Genesis 10:8 - “Cush begat Nimrod. The word Cush means Ethiopia. Cush is the father of Ethiopians. Nimrod ruled over the cities of Babylon, Erech, Accad (Akkad). The cities are situated in the Land of Shinar (Sumer).
2. Lingustics
Word Order
Akkadian sentence order was Subject+Object+Verb (SOV), which sets it apart from most other ancient Semitic languages such as Arabic and Biblical Hebrew, which sets it apart from most other ancient Semitic languages such as Arabic and Biblical Hebrew which typically have a Verb-subject-object (VSO) word order. (Modern South Semitic languages in Ethiopia also have SOV order, but these developed within historical times from the classical SVO language Ge'ez.) It has been hypothesized that this word order was a result of influence from the Sumerian language, which was also SOV. There is evidence that native speakers of both languages were in intimate language contact, forming a single society for at least 500 years, so it is entirely likely that a sprachbund could have formedFurther evidence of an original VSO or SVO ordering can be found in the fact that direct and indirect object pronouns are suffixed to the verb. Word order seems to have shifted to SVO/VSO late in the 1st millennium BCE to the 1st millennium CE, possibly under the influence of Aramaic. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Posts: 23 | From: Babylon | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was looking at the sumerian dictionary online today and i was so amazed at how many words we (semetic)ethiopians have that have the same meaning and sound as the sumerians. This has proven to me beyound a shadow of a doubt that the sumerians.... the first civilized people were ethiopians.... i will give some examples below....
ancient sumerian Ethiopian semetic 1.SU (him) 1. ESU (him) 2.MINU (what) 2. MIN (what) 3.MANNU (who) 3. MANNEW (who) 4.SIKARU (beer) 4. SIKARU ( drunk) 5.Kalbi (DOG) 5. KALBI (dog) 6.SALAMU (to become black) 6. SALEMU (become Black
i will write more...
Posts: 23 | From: Babylon | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ethiopian Dude - The Sumerian language is not Semitic. It is a so-called agglutinating language, (like the majority of languages in the world). This is a term in the typology of languages that contrasts with inflecting languages, like the Indo-European and Semitic languages. In an agglutinating (or agglutinative) language words are composed by stringing forms together, often into quite lengthy sequences. In inflecting languages the basic element (the root) of the word may change (like 'foot', 'feet' and sing, sang, sung, called internal inflection).
Sumerian has no known relation to any other language. There seems to be a remote relationship with Dravidian languages (like spoken by the Tamils, now in the south of India). There is evidence that the Dravidian languages were spoken in the north of India and in Pakistan, before being displaced as a result of the White invaders/migrants coming from the Euro-Asian Steppes, around 1500 BCE.
P.S. Using Biblical material as reference, will always put you on shaky ground. (It was written thousands of years after these people were gone - But the Hebrews DO come from there).
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Almost all these words above are found in all semetic languages, what made you single out ethiopian semetic from other semetic languages?
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ethiopian Dude & Yonis2 - It appears that both of you are confusing the Sumerian language with the Akkadian language, which was indeed semetic.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Sumerian is related to the Mande and Tamil (Dravidian) languages. All three of these groups formerly lived in Nubia/Kush. I call these people the proto-Saharans.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Ethiopian Dude - The Sumerian language is not Semitic. It is a so-called agglutinating language, (like the majority of languages in the world). This is a term in the typology of languages that contrasts with inflecting languages, like the Indo-European and Semitic languages. In an agglutinating (or agglutinative) language words are composed by stringing forms together, often into quite lengthy sequences. In inflecting languages the basic element (the root) of the word may change (like 'foot', 'feet' and sing, sang, sung, called internal inflection).
Sumerian has no known relation to any other language. There seems to be a remote relationship with Dravidian languages (like spoken by the Tamils, now in the south of India). There is evidence that the Dravidian languages were spoken in the north of India and in Pakistan, before being displaced as a result of the White invaders/migrants coming from the Euro-Asian Steppes, around 1500 BCE.
P.S. Using Biblical material as reference, will always put you on shaky ground. (It was written thousands of years after these people were gone - But the Hebrews DO come from there).
posted
Clyde - It would be nice if you could find the time in the near future, to give a little rundown of comparisons between the two languages. Undoubtedly they are functionally similar, in that Akkadians and Sumerians drew no distinction between each other, and obviously they had no trouble communicating. The fact that the older Sumerian tablets still cannot be deciphered makes me wonder if modern linguists really do have a good understanding of the language.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Clyde - It would be nice if you could find the time in the near future, to give a little rundown of comparisons between the two languages. Undoubtedly they are functionally similar, in that Akkadians and Sumerians drew no distinction between each other, and obviously they had no trouble communicating. The fact that the older Sumerian tablets still cannot be deciphered makes me wonder if modern linguists really do have a good understanding of the language.
