posted                         

The Sumerians were differentiating themselves from the Gutians.

• Gutian ..... Sumerian

Gutian




Sumerian King Gudea



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

No Gutian kings of Lagash are mentioned in the Sumerian King List.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neith-Athena:

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neith-Athena:

Did total linguistic replacement take place?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neith-Athena:

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

---

Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

I agree 100% that the Sumerians are misrepresented.


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

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



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

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

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

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

Modern African scholars are pursuing a revolutionary [as opposed to reactionary] discourse, which rethinks human history in terms that moot the old-dead-end race arguments.

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

The languages spoken in ancient Mesopotamia and the Levant have changed overtime. The first people to dominate the area were the Sumerians. The language spoken by the Sumerians was adopted by the nomadic people living in the area, especially the Gutians.

Akkadian



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

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

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


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

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

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


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

Semitic verb root

code:

---

Akkadian             Ethiopic/S.Arabian
kl 'to be dark'        ekelu    Soqotri    okil 'to cover'
mr 'to see'            amaru          Geez ammara;Tigre amara
br 'to catch'          baru           Soqotri   b'r
dgh 'remove'           daqu     Geez   dagba 'to perforate'
kdn  'to protect'      kidin          Tigre   kadna
     

---

code:

---

Cushitic                English         Semitic
Saho        la         wild cow          *la-at
Somali      la             id.             id.

---

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

The first people to dominate the area were the Sumerians.

---

Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

The first people to dominate the area were the Sumerians.

---

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

---

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

The first people to dominate the area were the Sumerians.

---

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

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:


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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

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

---

Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Rasol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

---

Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Rasol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

---

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

---

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Rasol

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

---

We don't need to separate

-history- of

-middle east- from

-race-

We need to separate

-fact-

from

-fiction-.

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

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

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

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

Nor is there and equivalent term, or conception.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I actually suspect that you are beginning to see this, Dr. Winters.

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

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


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

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

Wireless to NEW YORK TIMES London Aug. 3

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

The first people to dominate the area were the Sumerians.

---

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

---

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

---

You know this because...?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

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

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:


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

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

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

---

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

---

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

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

---

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonis2:

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

---

Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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


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

EX:



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For starters,Herodotus makes no claim that all of the Egyptians had these features and secondly black Nubian mercenaries served in the Egyptian army which would include Pharaoh Sesostris’s army.
http://yeyeolade.wordpress.com/category/black-is-beautiful/

^ This is a beautiful bit of dissembing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonis2:

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

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

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

---

Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

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

---

Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonis2:

Yes, but that still doesn't make it less fictious than "middle east".

---

quote:

---

And how exactly does this differ from "middle east"? Neither Europe or Middle-East are continents of their own.

---

Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

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

---

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


.

---

Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

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

---

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


.

---

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

---

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

---

Posts: 140 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

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

.


Sargon
Original

Fakes




.


.




Naram-Sin Original
.


.
Fake

---

Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

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



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


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


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

---

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

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




.

.





.

.

quote:

---

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



Saudi Men

---

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by tooSleepy:


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


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

---

Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evergreen:
[QUOTE]

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

---

Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged |