The case for black Mesopotamians

[zoobalac]

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

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.

I do not think having dark skin is enough to be "black"...

[Tukuler al~Takruri]

Hmm, sounds like special pleading to me.

[thought]

Y-chromosome and mtDNA polymorphisms in Iraq, a crossroad of the early human dispersal and of post-Neolithic migrations

Al-Zahery et al.

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution (2003)

"Iraq is an Arabian country bordered by the Arabian gulf, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia (South), Jordan and Syria (West), Turkey (North), and Iran (East). Iraq is composed of a mountainous region in the Northeast and a vast desert in the Southwest; in between is the heart of the country, a fertile low land region irrigated by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, corresponding to the ancient Mesopotamia."

"In addition, this region was the source of several ancient civilizations (Sumerians, who first introduced the use of writing, Babylonians, Assyrians, and Caldeans) that profoundly affected other populations of the Middle East, Europe, and elsewhere."

"Iraqi Y-chromosomes fall into haplogroups, E, F, G, I, J, K, and R. Haplogroup E is mainly African, but its clade E-M35 is also present in Europe where it is believed to have arrived from the Middle East in Neolithic times (Hammer et al., 1998; Semino et al., 2000a). The frequency of this haplogroup in Iraq, with the exclusion of the two samples belonging to the sub-Saharan clade E-M2, is 10.8% and falls into the lower edge of the Middle Eastern population range (10–30%) (Hammer et al., 2000; Nebel et al., 2001; Quintana-Murci et al.,
2001; Semino et al., 2000a; Underhill et al., 2000; Wells et al., 2001)."

[8man]

Oct 22, 2010 22:31:57 GMT -5 clydewin98 said:

I am glad to see your interest in the Sumerians. My research indicates that the Sumerians were Kushites. Below are some of my papers and videos that explain this relationship.

Hey, thanks for sharing the videos, I have enjoyed them. Fascinating, intriguing stuff.

[8man]

Shouldn’t we articulate first the historical stages in which blackness was defined by whites? And the transition from classifying people as colors and features to these new genetic classifications—how certain or how accurate is the science regarding the genetics of ethnic groups anyway—for me blackness is related to racial prejudice, it’s obvious that black skinned groups all over the world faced similar or related race hatred, weaker or stronger, so there is something about blackness and black features that unites all these different genetic groups that have black skins and black features in common? As I said before Europeans never defined whites based on one single type of person in an ethnic group, say Charles Laughton, only the Nazi did in a way with their ideas about blond, blue-eyed Aryans. And Hitler we're told has black ancestors! How ironic for the Nazis!

“The highland Mardu, people ignorant of agriculture,
brought spirited cattle and kids for her. The Meluhans, the
people of the black land, brought exotic wares° up to her. Elam and
Subir loaded themselves with goods for her as if they were pack-asses.”

This is from the collection "The literature of Ancient Sumer". I hope to translate or study the translated sentence about the Meluhans—I know Winters and others have mentioned them being black but here is an actual Sumerian story that mentions them in a way that suggest they were in fact ‘blacks’. It would be interesting to test all other possible meanings for “black land” but is this translation like “black-headed”, one that avoids other troubling possibilities…is it a rearrangement of ‘land of black people’.

One thing that definately unites these people, black or white, is the love and worship of cattle--herding cattle and sheep is very much similiar to say the Maasa and the Zulu? The Sumerian folklore has a similiar feel and tone as African and other folklore around herding cattle and sheep and fighting lions.

[clydewin98]

Oct 25, 2010 17:24:26 GMT -5 8man said:

Shouldn’t we articulate first the historical stages in which blackness was defined by whites? And the transition from classifying people as colors and features to these new genetic classifications—how certain or how accurate is the science regarding the genetics of ethnic groups anyway—for me blackness is related to racial prejudice, it’s obvious that black skinned groups all over the world faced similar or related race hatred, weaker or stronger, so there is something about blackness and black features that unites all these different genetic groups that have black skins and black features in common? As I said before Europeans never defined whites based on one single type of person in an ethnic group, say Charles Laughton, only the Nazi did in a way with their ideas about blond, blue-eyed Aryans. And Hitler we're told has black ancestors! How ironic for the Nazis!

“The highland Mardu, people ignorant of agriculture,
brought spirited cattle and kids for her. The Meluhans, the
people of the black land, brought exotic wares° up to her. Elam and
Subir loaded themselves with goods for her as if they were pack-asses.”

This is from the collection "The literature of Ancient Sumer". I hope to translate or study the translated sentence about the Meluhans—I know Winters and others have mentioned them being black but here is an actual Sumerian story that mentions them in a way that suggest they were in fact ‘blacks’. It would be interesting to test all other possible meanings for “black land” but is this translation like “black-headed”, one that avoids other troubling possibilities…is it a rearrangement of ‘land of black people’.