Mike the Sumerian language has been deciphered for over a hundred years. The Akkadians recognized the antiquity of Sumerian and taught the language in their schools for years.
posted
Black Kushites of Sumer and Akkad - by - Clyde Winters Ph.D
Kushites of Sumer and Akkad
By
Clyde Winters Ph.D
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 given him an open mind in regards to history. He recognized the Ancient Model of History, the idea that civilization was founded by the Kushite or Hamitic people of the Bible.
As result, Rawlinson was surprised during his research to discover that the founders of the Mesopotamian civilization were of Kushite origin. He made it clear that the Semitic speakers of Akkad and the non-Semitic speakers of Sumer were both Black or Negro people who called themselves sag-gig-ga “Black Heads”. In Rawlinson’s day the Sumerian people were recognized as Akkadian or Chaldean, while the Semitic speaking blacks were called Assyrians.
Rawlinson identified these Akkadians as Turanian or Scythic people. But he made it clear that these ancient Scythic or Turanian speaking people were Kushites or Blacks.
A major supporter of Rawlinson was Edward Hincks. Hincks continued Rawlinson’s work and identified the ancient group as Chaldeans, and also called them Turanian speakers. Hincks, though, never dicussed their ethnic origin.
A late comer to the study of the Sumerians and the Akkadians was Julius Oppert. Oppert was a German born of Jewish parents. He made it clear that the Chaldean and Akkadian people spoke different languages. He noted that the original founders of Mesopotamia civilization called themselves Ki-en-gi “land of the true lords”. It was the Semitic speakers who called themselves Akkadians.
Assyrians called the Ki-en-gi people Sumiritu “the sacred language”. Oppert popularized the Assyrian name Sumer, for the original founders of the civilization. Thus we have today the Akkadians and Sumerians of ancient Mesopotamia.
Oppert began to popularize the idea that the Sumerians were related to the contemporary Altaic and Turanian speaking people, e.g., Turks and Magyar (Hungarian) speaking people. He made it clear that the Akkadians were Semites like himself . To support this idea Oppert pointed out that typological features between Sumerian and Altaic languages existed. This feature was agglutination.
The problem with identifying the Sumerians as descendants from contemporary Turanian speakers resulted from the fact that Sumerian and the Turkish languages are not genetically related. As a result Oppert began to criticize the work of Hincks (who was dead at the time) in relation to the identification of the Sumerian people as Turanian following the research of Rawlinson.
Oppert knew Rawlinson had used African languages to decipher cuneiform writing. But he did not compare the Sumerian to African languages, probably, due to the fact that he knew they were related given Rawlinson’s earlier research.
It is strange to some observers that Oppert,never criticized Rawlinson who had proposed the Turanian origin of the Ki-en-gi (Sumerians). But this was not strange at all. Oppert did not attack Rawlinson who was still alive at the time because he knew that Rawlinson said the Sumerians were the original Scythic and Turanian people he called Kushites. Moreover, Rawlinson made it clear that both the Akkadians and Sumerians were Blacks. For Oppert to have debated this issue with Rawlinson, who deciphered the cuneiform script, would have meant that he would have had to accept the fact that Semites were Black. There was no way Oppert would have wanted to acknowledge his African heritage, given the Anti-Semitism experienced by Jews living in Europe.
Although Oppert successfully hid the recognition that the Akkadians and the Sumerians both refered to themselves as sag-gig-ga “black heads”, some researchers were unable to follow the status quo and ignore this reality. For example, Francois Lenormant, made it clear, following the research of Rawlinson, that the Elamite and Sumerians spoke genetically related languages. This idea was hard to reconcile with the depiction of people on the monuments of Iran, especially the Behistun monument, which depicted Negroes (with curly hair and beards) representing the Assyrians, Jews and Elamites who ruled the area. As a result, Oppert began the myth that the Sumerian languages was isolated from other languages spoken in the world evethough it shared typological features with the Altaic languages. Oppert taught Akkadian-Sumerian in many of the leading Universities in France and Germany. Many of his students soon began to dominate the Academe, or held chairs in Sumerian and Akkadian studies these researchers continued to perpetuate the myth that the Elamite and Sumerian languages were not related.
There was no way to keep from researchers who read the original Sumerian, Akkadian and Assyrian text that these people recognized that they were ethnically Blacks. This fact was made clear by Albert Terrien de LaCouperie. Born in France, de LaCouperie was a well known linguist and China expert. Although native of France most of his writings are in English. In the journal he published called the Babylonian and Oriental Record, he outlined many aspects of ancient history. In these pages he made it clear that the Sumerians, Akkadians and even the Assyrians who called themselves salmat 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: 387 | From: England, UK | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jo Nongowa: Black Kushites of Sumer and Akkad - by - Clyde Winters Ph.D
Kushites of Sumer and Akkad
By
Clyde Winters Ph.D
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 given him an open mind in regards to history. He recognized the Ancient Model of History, the idea that civilization was founded by the Kushite or Hamitic people of the Bible.
