posted 21 March 2005 11:26 AM            

THIS IS WHAT THE SUMERIANS LOOKED LIKE (OBVIOUSLY WHITE)

http://www.zwoje-scrolls.com/zwoje35/text11p.htm

posted 21 March 2005 11:42 AM            

Stop trying to make Arabs white, and stop trying to claim Mesopotamia for whites. sad to say Americans usually deem the Arabs as sand n------s

fact is, if Adam is the first man, then it is logical that Noah is the second first man, with all descending from Noah, since all others were destroyed through the flood.

Now if all descended from Noah, what we have is Noah being the father of all races. Or are you going to try to claim that Negroes came another way?????

posted 21 March 2005 12:06 PM            

THE SUMERIANS WORSHIPED GODS CALLED ANUNNAKI.

posted 21 March 2005 01:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AKOBADAGETH:
SHE IS MEDITERRANEAN CAUCASIAN IDIOT . JUST BECAUSE SHE DOESNT HAVE BLONDE HAIR AND BLUE EYES DOESNT MAKE HER AN ARAB.

LOOK AT THE NOSE ITS AQUILINE NOT HOOKED LIKE A TYPICAL ARAB OR SEMITE.

---

Are you of the opinion that Arabs are caucasians???????

Secondly, you have to choose either evolution or creation. Adam finds his existence purely in the context of creation of being the first man who was the father of all men. Its either that is true or its a blatant lie. You cannot synthesize Creation and Evolution.

If we are to take it that Adam was a King etc of which we have to reference the Bible and its Creationist and Religious statements to justify Adam being a King or even existed, then we cannot in the same instance say that Evolution brought other humans.

The existence of Adam is critical in the development of Biblical Theology of which Biblical Theology seeks to explain the phenomena of mankind, just as how Evolution seeks to explain likewise. It is because of Adam that the author of Genesis was able to say that the Ethiopians and the Egyptians were the Sons of Ham, and the Semites were the sons of Shem.

Since the above is so, then it necessitates that Negroes likewise came from Adam.

Here is Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews Book 1.
2. The children of Ham possessed the land from Syria and Amanus, and the mountains of Libanus; seizing upon all that was on its sea-coasts, and as far as the ocean, and keeping it as their own. Some indeed of its names are utterly vanished away; others of them being changed, and another sound given them, are hardly to be discovered; yet a few there are which have kept their denominations entire. For of the four sons of Ham, time has not at all hurt the name of Chus; for the Ethiopians, over whom he reigned, are even at this day, both by themselves and by all men in Asia, called Chusites. The memory also of the Mesraites is preserved in their name; for all we who inhabit this country [of Judea] called Egypt Mestre, and the Egyptians Mestreans. Phut also was the founder of Libya, and called the inhabitants Phutites, from himself: there is also a river in the country of Moors which bears that name; whence it is that we may see the greatest part of the Grecian historiographers mention that river and the adjoining country by the apellation of Phut: but the name it has now has been by change given it from one of the sons of Mesraim, who was called Lybyos. We will inform you presently what has been the occasion why it has been called Africa also. Canaan, the fourth son of Ham, inhabited the country now called Judea, and called it from his own name Canaan. The children of these [four] were these: Sabas, who founded the Sabeans; Evilas, who founded the Evileans, who are called Getuli; Sabathes founded the Sabathens, they are now called by the Greeks Astaborans; Sabactas settled the Sabactens; and Ragmus the Ragmeans; and he had two sons, the one of whom, Judadas, settled the Judadeans, a nation of the western Ethiopians, and left them his name; as did Sabas to the Sabeans: but Nimrod, the son of Chus, staid and tyrannized at Babylon, as we have already informed you. Now all the children of Mesraim, being eight in number, possessed the country from Gaza to Egypt, though it retained the name of one only, the Philistim; for the Greeks call part of that country Palestine. As for the rest, Ludieim, and Enemim, and Labim, who alone inhabited in Libya, and called the country from himself, Nedim, and Phethrosim, and Chesloim, and Cephthorim, we know nothing of them besides their names; for the Ethiopic war (17) which we shall describe hereafter, was the cause that those cities were overthrown. The sons of Canaan were these: Sidonius, who also built a city of the same name; it is called by the Greeks Sidon

posted 21 March 2005 01:20 PM            

OF COURSE DUMMY WHERE DO YOU THINK THE MEDITERRANEAN IS?

