization of Central Asia", Central Asiatic Journal , 34 (1-2), pp.120-144.

(7) C.A. Winters, "The Dravidian language of the Harappan script", Archiv Orientalni, (1990).

(8) B. Brenjes, "On Proto-Elamite Iran", Current Anthropology, 24 (2) (1984), pp. 240-.

(9) Henri-Paul Franceport, "La civilisation de l'Indus aux rives de l'Oxus", Archeologie , (Decembre) p.50.

(10) Ibid., p.49.

(11) J. Desnages, "The Proto-Berbers". In General History of Africa vol.2, (Ed.) by G. Mokhtar (Heinemann Educational Books, London) p.25.

(12) Andersson,T.G. 1934. CHILDREN OF THE YELLOW EARTH:STUDIES IN PREHISTORIC CHINA. London.

[clydewin98]

Kushites of Sumer and Akkad


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.

Oppert knew Rawlinson had used African languages to decipher cuneiform writing. But he did not compare the Sumerian to African languages, probably, due to the fact that he knew they were related given Rawlinson's earlier research.

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 ºalmat 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.

[sundiata]

Apr 10, 2010 15:29:25 GMT -5 anansi said:

Apr 10, 2010 7:15:45 GMT -5 homeylu said:

O.k. Anansi, I get your point; correct me if I'm wrong.

You are basically stating that earlier Mesopotamia was strictly a semitic speaking kingdom which language derived from a small group leaving Africa, and later it transformed into an Indo-Irania (Indo-European) kingdom with the Hittite invasions. So through languages and sometimes religion, we can tie the two above kingdoms together. Is this what you're stating?

I was already aware that the semitic language spoken in Ethiopian was older than the ones spoken in Asia by 1000 years. But after the split, I've always assumed the different versions continued to evolve on their own.

I completely agree that Afroasiatic, should simply be termed Afrasan, as it is rarely spoken outside the African continent. But I supposed I don't understand enough about languages to understand how the spread of a particular language branch could somehow be responsible for the culture that adopted the language. As I assumed and I stand to be corrected by someone more versed in languages, that they were 2 separate branches of Semitic languages, one that continued to evolve within Africa, and one that evolved outside of Africa in Asia for example.

Well kinda..I wouldn't called the earlier Semitic speakers from Africa a" Kingdom" ..at that stage more like a tribe or more likely a collection of tribes that shared a language and perhaps similar culture that wondered into the so-called Middle East/Mesopotamia but yes they would mixed with indo-Iranic speakers caution( Indo Iranic or Indo Ayran ) does not equal whites..although it did include whites,

I think that you both are forgetting actually, that the earliest "Mesopotamians" didn't speak Semetic, but scholars generally agree that they spoke Sumerian (which is believed to be a language Isolate).. Akkadian is the first attested Semitic language spoken in the Near East and it didn't appear (at least on local cuneiform) until 2800 B.C.

How the Natufians would tie in, I'm not sure. They would have to have spoken the same language, wouldn't they? Many believe that the Natufians were responsible for the spread of Semitic in the Near East, so Anansi's hypothesis would only be supported by this if we could show that Sumerian was actually an Afro-asiatic language. I believe there has indeed been a few claims made of the sort.

[anansi]

Apr 11, 2010 13:47:41 GMT -5 sundiata said:

Apr 10, 2010 15:29:25 GMT -5 anansi said:

Well kinda..I wouldn't called the earlier Semitic speakers from Africa a" Kingdom" ..at that stage more like a tribe or more likely a collection of tribes that shared a language and perhaps similar culture that wondered into the so-called Middle East/Mesopotamia but yes they would mixed with indo-Iranic speakers caution( Indo Iranic or Indo Ayran ) does not equal whites..although it did include whites,

I think that you both are forgetting actually, that the earliest "Mesopotamians" didn't speak Semetic, but scholars generally agree that they spoke Sumerian (which is believed to be a language Isolate).. Akkadian is the first attested Semitic language spoken in the Near East and it didn't appear (at least on local cuneiform) until 2800 B.C.