As result, Rawlinson was surprised during his research to discover that the founders of the Mesopotamian civilization were of Kushite origin. He made it clear that the Semitic speakers of Akkad and the non-Semitic speakers of Sumer were both Black or Negro people who called themselves sag-gig-ga “Black Heads”. In Rawlinson’s day the Sumerian people were recognized as Akkadian or Chaldean, while the Semitic speaking blacks were called Assyrians.
Rawlinson identified these Akkadians as Turanian or Scythic people. But he made it clear that these ancient Scythic or Turanian speaking people were Kushites or Blacks.
A major supporter of Rawlinson was Edward Hincks. Hincks continued Rawlinson’s work and identified the ancient group as Chaldeans, and also called them Turanian speakers. Hincks, though, never dicussed their ethnic origin.
A late comer to the study of the Sumerians and the Akkadians was Julius Oppert. Oppert was a German born of Jewish parents. He made it clear that the Chaldean and Akkadian people spoke different languages. He noted that the original founders of Mesopotamia civilization called themselves Ki-en-gi “land of the true lords”. It was the Semitic speakers who called themselves Akkadians.
Assyrians called the Ki-en-gi people Sumiritu “the sacred language”. Oppert popularized the Assyrian name Sumer, for the original founders of the civilization. Thus we have today the Akkadians and Sumerians of ancient Mesopotamia.
Oppert began to popularize the idea that the Sumerians were related to the contemporary Altaic and Turanian speaking people, e.g., Turks and Magyar (Hungarian) speaking people. He made it clear that the Akkadians were Semites like himself . To support this idea Oppert pointed out that typological features between Sumerian and Altaic languages existed. This feature was agglutination.
The problem with identifying the Sumerians as descendants from contemporary Turanian speakers resulted from the fact that Sumerian and the Turkish languages are not genetically related. As a result Oppert began to criticize the work of Hincks (who was dead at the time) in relation to the identification of the Sumerian people as Turanian following the research of Rawlinson.
Oppert knew Rawlinson had used African languages to decipher cuneiform writing. But he did not compare the Sumerian to African languages, probably, due to the fact that he knew they were related given Rawlinson’s earlier research.
It is strange to some observers that Oppert,never criticized Rawlinson who had proposed the Turanian origin of the Ki-en-gi (Sumerians). But this was not strange at all. Oppert did not attack Rawlinson who was still alive at the time because he knew that Rawlinson said the Sumerians were the original Scythic and Turanian people he called Kushites. Moreover, Rawlinson made it clear that both the Akkadians and Sumerians were Blacks. For Oppert to have debated this issue with Rawlinson, who deciphered the cuneiform script, would have meant that he would have had to accept the fact that Semites were Black. There was no way Oppert would have wanted to acknowledge his African heritage, given the Anti-Semitism experienced by Jews living in Europe.
Although Oppert successfully hid the recognition that the Akkadians and the Sumerians both refered to themselves as sag-gig-ga “black heads”, some researchers were unable to follow the status quo and ignore this reality. For example, Francois Lenormant, made it clear, following the research of Rawlinson, that the Elamite and Sumerians spoke genetically related languages. This idea was hard to reconcile with the depiction of people on the monuments of Iran, especially the Behistun monument, which depicted Negroes (with curly hair and beards) representing the Assyrians, Jews and Elamites who ruled the area. As a result, Oppert began the myth that the Sumerian languages was isolated from other languages spoken in the world evethough it shared typological features with the Altaic languages. Oppert taught Akkadian-Sumerian in many of the leading Universities in France and Germany. Many of his students soon began to dominate the Academe, or held chairs in Sumerian and Akkadian studies these researchers continued to perpetuate the myth that the Elamite and Sumerian languages were not related.
There was no way to keep from researchers who read the original Sumerian, Akkadian and Assyrian text that these people recognized that they were ethnically Blacks. This fact was made clear by Albert Terrien de LaCouperie. Born in France, de LaCouperie was a well known linguist and China expert. Although native of France most of his writings are in English. In the journal he published called the Babylonian and Oriental Record, he outlined many aspects of ancient history. In these pages he made it clear that the Sumerians, Akkadians and even the Assyrians who called themselves salmat 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.
^ lol ...
This is funny ... I'm not laughing at Winters work, I laughing because it seems as though he would have posted this instead of you
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
The indigenous inhabitants of ancient Sumer(present day southern Iraq) were predominantly Kushite or of Khemitic/Khamitic origin. In other words, they were Black. What's funny about that?
Posts: 387 | From: England, UK | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, by the way, prior to the so called 'European Age of Enlightenment or Reason', that ancient Sumerian referred to as Nimrod in the Hebrew Scriptures was always portrayed by White European Christendom! as a man with the obvious appearance and features of a West African Black - a Kushite!
Posts: 387 | From: England, UK | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by abdulkarem3: ethiopian dude that is interesting and you are right about them having more affinities with samawiyya languages.