"Are you of the opinion that Arabs are caucasians???????"

NO THEY ARE CAUCASOID, AND ITS NOT OPINION ITS FACT.

"Secondly, you have to choose either evolution or creation. Adam finds his existence purely in the context of creation of being the first man who was the father of all men. Its either that is true or its a blatant lie. You cannot synthesize Creation and Evolution."

WRONG STUPID, OF COURSE I CHOOSE EVOLUTION BUT THE CHARACTERS IN THE BIBLE LIKE ABRAHAM ARE HISTORICAL FIGURES NOT JUST BIBLICAL MYTHOLOGY.

THE SUMERIANS WERE AN INDO EUROPEAN MEDITERRANEAN CAUCASIAN RACE OF PEOPLE .

posted 21 March 2005 01:35 PM            

My question to you is who were the Ubadians that proceed the Sumerians. Alot of the representations are of the Gutians who are not necessarily Summerians.

The best canidate for the modern desendants of the Sumerians are the modern Marsh Arabs living in Southern Iraq. Not to mention the Sumerian dialect has words that are similar to Dravidian languages in southern India.

There are contemporary cultures within areas like Iran like the Elamites. How would you explain these people.

posted 21 March 2005 03:05 PM            

AS FAR AS THE SUMERIAN GODS ,THEY HAD MANY, ENKI WAS ONLY ONE. AND I WOULD LIKE YOU TO POST A SOURCE THAT STATES THAT ABOUT OMAN.

NOW AS FAR AS THE SUMERIANS CALLING THEMSELVES THE "BLACK HEADED ONES" THAT IS TRUE BUT NOW YOU ARE GETTING INTO THIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ,BECAUSE IT WAS THE ANUNNAKI THAT LABELED THEM THE BLACK HEADED ONES TO DISTINGUISH THEMSELVES FROM THE HUMANS (BECAUSE THE ANUNNAKI THEMSELVES WERE WHITE).

ALSO YOU HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THERE WERE TWO SUMERIAN KINGDOMS THE ONE BEFORE THE FLOOD (WHICH WAS WHEN THE GODS THEMSELVES RULED THE LAND) AND THEN AFTER THE FLOOD WHEN KINGSHIP WAS LOWERED TO MANKIND.

IF YOU HAVE READ THE TEXT "ATRA HASIS" IT GIVES THE ACCOUNT OF WHEN MAN WAS CREATED ,THE FIRST BATCH OF MANKIND ACCORDING TO THIS TEXTS IS THE ONES THAT WERE CALLED THE BLACK HEADED ONES, THESE WERE CREATED BASICALLY TO BE SLAVES TO THE ANUNNAKI. IM ASSUMING YOU HAVE READ THESE STORIES.

BUT ENKI DID NOT STOP THERE, HE CREATED MORE HUMANS AND THE LAST BATCH WAS THE MOST LIKE THE ANUNNAKI THEMSELVES (WHITE) AND IT WAS THESE PEOPLE THAT KINGSHIP WAS LOWERD DOWN TOO.

NOW OF COURSE YOU COULD SAY THAT THESE STORIES ARE ALL MYTH BUT THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE BLACK HEADED ONES ALSO.