How the Natufians would tie in, I'm not sure. They would have to have spoken the same language, wouldn't they? Many believe that the Natufians were responsible for the spread of Semitic in the Near East, so Anansi's hypothesis would only be supported by this if we could show that Sumerian was actually an Afro-asiatic language. I believe there has indeed been a few claims made of the sort.

Well as far as I know the Sumerians came from a different language family,Dr Winters position maybe different... however the Semitic speakers had early contact with the Sumerians after-all it was their language that came to supplant the original Sumerian language after the time of Sargon of Akkad.

And according to Ehret the Natufians were the ones who spread Afroasian language..of which Semitic was a branch.

It is not generally agreed on where Proto-Afro-Asiatic was spoken; Africa (e.g., Igor Diakonoff, Lionel Bender) has often been suggested, particularly Ethiopia based on the high diversity of its Afro-Asiatic languages, but the western Red Sea coast and the Sahara have also been put forward (e.g., Christopher Ehret). Alexander Militarev suggests that their homeland was in the Levant (specifically, he identifies them with the Natufian culture).


The Semitic languages are the only Afro-Asiatic subfamily based outside of Africa; however, in historical or near-historical times, some Semitic speakers crossed from South Arabia back into Ethiopia, so some modern Ethiopian languages (such as Amharic) are Semitic rather than belonging to the substrate Cushitic or Omotic groups. (A minority of academics, e.g. A. Murtonen (1967), dispute this view, suggesting that Semitic may have originated in Ethiopia.)


Tonal languages are found in the Omotic, Chadic, and South & East Cushitic branches of Afro-Asiatic, according to Ehret (1996). The Semitic, Berber and Egyptian branches are not tonal.
www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Afroasiatic-languages

[clydewin98]

Apr 11, 2010 22:24:58 GMT -5 anansi said:

Apr 11, 2010 13:47:41 GMT -5 sundiata said:

Well as far as I know the Sumerians came from a different language family,Dr Winters position maybe different... however the Semitic speakers had early contact with the Sumerians after-all it was their language that came to supplant the original Sumerian language after the time of Sargon of Akkad.

The Sumerian language is related to African and Dravidian (Tamil)languages. Col. Rawlinson deciphered the cuneiform writing using a South Semitic language and Oromo.



ENGLISH SUMERIAN MANDING TAMIL

chief kal,kala kele-tigi gasa(n)

field gan ga kalan

eye(l) igi akki

eye(2) ini,en nya kan

arrow kak kala kakam

granary kur k'ur-k'ur kutir

road sila sila caalai

father pap pa appan

lord manus mansa mannan

male mu moko maakkal

to recite sid siti

to buy sa sa cel

grain se se

seed gen ge 'to sprout'

.

[zarahan]

Mesopotamia - a tropic or arid tropic civilization linked to tropically adapted peoples - "Nordic" Mesopotamia debunked




Nordic Mesopotamia? Across the web Neo-Nazis and Human Biodiversity proponents (HB) wage an arcane war of “racial science” built around claimed superiority of cold-climate “Nordic” peoples. Tropical areas it is claimed produced little civilization until the coming of cold-climate Asiatics and Europeans? But is this “the truth” as claimed?

Natufian negroids who happen to be mediterranean inconsistently claimed... HBD proponents reference Carelton Coon heavily, a supporter of the southern segregationist cause during the 1960s (Caspari 2003). As to the Palestinian area, Coon (1939 'Races of Europe) held that skulls indicate a Mediterranean type with minor negro admixture, although contradictorily noting the prognathism of the specimens gives "a somewhat negroid cast to the face."

"English" Sumerians and "Aryan" stocks claimed: As to the Sumerians, Coon asserted that "Sumerians who lived over five thousand years ago in Mesopotamia are almost identical in skull and face form with living Englishmen."