Question though? if cush is the father of the ethiops then are there any references of the origins of western africans.
Though I'm sure they were aware other peoples existed they were likely writing ancient ethnographies of an East African group of people and her colonies elsewhere.
I ain't blackcentric but it's the idea that popped into mind considering the kinship of the peoples described (common origins), and acompanying genetic and linguistic evidence out there.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ That proportion of the current East African population that have issues with identifying as Black are originally from present day Yemen and Saudi Arabia.
These nations or ethnic groups are well aware that they are not native to the African continent.
Posts: 387 | From: England, UK | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tigray and Amharic are the most predominatly spoken languages in northern Ethiopia ( including present day Eritrea) and Amharic is the official language of Ethiopia with 20 million native speakers Tigray has about ten million native speakers.
here are more words that have the same meaning in Sumerian and Ethopic
posted
You are starting to act like Marc washington, posting without reading responses in your own thread. You have plenty of questions to answer concerning your topic and initial post. You should answer them before continuing with your Sumerian agenda.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^ hey man im posting plenty of evidence.....if the sumerians didnt come from ethiopia there is no way we could have all these words in common there are probably more words..... i will post more.
Younis2 your argument is baseless here is some info i found on wikipidia which will destroy your arguement
YONIS2
"Almost all these words above are found in all semetic languages, what made you single out ethiopian semetic from other semetic languages?"
Word Order
Akkadian sentence order was Subject+Object+Verb (SOV), which sets it apart from most other ancient Semitic languages such as Arabic and Biblical Hebrew, which typically have a Verb-subject-object (VSO) word order. Akkadian sentence order was Subject+Object+Verb (SOV), which sets it apart from most other ancient Semitic languages such as Arabic and Biblical Hebrew, which typically have a Verb-subject-object (VSO) word order. (Modern South Semitic languages in Ethiopia also have SOV order, but these developed within historical times from the classical SVO language Ge'ez.)It has been hypothesized that this word order was a result of influence from the Sumerian language, which was also SOV. There is evidence that native speakers of both languages were in intimate language contact, forming a single society for at least 500 years, so it is entirely likely that a sprachbund could have formed. There is evidence that native speakers of both languages were in intimate language contact, forming a single society for at least 500 years, so it is entirely likely that a sprachbund could have formed. There is evidence that native speakers of both languages were in intimate language contact, forming a single society for at least 500 years, so it is entirely likely that a sprachbund could have formed. [B]There is evidence that native speakers of both languages were in intimate language contact, forming a single society for at least 500 years, so it is entirely likely that a sprachbund could have formed. Posts: 23 | From: Babylon | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread doesn't have any scientific validity, genetics indicate that there is no direct relations between Africans and Indians or Dravidians...none...linguistically speaking all semitic languages have their root in Africa...and the furtherest they spread is in Irak...
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Habari _ I am not a big fan of using the very limited DNA databases to tell history. But when I do use it, I at least check it first.
BMC Genetics 2005,
Haplogroup M
Results
Four new Indian-specific haplogroup M sub-clades were defined. These, in combination with two previously described haplogroups, encompass approximately one third of the haplogroup M mtDNAs in India. Their phylogeography and spread among different linguistic phyla and social strata was investigated in detail. Furthermore, the analysis of the Iranian mtDNA pool revealed patterns of limited reciprocal gene flow between Iran and the Indian sub-continent and allowed the identification of different assemblies of shared mtDNA sub-clades. Conclusions
Since the initial peopling of South and West Asia by anatomically modern humans, when this region may well have provided the initial settlers who colonized much of the rest of Eurasia, the gene flow in and out of India of the maternally transmitted mtDNA has been surprisingly limited. Specifically, our analysis of the mtDNA haplogroups, which are shared between Indian and Iranian populations and exhibit coalescence ages corresponding to around the early Upper Paleolithic, indicates that they are present in India largely as Indian-specific sub-lineages. In contrast, other ancient Indian-specific variants of M and R are very rare outside the sub-continent. Background
Two mtDNA macro-haplogroups (M and N) that arose from the African haplogroup L3 encompass virtually all mtDNAs outside Africa [1-4]. The phylogenetic node N (including R) has spread its branches all over Eurasia, in contrast to haplogroup M, which is found in Eastern Eurasia but is virtually absent in Europe. The numerous branches of N are, however, generally segregated to either the eastern (e.g. A, B [5], Y [6], R9 [7] or western (e.g. N1 [8,9], N2 (comprising of W and its sister-clade identified by [10]), TJ, HV, U [11]) Eurasian-specific pools.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
This could be and intelligent thread, but it will deteriorate into another pseudo junk thread, with Dr. Winters seeking out the already confused, and adding to the confusion, so....moving on.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rasol - I had to search for that little bit of data. Why didn't you tell me earlier, that YOU were the arbiter of all disagreements.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I'm only the arbiter of my own level of interest, and you bore me.
quote: Two mtDNA macro-haplogroups (M and N) that arose from the African haplogroup L3 encompass virtually all mtDNAs outside Africa.