THE SUMERIANS WERE WHITE

posted 21 March 2005 05:11 PM            

I COULD POST A THOUSAND LINKS THAT WOULD STATE THAT THE SUMERIANS AND HUNGARIAN, SCHNTHIANS ALL HAD ANCIENT TEXTS THAT HAD SIMULAR WRITTING.

posted 22 March 2005 11:35 AM            

The term “Mediterranean Caucasian” is a very loose term, which could describe anyone from southern Europeans, to West Asians, to South Asians, to even peoples in Africa!! Whatever the terms you apply it is obvious that the Sumerians do not resemble Europeans at least not closely. I find it funny sometimes that white people like you are so quick to identify Middle-Eastern people as “white” when referencing their civilization, but other times the become “dark-skinned”, “uncivilized” bastards, or even “sand-ni****s”!! They’ve been called that more often since 9-11!

Also, Ausar is right! The Sumerians were not the original founders of agriculture and urbanization in Mesopotamia, their predecessors the Ubadians were!! It is not really certain who the Ubadians were, let alone their racial identity, LOL but it’s just silly to say they were Indo-Europeans, since again there has been no evidence to suggest this!! If anything, the Ubadians probably resembled peoples like the Elamites who, by the way even though they weren’t African, were definitely black!! There are many pictures and painted statues depicting such peoples around Iran and adjacent areas in Mesopotamia, so....

Akobada, dude, you need to lay off the Arthur Kemp crap, because it is apparent that all your information’s been coming from him! Arthur Kemp is a pseudo-scholar and is just as bad, if not worse than some of the nutty Afrocentrics you argue against!

LMFOThe only bozo around here is YOU!!

posted 22 March 2005 11:56 AM            

I NOTICE AFRO BOZOS LIKE YOU ALWAYS STAY TUCKED AWAY IN LITTLE HIDDEN CREVICES LIKE THIS BOARD.

I CHALLENGE ANY OF YOU TO TAKE YOUR NONSENCE TO ANY REAL HISTORICAL DISCUSSION BOARD AND TALK THIS **** .

posted 22 March 2005 12:09 PM            

Second:

quote:

---

...WHY DONT ANY OF YOU TAKE YOUR AFRO BULLSHIT TO A REAL HISTORICAL WEB SITE AND SEE HOW QUICKLY YOU GET SMASHED???

---

I'd like to see YOU take your messed up info to a historical forum, I'd bet you'd be a laughing stock!! Heck, you're already one in real life ROTFL!!!

posted 22 March 2005 12:38 PM            

I invite you to post at the following website:
http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html

As far as Dna testing on mummies it will not tell us much about their race. Most of the DNA studies is done for biological relationship between mummies. Ancient Dna is very unreliable because only live samples on decayed material can be found in the teeth or in deep tissue.

posted 22 March 2005 07:07 PM            

I have this theory that the Sumerians are related to the people northern India! I base this on these facts:

• The features of Sumerian statues, paintings, and other depictions look like those of north Indians.
  
• As you may know, the Hindu religion is derived from Aryan Vedic elements as well as Dravidian elements, but there are certain beliefs of Hinduism that don't seem to correspond to either. One of these is the belief in sages, or mystic holy men who can gain power through certain ascetic pratices. This belief however, seems to be prominent in Sumerian mythology.
  
• The Bible states in Genesis that the people of Shinar(Sumer) orginally came from plains farther east, and travelled west until they finally settled in Mesopotamia.
  
• Many Iraqi people, especially those along Mesopotamia, resemble northern Indians. Many look somewhat more Pakistani or north Indian than Arab.

What do you guys think of this?

posted 22 March 2005 07:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

The Bible states in Genesis that the people of Shinar(Sumer) orginally came from plains farther east, and travelled west until they finally settled in Mesopotamia.
.[/list]

---

If all the genetic code for all the races existed in Noah and his 3 sons (using the Bible as the first premise), then that can explain the variations of races of the Sumerians.

What is interesting also is that Ham's son Cush (Which means Black) fathered Nimrod who was the original founder of Babylon. Using Augustine's reference from the City of God, Augustine believes that after the confusion of the tongues as per Genesis, Nimrod, and the family of Cush moved away from Shinar.

Now going back to the Bible, we see the children of Cush and Ham settling Egypt and Nubia (purely a Biblical explanation). With the Nubians naming their City Seba (before it became Meroe) because Seba was a child of Cush. Whereas the Egyptians name their land Kemet, referencing the Patriarch Ham. This can explain North Eastern Africa from Egypt to Sudan even to Punt shared a particular culture with particular similarities between the people.

The above can then explain why Sumeria in its early stages seemed heterogenous with different people types, whilst in the later stages it became homogenous.

posted 22 March 2005 07:46 PM            

quote:

---

Interesting insight. What is also mentioned in the Bible that after the flood, the whole earth was of one language, and all the people who were descendents of Noah, journeyed from the East and dwelt in Shinar.

If all the genetic code for all the races existed in Noah and his 3 sons (using the Bible as the first premise), then that can explain the variations of races of the Sumerians.

---

quote:

---

What is interesting also is that Ham's son Cush (Which means Black) fathered Nimrod who was the original founder of Babylon. Using Augustine's reference from the City of God, Augustine believes that after the confusion of the tongues as per Genesis, Nimrod, and the family of Cush moved away from Shinar.

Now going back to the Bible, we see the children of Cush and Ham settling Egypt and Nubia (purely a Biblical explanation). With the Nubians naming their City Seba (before it became Meroe) because Seba was a child of Cush. Whereas the Egyptians name their land Kemet, referencing the Patriarch Ham. This can explain North Eastern Africa from Egypt to Sudan even to Punt shared a particular culture with particular similarities between the people.

---

quote:

---

The above can then explain why Sumeria in its early stages seemed heterogenous with different people types, whilst in the later stages it became homogenous.

---

posted 22 March 2005 07:58 PM            

That being said, I think the Bible is valid at least since the names Assyria comes from Asshur, Elamites come from Elam, and Seba the son of Cush is found in the area we call Ancient Ethiopia.

In terms of Historicity the Bible has proven itself valid concerning the original father heads of the inhabitants of the Middleeast and North Eastern Africa.

posted 22 March 2005 08:28 PM            

compare with... www.globalindia.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=20&pos=0

btw, Indian actresses are always made whiter looking than they really are, so she's probably as dark as that bust.

posted 24 March 2005 01:21 PM            

quote:

---

Hi

I noticed you stayed away from this issue
but the board may be interested in knowing
that the bust is a modern work of art made
by the Iraq Museum for the purpose of
mounting the authentic ancient head dress.

It is not the only bust the museum made.
There is also one that has an authentic
ancient helmut on its head.

Both of these busts hardly resemble any
actual ethnicity of either ancient or
modern times in my opinion.

Peace
alTakruri (still w/o the juice)

---

posted 24 March 2005 03:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
No, he has not been banned according to my knowleadge. I don't know why he is having trouble loging in. I know that after that short glitch things have been getting weird and many people had to re-register.

---

posted 25 March 2005 06:28 AM            

You get a F once again.

The Sumerians did not originate from Central Asia. They are not Indo-European speakers, they are not European in anyway. Matter of fact the people of North India today have more Caucasian cultural ways, despite being heavily influenced by a non-Caucasian element. The problem with people like you is that you expand the Caucasian definition to such extents that even I would be considered a Caucasian. Thankfully, modern anthropology considers Caucasian as a defunct term.

posted 25 March 2005 06:41 AM            

quote:

---

# The features of Sumerian statues, paintings, and other depictions look like those of north Indians."

---

The problem here is too many are using Bollywood actors/actresses as a standard. Indians in general are quite dark skinned, whether in North or South.

Example: http://www.hindustantimes.com/wfsf/2002/Dec/25/07_57/images/hiResWeb126540.jpg

quote:

---

Many Iraqi people, especially those along Mesopotamia, resemble northern Indians. Many look somewhat more Pakistani or north Indian than Arab.