One thing that definately unites these people, black or white, is the love and worship of cattle--herding cattle and sheep is very much similiar to say the Maasa and the Zulu? The Sumerian folklore has a similiar feel and tone as African and other folklore around herding cattle and sheep and fighting lions.

The Meluhhaites were probably from Punt. They were requested from the Egyptians by Rib Addi to help defend his city in the Armana letters:

www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/amarnaletters.htm


I discuss the Meluhhaites here:

reocities.com/tokyo/bay/7051/Meluhha_Punt.htm

[8man]

Oct 25, 2010 21:41:46 GMT -5 clydewin98 said:

Oct 25, 2010 17:24:26 GMT -5 8man said:

www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/amarnaletters.htm


I discuss the Meluhhaites here:

reocities.com/tokyo/bay/7051/Meluhha_Punt.htm

Thanks for sharing “Meluhhaites or Puntites of East Africa”—your conclusions seem reasonable to me and should to more open minded people. I’m more for it than against it, though I want to do something more with this rich subject, re-examine all sources, primary etc and defend it in an argument that is irrefutable. And yet also to acknowledge where the information is not yet conclusive.

I want to do this to convince the ignorant or the biased or to shut them up. I’m not sure people who are familiar with this and agree with us already will need such a study or presentation. Yet I don't think this is yet part of the mainstream for either whites or blacks. The Ancient Astronaut and new age occult movements needs to be challenged as well for they seem to wear blinders as well when it comes to acknowledging these ancient black civilizations.

I don’t know how Kramer came to his conclusions but I’m curious to see how he achieved it and to examine that openly here--it’s another wonderful lead to an original source…I did hear someone say in a Wikipedia discussion that Kramer asserted that the Sumerians were blacks but I haven’t gotten to his books yet--what I hope to do, what I want to do if I get the time is lay out a defense of your research and those of others with a systematic refutation of the arguments against it by showing why they are reasonable even if the final proof or data isn't there for everything. Even if there is so far no definite genetic proof, it is not clear or certain, according to Thought. But in order to popularize this subject, Ancient black civilizations, we need to break it down and build it up again step by step.

If there is controversy over the DNA studies, what possible explanations are there for the ambiguity in them? This must be at least tackled fairly. In THOUGHT’S information there seems to be a question there and that needs to be answered in a defense of the thesis against the status quo. I don’t know enough yet about these genetic studies or controversies to say what I think of them or to dismiss them.

I’m working from the idea that whatever blacks they were, according to the classifications of the past and the current genetics of today, they were blacks of some kind in terms of the basic appearance, based on the Sumerian's own term for themselves, whatever the features they are not classic racist European per se, though blacks have a wide range of facial types as shown throughout this website by you and other posters.

My real desire is to convince those on the sidelines or those who make claims or repeat claims like the one above that “black-headed” means some sort of “black-headed” sheep living in the area today, that it isn’t necessarily so. To such people it seems reasonable because they are already predisposed to believe the Sumerians are like Iraqis today--but in reading the literature, the Sumerians compared people to sheep yes but without as yet, as far as I can, connecting their appearance itself to sheep; it’s an interesting idea, like the assumption it (black-headed) refers to dark hair, yet a quick check of black faced sheep shows some of them having their whole heads black so that type of sheep contradicts the formulation, the assumption, again, that it refers to dark hair—I still have got to check for this Iragi sheep to see a picture of it--is anyone interested in providing images of sheep there and elsewhere that would fit this idea that “black-headed” means sheep. I guess only part of the head of the sheep must be black, like hair, for the imagery to work?

I want to thoroughly debunk the idea by not leaving it vague and a matter of opinion. I want to argue fine points of this sort in academic detail, at the risk of boring, still the desire is to make it as popular and understandable at the same time, perhaps even entertaining. Some of the images I found show black legs as well, and I wonder if under the fleece, the flesh isn’t also black completely. This was just a quick glance on yahoo.

I’d loved to hear how Kramer came to these conclusions and if he was attacked for them and how you parsed these with other research to achieve your own. I want to lay it out in baby steps for the reader so they see the proofs unfolding logically.

This is why I wanted to start with Rawlinson earlier—how did these people searching for the truth of the Bible in ruins come to their conclusions. The subject of their own racism and the historical period must also be discussed for a general public not familiar with these controversies. I think we must use that history of racist history and science against the critics. We must remind them of their own racism against blacks—they must or ought to feel some humility which would allow them to listen to whatever evidence there is, that is if they are people of good will.

I wish there was a combined collective effort, I'm not sure I'll have the time, some sort of comprehensive website, as I said earlier, an encyclopedia of "Ancient Black Civilizations" perhaps--revised and updated, made to build a popular, broader audience for this history with an unchallengable, logical articulation of the facts that makes fools of its critics.