^ Precisely why the precense of these haplogroups CANNOT attest to specific relationships between Africa and Dravidia.
Hence....
quote:Habari writes: This thread doesn't have any scientific validity, genetics indicate that there is no direct relations between Africans and Dravidians.
posted
Ya, Jo Nongowa: I'm having a hard time trying to figure-out his point too. But still, I am going to take a wild stab at it.
Rasol - Are you trying to say that because Indians (the pure blood ones - NOT those mixed with Arian), were part of the first migration out of Africa, (like the Australians), by virtue of that fact, they have lost their authenticity as Africans.
If so, then the same logic must apply to the Hellenes in Greece, are they no longer White?? Or is your point that because so many outside females mixed with them [quote: encompass virtually all mtDNAs outside Africa] that they are now too diluted to be African??
If that is the case, then I need to remind you that the products of admixture (save for the Hindu), are found elsewhere. In case you miss the point: I effect MY children's DNA, my children do NOT effect MY DNA.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I have often said: The very limited and very SMALL DNA databases, make it a very poor way - on it's own - to tell history. Authentic artifacts are a much better way.
quote:Rasol - Are you trying to say that because Indians (the pure blood ones - NOT those mixed with Arian), were part of the first migration out of Africa, (like the Australians), by virtue of that fact, they have lost their authenticity as Africans.
^ Another poster told you to stop arguing and read and anthropology book.
I'm going to tell you to stop arguing and do a search of past ES discussions.
You habitually make a great effort to argue foolishly..... RATHER than a little effort to educate yourself.
I won't indulge you.
"In the abundance of Water the Fool is Thirsty"
Indeed, and that's precisely why you...
"Can't help fools". - Yojimbo.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rasol - I can't help but wonder, if this is how other Caucasian myth started. Perhaps a thousand years from now, priests will have congregations worshiping the unseen and unknowable revelations buried deep within the bowels of ES. Who knows, they might even be worshiping you as a prophet, heady stuff.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To the TS (Topic Starter), this is the current Turko/Albanian/Arab-Palestinian posit:
In polite Palestinian society, Blacks/Africans are referred to as SUMR; and east Africans that profess to be 'ethiopian' are termed HABASH , i.e. of present day Yemen . Now, I wonder why?
Posts: 387 | From: England, UK | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Rasol - I can't help but wonder, if this is how other Caucasian myth started. Perhaps a thousand years from now, priests will have congregations worshiping the unseen and unknowable revelations buried deep within the bowels of ES. Who knows, they might even be worshiping you as a prophet, heady stuff.
If so, it wouldn't be the 1st time that Caucasians worshipped Black Africans, so even in jest....I don't see your point.
Now, go read that anthropology book, and stop making useless remarks.,
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jo Nongowa: To the TS (Topic Starter), this is the current Turko/Albanian/Arab-Palestinian posit:
In polite Palestinian society, Blacks/Africans are referred to as SUMR; and east Africans that profess to be 'ethiopian' are termed HABASH , i.e. of present day Yemen . Now, I wonder why?
Ethiopians unlike you know who they are, they don't need Turko/Albanian/Arab-Palestinian to tell them anything, like you need the westerners to label you "black" and then consider it natural/basic.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really? What is african? Africa is just a landmass, there is no culture called african, their is no language called african, there is no ethnicity called african. You've been brainwashed to think you belong to such an entity, "african" is a modern geo-political term. 150 years ago your people knew nothing of the term "african" and its existince, and now your telling others they are *NOT* African, what an irony, LOL.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yonis2 - There is nothing defensive about my being a Black man. I revel in it! It is just the best damn thing that a man can be.
When faced with the screw-ups of Black Americans or Africans, my desire is NOT to be White. Rather, my desire is to turn THEM White. Let the White man be burdened by them. Hopefully one day Michael Jackson will create a fund, whereby all the currently Black screw-ups, can be converted to something more appropriate.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
-> Yes, I agree, most know they are Black and are proud of it.
Much to your dismay...
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia July 27, 2007 (ENA) - President Girma Woldegiorgis has seen off on Thursday the scout legion of the Ethiopian Scout Association (ESA) that left for London to take part at the 21st World Scout Jamboree.
During a ceremony held at the National Palace, the President handed over the the Ethiopian flag, scout and Black Lion logo for the scout team named ‘Black Lion Legion’ after the Black Lion Army of the Ethiopian national military force during the imperial regime.
There is much sillyness on this forum, Yonis, and in fairness most of it does not originate with you. But some of it does.
Your endless, contrived and phony anti-Black rationalisations are among the low-lights of the current crop of ersatz ES postings.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ten Points about the Ethiopia / Abyssinia Predicament
Ten points to explain why the historically false cannot be politically correct. It is essential to understand that the use of the name ‘Ethiopia’ by Abyssinia is an explicit wish of the Pan-Arabist rulers, as it helps ‘arabize’ Sudan, the real – geographically speaking – Ethiopia.