---

You are doing it again. An 'ideal' Indian or Pakistan would look like an Iranian. Take a look at some Bollywood actress. On the other hand, a typical North Indian or even Pakistan (from say Sindh or Baluchistan) would be much darker. If you think that Dravidians are typically darker than you are wrong again. Think of those groups just as Arabs, most are darker in skin complexion while there is a minority white population. In other words, a South Indian is NOT Black like an African, he or she is nearly identical to a typical North Indian. Matter of fact there are parts of North India, where people are far darker than those in the South.

quote:

---

Many Iraqi people, especially those along Mesopotamia, resemble northern Indians. Many look somewhat more Pakistani or north Indian than Arab.

---

Again, if you mean the typical dark skinned North Indian or Pakistan than you are correct. The Iraqis around there are dark skinned and not white like a Syrian or heck, even Mexican.

posted 25 March 2005 07:08 AM            

Before I continue, here is a pic for that low-life that created this thread:

They don't seem so white anymore.

Anyhow, there was trade between Sumeria and Harappa, and I believe that both groups were racially similar. This is the reason why we see barbarian-like whites claiming Sumerians are white, because these groups tend to fit in the exagerrated 'Caucasian' group. However those that are with modern science will realize that this is because these features are not exclusive to Caucasians alone.

posted 25 March 2005 01:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keins:
I am still not able to log in using my old name Keino.

---

posted 25 March 2005 04:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
My goodness gracious, is that [b]you Keino?? Well, I'll be...
"You be here still", that's great!![/B]

---

Yup...Busy with my research and surgery is tough. Last month I worked 90 hour weeks with some 36 hour shifts. Besides the trolls, this board is great with good information. I have learned much from this board and will always check it.

posted 27 March 2005 01:20 PM            

quote:

---

The problem here is too many are using Bollywood actors/actresses as a standard. Indians in general are quite dark skinned, whether in North or South.

You are doing it again. An 'ideal' Indian or Pakistan would look like an Iranian. Take a look at some Bollywood actress. On the other hand, a typical North Indian or even Pakistan (from say Sindh or Baluchistan)...

---

posted 27 March 2005 04:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keins:

p.s. Where did homeylu go?

---

Yeah! That's a good question. Let's send out a "google" search party, see if we can find the woman...

posted 28 March 2005 02:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roy_2k5:

http://www.zwoje-scrolls.com/zwoj
e35/sh14.jpg

Does anyone have information on this statue?

---

Again, that "bust" is a modern fantasy not a product of ancient Sumeria.
Here's the backdrop on the headdress and jewelry the "bust" was made
only to serve as a manakin.

The Grave of Puabi

Only one of the Royal Tombs at Ur survived largely intact. The excavator, Leonard
Woolley, revealed an earth ramp leading down about five meters into a pit
approximately
twelve by four meters. On the ramp, as if guarding the entrance to the grave,
lay the bodies of five men with copper daggers. At the foot of the ramp was
the decayed remains of a vehicle, possibly a sled, with the bones of two oxen
and four men. In the middle of the pit were the remains of a wooden chest decorated
with lapis lazuli and shell inlay, against which lay the body of a man. Other
bodies lay near the northeast corner of the grave. At the southern end of the
death pit the bodies of ten women wearing elaborate headdresses were positioned
in two rows facing each other. Some of these attendants were associated with
musical instruments, including a harp and lyre. A stone built tomb chamber was
located to the northeast with its floor nearly two meters below the level of
the death pit. Inside the tomb were four bodies. Clearly the most important
was that of a woman just under five feet tall and roughly forty at the time
of her death. Her body was adorned with beads of gold, silver, lapis lazuli,
carnelian, and agate, as well as other pieces of elaborate jewelry, including
cylinder seals, one of which had an inscription that identified her as Puabi,
the queen.
http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/First_Cities/death_meso.htm

You can find a sketch of the grave here http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/MUS/INFO/NN_Fal00/NN_Fal00_fig2.html
and satisfy yourself that no bust or other statuary
was found there. The accompanying text is at http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/UR/Curator_Notes.html

posted 28 March 2005 03:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri~:

Again, that "bust" is a modern fantasy not a product of ancient Sumeria.
Here's the backdrop on the headdress and jewelry the "bust" was made
only to serve as a manakin.