L. A. Waddell (1930- Egyptian Civilization Its Sumerian Origin..) held that the Nile Valley civilization was due to the Sumerians and that the first dynastic Pharaoh of Egypt, Menes, was identical to the son of Sargon the Great of Sumeria, and that a great empire extended from India in the east to Britain in the west and that it was ruled over by Sargon I and later by his son Manis Tusu, whom he equates with the Menes of the Egyptian kingdom. The actual Sumerians who controlled this world-girdling empire, Waddell maintained, were of blue-eyed Nordic Aryan stock. [quote:]
"The unity as regards type and source of the ancient civilizations of Sumerian Mesopotamia, India, Egypt is in keeping with the physique of the ruling people in all countries, which is shown by their portraits, sculptures and skeletal remains to have been of the long-headed, fair, grey or blue-eyed type recognized by moderns as marking the Aryan section of the caucasian race." (Waddell 1930)

US Anthropologist Carleton Coon (Races of Europe) was to affirm and extend these theories.


------------------------------------------
Debunking 1: Greater Mesopotamia (Palestine, Iraq, Syria, southwestern Iran) falls within the Subtropic/Tropic Arid Zone, NOT the cold-climate zones of Europe or Asia. The subtropics are the geographical and climatic zone of the Earth immediately north and south of the tropical zone, at latitudes 23.5°N and 23.5°S. The Greater Mesopotamian area is assigned to the subtropics or the arid tropics by modern climatologists. (See: Troll and Pfaffen, 1964. ‘Seasonal patterns of the earth and Thompson, A. (1997) Applied climatology: pg 179;

Debunking 2: Peoples of the Palestine area, and the Sumerians did NOT look like cold-clime “white Nordics” or Asiatics. Modern data shows a wide range with links to African sub-Saharan elements.


-------------------------------------------------
DETAILS: THE NATUFIANS


Modern scholars dismiss Carleton Coon's “racial” analysis but confirm the sub-Saharan elements in the Natufians. [quote:]

“A late Pleistocene-early Holocene northward migration (from Africa to the Levant and to Anatolia) of these populations has been hypothesized from skeletal data (Angel 1972, 1973; Brace 2005) and from archaeological data, as indicated by the probable Nile Valley origin of the "Mesolithic" (epi-Paleolithic) Mushabi culture found in the Levant (Bar Yosef 1987). This migration finds some support in the presence in Mediterranean populations (Sicily, Greece, southern Turkey, etc.; Patrinos et al.; Schiliro et al. 1990) of the Benin sickle cell haplotype. This haplotype originated in West Africa and is probably associated with the spread of malaria to southern Europe through an eastern Mediterranean route (Salares et al. 2004) following the expansion of both human and mosquito populations brought about by the advent of the Neolithic transition (Hume et al 2003; Joy et al. 2003; Rich et al 1998).

"This northward migration of northeastern African populations carrying sub-Saharan biological elements is concordant with the morphological homogeneity of the Natufian populations (Bocquentin 2003), which present morphological affinity with sub-Saharan populations (Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005). In addition, the Neolithic revolution was assumed to arise in the late Pleistocene Natufians and subsequently spread into Anatolia and Europe (Bar-Yosef 2002), and the first Anatolian farmers, Neolithic to Bronze Age Mediterraneans and to some degree other Neolithic-Bronze Age Europeans, show morphological affinities with the Natufians (and indirectly with sub-Saharan populations; Angel 1972; Brace et al 2005)..”
--F. X. Ricaut, M. Waelkens. (2008). Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements Human Biology. 80:5, pp. 535-564


Sidebar: The dubious categories of US anthropologist Carleton Coon



-------------------------------------------
DETAILS: THE SUMERIANS


The Sumerians had a range of physical variation with clear resemblances on 4 counts to tropical Africans, not reputed blue-eyed "Nordics" or "Aryans."


Count 1) Linkages to other tropically adapted peoples and Upper Egypt: Sir Arthur Keith (1934 - Al-'Ybaid: 216,240) also held that the Sumerians were related to Englishmen. [Quote:]

"The Neolithic people of English long barrows are also related to them- perhaps distantly"
Such resemblances between older tropically adapted Europeans and peoples outside Europe, such as in Africa, has been noted by Brace 2005 (The Questionable Contribution of the Neolithic) and by Hanihara (1996) as to the resemblance of other peoples in the greater Mesopotamian area to tropical Africans (Hanihara 1996- Comparison of craniofacial..') Keith speculates as to links between the Sumerians and Afghanistan and Baluchistan, but in actual comparison of data, Keith notes that Sumerian specimens he examined showed some resemblance to specimens from tropical Upper Egypt (described by researcher Dr. Fouquet in Vol II of Morgan's 'Sur les Origines de l'Egypt- 1896) but had no resemblance to other Egyptian specimens. [Quote:]

"They were akin to the predynastic people of Egypt described by Dr. Foquet.." (Keith 1934, in Al-'Ubaid, pp. 216,240)


Count 2) Dolichocephalic crania of the negroid "EurAfrican" type: Dolichocephalic crania in older analyses are often seen as a marker of "negroid" or African variants, not "Nordics."