As a wider interest concerning the Amhara / Tigray Abyssinian usurpation of the name of Ethiopia has been expressed recently by many readers who wrote to me in this regard, I present here ten points, explaining why the historically false cannot be politically correct. It is essential to understand that the use of the name ‘Ethiopia’ by Abyssinia is an explicit wish of the Pan-Arabist rulers, as it helps ‘arabize’ Sudan, the real – geographically speaking – Ethiopia.
In fact, my rejection of the Abyssinian policy to usurp the name of Ethiopia – that belongs to Sudan geographically and to Eastern Kushites ethnically – is precisely the consequence of my rejection of the cruel Sudanese dictators’ efforts to impose an ‘Arab’ – ‘Arabist’ – ‘Pan-Arabist’ character to that country that was never invaded by any Arabic speaking person.
The Ethiopia / Abyssinia conundrum or rather predicament is definitely old.
If one wants to be within the limits of the academically correct and historically true, one has to consider the following:
Point 1 - Only Kush is Ethiopia.
Ethiopia was the black faced people (Aithiopia) country, a state at the southern border of Egypt. The Greco-Roman world interacted extensively with the phase called Meroitic (Meroe, Capital of Ethiopia, at Bagrawiyah, ca. 300 km northeastwards of Khartoum), 450 BCE – 360 CE.
Earlier, centered around Napata (nearby modern Karima, 750 km in the south of Wadi Halfa, counting the track alongside the Nile), was developed the Kushitic phase (800 – 500 BCE), during the most important moments of which Kush – or Cush – (the Septuaginta translation renders it as Aithiopia) ruled Egypt (Manetho’s so-called ‘Ethiopian’, 25th dynasty of Egypt).
Earlier phases of Kas (Ancient Egyptian and Ancient Kushite / Ethiopian name of the country – Kush in Hebrew being a deformation of it) go back to 3rd millennium, always with a strong Egyptian impact.
Farther we go in the past, ethnically cleaner Egypt is, and more undistinguishable Egypt looks from Ethiopia / Kush / Kas / today’s Sudan.
Point 2 – Ethiopia, term unrelated to Semites, never expanded over Abyssinian territory.
At no moment of its various phases did Ancient Ethiopia control any portion of modern Abyssinia’s territory, and in addition this, there were never Semitic populations included in Ethiopia’s territory.
Point 3 – Abyssinians: Yemenites on African soil
In the late BCE centuries, the Yemenite tribe Habashat (noticed in Ancient Yemenite, improperly called South Arabic as they are totally unrelated and predate Arabic by ca. 800 years) migrated - in several waves - to today’s Eritrean coast and gradually expanded inland up to the area of Axum.
Certainly Adulis, the small Abyssinian (Greek form of Habashat) kingdom’s harbour, was the main source of income, but at the times of Nero, Roman Emperor, Axum was still smaller and more modest in radiation, royal power, military exploits, and economic strength than either Meroitic Ethiopia or Sabaean / Himyarite Yemen.
Point 4 – Who will stretch a hand to God?
Back to Pre-Christian times dates the Biblical verse (Psalm 68:31 - http://bible.cc/psalms/68-31.htm) that Ethiopia will stretch its hand to God.
There is no doubt that the Biblical author meant a. today’s Sudan’s territory b. Kushites, not Semites.
Point 5 – Fallacious, paranoid justification of Abyssinia’s adhesion to Christianity
The Abyssinian voracity of the name Ethiopia is definitely old.
It pertains to two critical issues:
a. King Ezana’s partly invasion of Ethiopia (ca. 360 – 370 CE) and destruction of Meroe. This is a fact; as much as it is a fact that Ezana invaded Ethiopia, after he adhered to Christianity.
Following the habit of innumerable rulers of the Antiquity, he therefore named himself after his country of origin (Axum), and the lands he had conquered (notably Ethiopia).
One must have a clear understanding of historical events; for Ezana to invade Ethiopia (Sudan) the exploit was as great and incredible as if Ancient Illyria invaded the Roman Empire – in terms of both size and cultural heritage’s greatness.
b. The viciously erroneous and intentional interpretation of the Biblical verse as if it supposedly prophesied Abyssinia’s adhesion to Christianity. As such, it is comical and preposterous; how a verse referring to one specific country’s attitude (stretching the hand) can be attributed to another country’s attitude (adhesion to Christianity), especially if the latter antedates the former?
In other words, the Abyssinian change of religion cannot be related to Ethiopia’s stretching its hand, because Abyssinia had not conquered Ethiopia before adhering to Christianity.
Even worse, Ezana invaded only one fifth of Ethiopia’s vast territory. And even more comically for the Abyssinian paranoid interpretation, the Abyssinian occupation of that small portion of the Ethiopian territory did not last more than 50 years! And the Abyssinian rule was over a mostly deserted land as the outright majority of the inhabitants had migrated.