The Grave of Puabi

Only one of the Royal Tombs at Ur survived largely intact. The excavator, Leonard
Woolley, revealed an earth ramp leading down about five meters into a pit
approximately
twelve by four meters. On the ramp, as if guarding the entrance to the grave,
lay the bodies of five men with copper daggers. At the foot of the ramp was
the decayed remains of a vehicle, possibly a sled, with the bones of two oxen
and four men. In the middle of the pit were the remains of a wooden chest decorated
with lapis lazuli and shell inlay, against which lay the body of a man. Other
bodies lay near the northeast corner of the grave. At the southern end of the
death pit the bodies of ten women wearing elaborate headdresses were positioned
in two rows facing each other. Some of these attendants were associated with
musical instruments, including a harp and lyre. A stone built tomb chamber was
located to the northeast with its floor nearly two meters below the level of
the death pit. Inside the tomb were four bodies. Clearly the most important
was that of a woman just under five feet tall and roughly forty at the time
of her death. Her body was adorned with beads of gold, silver, lapis lazuli,
carnelian, and agate, as well as other pieces of elaborate jewelry, including
cylinder seals, one of which had an inscription that identified her as Puabi,
the queen.
http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/First_Cities/death_meso.htm

You can find a sketch of the grave here http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/MUS/INFO/NN_Fal00/NN_Fal00_fig2.html
and satisfy yourself that no bust or other statuary
was found there. The accompanying text is at http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/UR/Curator_Notes.html

---

posted 28 March 2005 03:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Appropriately addressed, and welcome back.

---

Thanks, only sorry that I won't be able to contribute very much nor
on a regular basis, but I thought it worthwhile to re-register so as to
lay this slight of hand bullish to rest.

posted 28 March 2005 04:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
usually Afrocentrics attack any piece of art that does not fit their views. We have seen that repearedly with old kingdom art that destroys their position. Instead of dealing with it like adults they try to discredit. naturally, any art that can be twisted to agree with their propaganda is fine.

---

Mere impotent rage my boy!

None of which alters the fact that the so-called "bust" is nothing more
than a modern manikin expressly made to display the headdress reconstructed
by Woolley from his finds in tomb PG-800.

The Iraq Museum in fact even has male manikins for the helmets that
were found; this according to
Seton Lloyd
The Art Of The Ancient Near East
New York Frederick A. Praeger 1961

Thus is presented the second reference from established academia, the first
was from Chicago's reknowned Oriental Institute no less. So far, disclaimers have only their own unsubstantiated caterwaul without any archeaological backing.

Mind you, the issue is not some vague notion of afrocentrism but the
facts concerning that so-called "bust" and its provenance.

Those with no academic sources to contribute to the discussion should sit down,
shut up, and perhaps in doing so learn something new.

posted 28 March 2005 04:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
May be...but its like the boy who yelled wolf too many times. I am going to be a skeptic when I see an Afrocentric question a piece of art. If they prove to be correct then so be it.

---

Willful ignorance does abound. The ballgame will now stand 3 to 0 in
favor of reproducible and falsifiable facts rather than to one's own
racial pride.
http://www.arthistory.upenn.edu/522/puabi/headdress.html

See, a headdress was found without anything like a bust. Notice in this
jpeg the obvious modern manikin characteristic of the "bust" then scroll
to the top of this thread and notice the shoulder of the so-called "bust"
and compare it to any manikin bust in any store.

Only a self deluded fool cannot see a manikin instead of an authentic
ancient bust especially with no academic ever writing that a bust was
found in tomb PG-800!

So put up or shut up. It's that simple boss.