Buxton and Rice (1931- 'Excavations at Kish') examined 26 Sumerian crania and calculated 17 as Eurafrians, five Mediterraneans/Australoid, and four Armenoid, showing that long-headed people were the dominant element in Sumeria. Penniman (1923-33) excavated 14 crania at Kish, describing 2 as brachycephalic and eight dolichocephalic or EuraAfrican type adn 4 miscellaneous.

Dolichocephalic crania in older analyses are often seen as a marker of "negroid", or tropical variants. [quote:]
"The peoples in north-western Europe.. are medium-headed, on the average.. Most members of the "Black Race" are long or medium-headed.." (Boyd, W. races and People. 1955). The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913- "Human Race") also notes dolichocephaly as a marker of "blacks", asserting as to "the Ethiopian race" that: "the skull is dolichocephalic, the forehead full, the cheek-bones prominent, the nostrils wide, the alveolar arch narrow and prominent, the jaws prognathous, and the lower jaw large and strong."

COunt 3) Link of Sumerian specimens to Western Desert Egyptians.

"First there is the Eurafrican.. In ancient times, this type is found in Mesopotamia and Egypt and may be compared with the Ombe Capelle skull. It is possibly identical with men who lived in the high desert west of the Nile in paleolithic times.." (-Penniman, T.K. "A Note on the Inhabitants of Kish.." Excavations at Kish, 1923-33 Vol 4. pp 65-72)


sub-saharan elements in the western Desert - One recent (2008) study notes:

"..the Qarunian (Faiyum) early Neolithic crania (Henneberg et al. 1989; Midant-Reynes 2000), and the Nabta specimen from the Neolithic Nabta Playa site in the western desert of Egypt (Henneberg et al. 1980) - show, with regard to the great African biological diversity, similarities with some of the sub-Saharan middle Paleolithic and modern sub-Saharan specimens.This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators.."
--Ricaut and Walekens (2008) 'Cranial Discrete traits..' Human Biology, 80:5, pp. 535-564

Quote on Qarunian (Faiyum) desert area remains (c. 7000 BC)
"The body was that of a forty-year old woman with a height of about 1.6 meters, who was of a more modern racial type than the classic 'Mechtoid' of the Fakhurian culture (see pp. 65-6), being generally more gracile, having large teeth and thick jaws bearing some resemblance to the modern 'negroid' type." (Beatrix Midant-Reynes, Ian Shaw (2000). The Prehistory of Egypt. Wiley-Blackwell. pg. 82)


Count 4 - Link of Mesopotamian U'baid culture with tropical African phenotype: (quote)

"Another impression that arose on the first examination was that the Eridu skulls showed a marked prognathism .. Keith's interesting conclusions-that the skulls of the ancient Sumerians were relatively narrow, that they were dolichocephalic, a large-headed, large-brained people, approaching or exceeding in these respects the longer-headed races of Europe, and that the men's noses were long and wide-is applicable to some of the 'Ubaid dead of the latter half of the third and the beginning of the second millennium B.C."
--Cambridge Ancient Hist, Vol 1, Part I, 1970, p. 348; 358.


The Sumerians called themselves "the black headed people." They had nothing do do with any blond "Nordics", as shown in their song: "Lament for Urim"

Quote:

"Sumerian literature itself refers more often to 'the Land' that it does to 'Sumer', and to its inhabitants as 'the black-headed people.' (Black, Cunningham and Robson, 2006. pg- 1)

Lament For Urim
"The scorching potsherds made the dust glow (?) -- the people groan. He swept the winds over the black-headed people -- the people groan. Sumer was overturned by a snare -- the people groan. It attacked (?) the Land and devoured it completely. Tears cannot influence the bitter storm -- the people groan.

The Land's judgment disappeared -- the people groan. The Land's counsel was swallowed by a swamp -- the people groan. The mother absconded before her child's eyes -- the people groan. The father turned away from his child -- the people groan. In the city the wife was abandoned, the child was abandoned, possessions were scattered about. The black-headed people were carried off from their strongholds. "
From: --Jeremy Black, Graham Cunningham, Eleanor Robson. The Literature of Ancient Sumer. (2006) Oxford University Press. 250,12,309,


Sumerian summary:

Sumerian summary: While they were their own variant and not absolutely 100% identical to other tropicals, several excavations and analyses link the Sumerians with tropical African types much more than Europeans in terms of (a) resemblance to Upper Egypt predynastic specimens, (b) dolichocephalic features, and (c) resemblance to tropical peoples of the Western Desert, and (4) similarities of the Mesopotamian U'baid specimens to other tropicals in terms of prognathism, wide noses and other features. This is consistent with the pattern shown in items a, b and c above.

The Penniman excavation of Sumerians found 8 out of 14, or 57% to be dolichocephalic, suggesting again the range of variation in the ancient Sumerians including tropical African features. Buxton and Rice found 17 out of 26 crania or 65% to be a similar tropical variant. This links again with the observations of Keith and the resemblance between Sumerian skulls and those of tropical Upper Egypt.

Modern reanalyses of the data find both the Rice-Buxton and the Peniman data falling within the range for Saharao-tropical variant Africans (Van Sertima and Rashidi, 1987, p.23), confirming the Upper Egyptian matches with the Upper Egypt data of Fouquet reported by Keith (1934), and Penniman's Egyptian linkage. Ricaut and Walekens show that data in the Western Desert points once again to linkages with an African tropical variant, and the Cambridge History shows the Mesopotamian U'baids, precurors of the Sumerians to have a similar tropical affinity.


----------------------------------------

DETAILS:
GREATER MESOPOTAMIA - OTHER PLACES SUCH AS IRAN- still show links to tropical Africans.

In addition to the Palestinian data, data from Iran show that early West Asians looked like today’s sub-Saharan Africans.

quote:

"Distance analysis and factor analysis, based on Q-mode correlation coefficients, were applied to 23 craniofacial measurements in 1,802 recent and prehistoric crania from major geographical areas of the Old World. The major findings are as follows: 1) Australians show closer similarities to African populations than to Melanesians. 2) Recent Europeans align with East Asians, and early West Asians resemble Africans. 3) The Asian population complex with regional difference between northern and southern members is manifest. 4) Clinal variations of craniofacial features can be detected in the Afro-European region on the one hand, and Australasian and East Asian region on the other hand. 5) The craniofacial variations of major geographical groups are not necessarily consistent with their geographical distribution pattern. This may be a sign that the evolutionary divergence in craniofacial shape among recent populations of different geographical areas is of a highly limited degree. Taking all of these into account, a single origin for anatomically modern humans is the most parsimonious interpretation of the craniofacial variations presented in this study."
(Hanihara T. Comparison of craniofacial features of major human groups. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1996 Mar;99(3):389-412.)




------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSION



Conclusion: The HBD claim is false. Tropical peoples did indeed develop advanced civilizations without needing cold-climate "role models". Mesopotamia is in the Arid tropic (subtropical) zone and developed advanced civilizations long before reputed European or Asiatic cold-climate “leaders”. The peoples who developed these ancient civilizations did NOT look like cold-climate “Nordics" or Eastern Asiatics. Instead, they show a range of variation, including clear resemblance on some counts to other tropically adapted peoples of Africa. Resemblances between Sumerians and other tropical peoples covers 4 points: (a) Upper Egyptians, (b) dolichocephalism, (c) high desert Egyptians, and (d) U'baid specimens showing prognathism and other features within the range of tropical variants.

[egyptianplanet]

Again we know that ancient Near Eastern people were dark skinned until the mixture of lighter skinned people came into the Near East and Northern Africa however they were a uniquely Asian civilization. Get out of this color mindset, it's what sets us back time and time again.