In addition, of course, the interpretational equation is a vast issue: no one can suggest or accept that the Biblical verse meant Abyssinia’s – or even Ethiopia’s (Sudan’s) – adhesion to Christianity.
This is even more particularly highlighted by the reaction of the real Ethiopians, namely the descendants of Ancient Meroe, Sudan’s Kushites.
With the exception of those who migrated to the South, rejecting Christianity, the various populations of Ethiopia, either Nilo-Saharan (Nubians) or Kushitic (Meroitic Ethiopians), accepted Christianity ca. 75 years after Ezana’s invasion (not because of these invasion but through influence coming from the North, Egypt), used Coptic (in Nobatia, capital at Faras – near Wadi Halfa) and Greek (in Makkuria, capital at Dongola Aguza) as religious languages, and came to know the specific Psalm 68:31.
However, they did not interpret it as referring to their (as true Ethiopians) adhesion to Christianity.
Point 6 – A medieval kingdom’s confused royal propaganda
Axumite Abyssinian kings tried to brand and position their country in the World Politics of the last three pre-Islamic centuries by occasionally referring to themselves as ‘kings of Ethiopia’, but this claim was ludicrous and irrelevant for the reasons aforementioned, and due only to the political needs of the Axum Court – nothing more.
Point 7 – Axum’s anti-Persian alliance with the Eastern Roman Empire: ill-fated
The Axum kingdom of Abyssinia was never significant for / in Africa; at its highest strength, middle of 6th CE, at a moment Nobatia, Makkuria and Alodia were just rising as the three Ethiopian Christian kingdoms, Axum was influential in the Bab al Mandeb straits area, and it occasionally invaded Yemen once, under king Kaleb, who arranged an expedition until Mecca in the north.
However, Yemen was multi-divided, and at those days under Persian Sassanid imperial tutelage; that is why following Kaleb’s expedition, Persian army invaded Yemen (Oman had already been Iranian territory) and routed the impotent and poorly equipped Abyssinian army. Yemen was then annexed to Iran.
That affair highlighted the Axumite – Eastern Roman alliance, as it was undertaken in order to break the Sassanid Persian monopole of the sea route of the Silk and the Spices, and at the same time it underscored Axum’s special relationship and relevance to Yemen.
Point 8 – Invalid claims of Solomonic descent reveal the falsehood of the Abyssinian claims to the name of Ethiopia
Soon after the rise of Islam, the African coast of Axum became part of the Islamic Caliphate, and Axum slipped into oblivion, poverty, and extinction. Its end was followed by a political fragmentation and insignificance of no less than 500 years.
Overthrowing the Agaw Kushitic (non Abyssinian) dynasty, a new Abyssinian dynasty rose to power ca. 1270. Nationalistic and religious literature provided support to an extraordinary, absolutely fallacious royal propaganda that involved ridiculous claims to Ancient Israel, descent from Solomon (thence ‘Solomonic’), and last but not least mention of Psalm 68:31 as ‘imperial motto’.
Through various metamorphoses and mass crimes, that revengeful dynasty of bogus-history and forged claims promoted an unprecedented anti-Islamic hysteria that led to the Somali invasion of Abyssinia (by King Ahmed ibn Ibrahim). Portuguese superiority in terms of weaponry saved the Abyssinian kingdom from extinction (1543).
Point 9 – Barbaric and tyrannical rulers as puppets of the European colonials
Down to Haile Selassie times, the official name of the country was Abyssinia until the mid 1930s. It would probably have been the same until today, had Western (mainly British and French) Orientalists not prevailed over the young king to opt for ‘Ethiopia’.
This was not difficult for him as his throne’s motto was – as said – Psalm 68:31. The reasons the anti-Italian colonial powers demanded this name change need extensive analysis. However, it would be inaccurate to call the small kingdoms of the Amhara and Tigray modern Abyssinians around Gonder and Mekele as ‘Ethiopia’.
It’s all about the credit you offer to the propaganda claims of a criminal and barbaric tyrant; Yuhannes IV fighting against the Mahdists was self-styled as king of kings of Ethiopia in 1872 – clearly vindicating adjacent areas of Sudan.
But he also was self-styled king of Zion; shall we consider him as a king of Israel in exile at the Ottoman times?
Point 10 – There cannot be politically correct claims of a loathed Tyranny
Finally, accepting to name Abyssinia as ‘Ethiopia’, after the mid 30s and more definitely since the mid 50s, may sound ‘politically correct’, as this is the officially presented name of the country at the international levels, but by this way, we simply corroborate illegitimate claims, foreign name usurpation policies, colonial machinations, and last but not least totalitarian practices against the country’s outright majority that has full historical right to claim the national name of Ethiopia – contrarily to the Semitic, Abyssinian dictatorial rulers of the Amharas and the Tigrays. So, we cannot afford to take it seriously.