[8man]

Let me give you a concrete example of the minutia that we need to explore, review in the context of replying to subtle vague suggestions like "black-headed" is merely a metaphor for their being black haired sheep--it may be time consuming but neccessary--the old Sumerians or the new or the Semites that inherited their language and customs, respected them, I'm being careless here, but according to the text, the 'Sumerians' referred to the Gutians as having monkey features, it is the only instance so far in the “Literature of Sumer” that comes to describing a group of people in almost racist terms, though it doesn’t feel like today’s racism—this is a direct statement of description of features and manners. I'd loved to hear what professor Winters can say about the Gutians if he has the time.

But I could set up a discourse in which we argue that given no direct statements of the kind regarding their 'black hair' resembling the head of certain sheep, the presumption on the part of the white scholar in the work previously cited that they are referring to themselves as black-headed sheep is wrong. Yes, they could be the flock of the god, bird, sheep, cattle, the description of their social position via the gods being their masters etc. is what sheep refers to so far. If anyone knows of texts that states the comparison directly post it here. But it is not only wrong but it also suggests and underlying racist bias in favor of reading it as sheep with black coloring that resembles the top part of the head with hair—but if the correct translation is “to be black mankind”, or “the chief black people” etc. and I think it is, we see the racist persumption most clearly. White scholars must be reminded of this pontential bias constantly because of its long history that's still with us.

We need to systematically present this in a rhetorical argument that is obvious to the lay reader also and which will not make it easy for critics citing authorities to shut down critical thinking in that reader; I guess I’m asking for some use of logic and common sense here rather than merely using authorities to refute the status quo regarding their physical appearance. Even the author or editor of the collection of Sumerian texts hints naively that he assumes them to be basically the people we see there now. Again, without proof, without giving any reasonable criteria for such an assumption or speculation.

[8man]

"the chief black people" or "the first black people mankind" is very important regarding there being various types of black peoples in the region at the same time, as stated by professor Winters in his work, if I recall correctly.

We're dealing then with some founding civilization here that was highly respected, highly intelligent, which shared its knowledge among various other peoples, blacks and whites but itself was founded by another civilization persumed to be Gods? It makes sense given the age of Africa but that’s only a possibility not a proof. It isn’t so much that they are all blacks as that some original founding civilization consisted of blacks--if the Sumerians were blacks--what did their human acting gods look like. The Sumerians were a lesser group of blacks who came to believe they were created by Gods, though various texts contradicts the creation story when it mentions people living at the bottom of a sacred mound while the gods lived at the top of it or speaks of the gods interracting with other beings who act like humans but who are gods. This is the key problem at the heart of the Ancient Astronaut speculation. And I will read your critique of Sitchen, Professor Winters.

There may be some confusion here between the Gods and the peoples and this is probably the most controversial aspect of this research—yet in a study of the origins of Ancient Greek beliefs in an after life, it was argued well how easily the spirits of the dead can be transformed into deities—how the after life and underworld itself can become a version of Heaven. Were the ancestorial gods of the Sumerians blacks themselves, superior to other blacks in technology but human in behavior?

Were these human beings, human ancestors, blacks who were defied at some point in prehistory via oral traditions that then got passed down into the later written Sumerian and inherited by the Assyrians and Babylonians? I’m reminded of the late Dr. Clark's statement about the time between the earliest Egyptians and other civilizations that came later, they were so very old, they became tired perhaps, and some of the confusion and some of the loss is a result of how long they were around and the intermingling that took place later in ages even more ancient for us, how more ancient then were the people/gods, very flawed, but free of our religious based sex sins or fears, in many ways, who created a preliterate civilization that utilized oral memory first and then discovered writing to share information or were taught writting by their 'gods'--look at the changes in the last few hundred years in our time—it’s an immense gulf technologically between us and say the 15th century—if there was some sort of early African civilization that colonized the near-east as Gods it is lost to prehistory—but the tales of the Gods read like tribal people of some advanced sort with magical powers or a belief that they had magical powers—the racist history against blacks certainly won’t concede the possibility, at least in the mainstream world view we see represented by the History Channel.

I also want to study the question of the term ‘gods’, how it’s applied, how modern thinking, in particular in the case of peoples as ancient as the Sumerians is affected by our current modes of thinking about religion—I’m not sure I buy the current thinking about what they thought they thought when they conceived of gods which seem to behave more like spirits than ancient astronauts or imaginary supernatural beings--I lean towards the defied heroes and a group of technologically superior peoples encountering primitive peoples either enslaving them or creating some confusion in them about their status. Is it possible that people could worship other people as gods? You could say it’s a similiar situation that happened to native peoples in the colonial period but set in prehistory. If it's true, it's terribly ironic for black Africans and Americans. But this is speculation.

[clydewin98]

Your future research ideas sound great. I hope you accomplish them.

There is only one objective that I believe is a waste of time. That is your mission to prove the Sumerians were Black to people who don't want to believe this reality. If people make up their mind they don't believe something---you can't change their mind.

It is a waste of time because anyone who read the Bible would know the Sumerians were Kushites and thus Black.

You asked about the Gutians. The Gutians are the white people who ruled Lagash for awhile and Europeans put in books as representative of the Sumerian type.

In a recently published paper on the spread of the Kushites I explain how the Kushites spread from Nubia over 4kya , carrying haplogroup R, and founded the Elamite and Sumerian civilization. See:

maxwellsci.com/print/crjbs/v2-294-299.pdf

This may help you in your research. Also you have to read Krammer if you want understand Sumerian civilization and its relationship to Egypt, Punt and the Indus Valley.

[thought]

[/quote]I don’t know how Kramer came to his conclusions but I’m curious to see how he achieved it and to examine that openly here--it’s another wonderful lead to an original source…I did hear someone say in a Wikipedia discussion that Kramer asserted that the Sumerians were blacks but I haven’t gotten to his books yet--what I hope to do, what I want to do if I get the time is lay out a defense of your research and those of others with a systematic refutation of the arguments against it by showing why they are reasonable even if the final proof or data isn't there for everything. Even if there is so far no definite genetic proof, it is not clear or certain, according to Thought. But in order to popularize this subject, Ancient black civilizations, we need to break it down and build it up again step by step.

If there is controversy over the DNA studies, what possible explanations are there for the ambiguity in them? This must be at least tackled fairly. In THOUGHT’S information there seems to be a question there and that needs to be answered in a defense of the thesis against the status quo. I don’t know enough yet about these genetic studies or controversies to say what I think of them or to dismiss them. [/quote]

thought writes:

to be clear. i am not contesting the blackness of the earliest sumerians. i am contesting the claim that they are recent (i.e., holocene) african origin.

[8man]

Hi, thanks for the encouragement, and the links--I’ll definitely read Kramer.

Oct 27, 2010 19:38:22 GMT -5 clydewin98 said:

Your future research ideas sound great. I hope you accomplish them.

[8man]

I see. I understand now. Thanks. I didn't before.

And I'm not even hostile to a defense of them being 'white', or semites or something else even so, honest debate is good. The earliest seal images are too rough and child-like, primitive abstractiions to convey human faces. Vaguely these seem tribal, even African in places, still it could be any type of ancient prehistoric people, 'race" in most of them. The ones we get to see?

So I wonder about some of the later artifacts and the problems with the earliest excavators. Some of the images do look like blacks of some sort--some don't. But was it at some point a place like Brazil is today? I'm fascinated by the connections to cattle all these early peoples had, white or black.

One contemporary mainstream book on the archeological data says that they don’t know what the Sumerians looked like physically, and the author makes the claim, in this a book for the lay reader, that the bone, skull evidence is scant and unreliable because of disintegration.

I've got a lot of study ahead of me in terms of bones and genetics! I don't even know what holocene is exactly, a period in prehistory I suppose.

The mainstream generally acknowledges problems with the ruins and digs, theft of artifacts, weak chronology, so the surviving texts, tablets could contain mixed up information far older, being perhaps oral transmissions. It's a shame the wars and destructions there for ages might have destroyed things that could explain everything.

Oct 29, 2010 9:52:28 GMT -5 thought said:

thought writes:

to be clear. i am not contesting the blackness of the earliest sumerians. i am contesting the claim that they are recent (i.e., holocene) african origin.[/quote]

[8man]

I’m not even sure I know enough to agree with the present? consensus that the Sumerians were the first and Egyptians second place, one popular book stated the Sumerians influenced the Egyptians in terms of building materials—so which came first and is the removal of Egypt from the top of the list a result of first thinking the Sumerians were Semites, thus whites, and not blacks? Because they knew the evidence for black Egyptians was obvious? When did the biblical search also become a racist and ethnic search for identity for whites if it did? Was it off putting for Victorians and others obsessed with the Greek ideal and the emerging Aryanism to find them mostly Semites, Semites that had gained dominance over the culture of some earlier mysterious peoples? The dating on these civilizations seems tricky, hedging, and I wonder about the time lines and the influences. Is it based on racial preferences first, science second, give or take a few thousand years who did what when?

Don’t be surprised if the History Channel takes on the mystery of the Sumerians but avoids any suggestion they may have been blacks of some kind.

[clydewin98]

Since you are interested in Sumerian seals you may enjoy my decipherment of several early seals:


www.scribd.com/doc/28406787/Proto-Saharan-Writing

.