By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis Published: 10/1/2007
Posts: 387 | From: England, UK | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike111 - Not really. It's about about clarification and further clarification.
Does the TS (Topic Starter) know where ancient Sumer and its peoples were located, and it's relationship with the primordial heartland of ancient Kush in present day southern Iraq?
Hmm? I think not. It is apparent that prior to starting the topic, the TS had not done his/her 'homework'!
Posts: 387 | From: England, UK | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rasol - Spend some time perusing thru the info in the aricle, and things will become clearer.
A people are always more than the sum total of their genetic data. Always pay attention to their 'myths and legends'. The info gleaned from these sources can give one further insight into scientific/biological findings of any people (re their origins) that can assist in developing a full body of knowledge.
Posts: 387 | From: England, UK | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ethiopian Dude: Tigray and Amharic are the most predominatly spoken languages in northern Ethiopia ( including present day Eritrea) and Amharic is the official language of Ethiopia with 20 million native speakers Tigray has about ten million native speakers.
here are more words that have the same meaning in Sumerian and Ethopic
Your wordlist is Akkadian, an East Semitic language spoken by the inhabitants of the Akkadian Empire that conquered Sumer, not Sumerian. Akkadian is Semitic and would therefore have many cognates with Ethiopian Semitic languages. Sumerian is not and therefore does not. You have no idea what you're talking about choma ras.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: I don't know about most of this.
Sudan is and arab word that possibly derives from "land of the Blacks", and further from mdw ntr 'suten' or south.
Ethiopia is a Greek word possibly derived from mdw ntr 'ethoshi' or frontier.
I don't really see how calling Sudan, Ethiopia takes us any closer to native origin/meaning.
Exactly! The names Sudan and Ethiopia are both foreign names same as Egypt, they were not used by anyone in the continent of africa untill recently, so his whole point becomes moot at the end.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol wrote: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia July 27, 2007 (ENA) - President Girma Woldegiorgis has seen off on Thursday the scout legion of the Ethiopian Scout Association (ESA) that left for London to take part at the 21st World Scout Jamboree.
During a ceremony held at the National Palace, the President handed over the the Ethiopian flag, scout and Black Lion logo for the scout team named ‘Black Lion Legion’ after the Black Lion Army of the Ethiopian national military force during the imperial regime.
If you ask the average Ethiopian who he or she is? They will reply either Oromo, Amhara, Somali, Tigray, Harari etc. never "black". At the end some might say just Ethiopian (but not all). The name of some scout team does not represent the identity of Ethiopians.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jo Nongowa: Rasol - Spend some time perusing thru the info in the aricle, and things will become clearer.
A people are always more than the sum total of their genetic data. Always pay attention to their 'myths and legends'. The info gleaned from these sources can give one further insight into scientific/biological findings of any people (re their origins) that can assist in developing a full body of knowledge.
Kushites were a northeast african people, regardless of the names given to them by Greeks, romans arabs or others, they were still related to the rest of northeast-african people and not a part of any other entity as you would like them to be. Your dispute over what they were called or who stole their name won't change this basic fact.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol wrote: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia July 27, 2007 (ENA) - President Girma Woldegiorgis has seen off on Thursday the scout legion of the Ethiopian Scout Association (ESA) that left for London to take part at the 21st World Scout Jamboree.
During a ceremony held at the National Palace, the President handed over the the Ethiopian flag, scout and Black Lion logo for the scout team named ‘Black Lion Legion’ after the Black Lion Army of the Ethiopian national military force during the imperial regime.
If you ask the average Ethiopian who he or she is? They will reply either Oromo, Amhara, Somali, Tigray, Harari etc. never "black". At the end some might say just Ethiopian (but not all). The name of some scout team does not represent the identity of Ethiopians.
Tiqur Anbessa or "Black Lion" was the name of an Arbegna (Patriot) Resistance group against the Italian Occupation. It wasn't named by foreigners.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol wrote: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia July 27, 2007 (ENA) - President Girma Woldegiorgis has seen off on Thursday the scout legion of the Ethiopian Scout Association (ESA) that left for London to take part at the 21st World Scout Jamboree.
During a ceremony held at the National Palace, the President handed over the the Ethiopian flag, scout and Black Lion logo for the scout team named ‘Black Lion Legion’ after the Black Lion Army of the Ethiopian national military force during the imperial regime.
If you ask the average Ethiopian who he or she is? They will reply either Oromo, Amhara, Somali, Tigray, Harari etc. never "black". At the end some might say just Ethiopian (but not all). The name of some scout team does not represent the identity of Ethiopians.
Tiqur Anbessa or "Black Lion" was the name of an Arbegna (Patriot) Resistance group against the Italian Occupation. It wasn't named by foreigners.
Who said it was named by foreigners? Or are are you trying to tell me that Ethiopians identify as "black"?
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic