The Sumerians and the Egyptians were both great civilizations that flourished in antiquity around the same time and were among the first nomadic groups to settle in the one place – the cradle of civilization. While many lay people have at least a perfunctory knowledge of the ancient Egyptians, the Sumerians, perhaps unfairly, are less known to the general population.
The Sumerians were a people who settled on the flood plains of the mighty Tigris and Euphrates Rivers around 4000 B.C in what is today part of Iraq. Ancient Egyptian society had taken shape on the nutrient rich banks of the Nile River.
While both the Sumerians and the Egyptians chose to settle in fertile river plains and developed sophisticated agriculture, religion and political systems, there are also many differences between the two groups and the key features of their ways of life.
Sumerian religion was based around the worship of four life giving deities – the god of heaven, the goddess of earth, the god of air and the god of water. In the Egyptian pantheon there were around 2000 recognized gods and goddesses. In Egypt the pharaoh was worshipped as a living god, but Sumerian society was not a theocracy.
Another difference between the Sumerians and the Egyptians is the way they approached death and prepared for the afterlife. The Egyptians were reasonably well protected from attack and thus lived lives that embraced the future and they made grand preparations for their passage into the afterlife. In contrast the Sumerians were vulnerable to attack and lived a much more volatile existence. Their funerary rites were uncomplicated for their passage into the afterlife.
The Sumerians were one of the first peoples to develop a system of writing. Their writing system was called cuneiform and was named after the wedge shaped writing implement used. It was etched onto clay tablets, which were then fired in kilns to make the writing last. The Egyptians developed hieroglyphics, which were a very different style of recording information and they also wrote on papyrus made from reeds. Papyrus was cheaper and easier to produce than clay tablets, which resulted in vast record keeping capabilities with the Egyptians. The differences in geography between the two civilizations led to the development of different writing technology.
When comparing the technological advances of the two great civilizations Mesopotamia’s is more impressive. This is probably due to the fact that the surrounding environment of the Sumerians was harsher and more difficult to predict and manage.
Sumerian and Egyptian governments were quite different. Egyptian government tended to be more authoritarian with absolute power residing with the pharaoh; however in Sumer the city-state politics allowed for more input from nobles acting as councils.
Summary: 1.Both were great ancient civilizations 2.The Egyptians had more complex funerary ceremonies and afterlife mythology than the Sumerians 3.Both peoples developed complex, but different writing systems for the purpose of record keeping. 4.The Sumerians had more technological advancements than the Egyptians. 5. Egyptian government was more authoritarian than Sumerian government.
posted
It is of considerable interest to trace where the ancient Sumerians emerged from because of their primary contribution to human civilization. It was suggested that Sumerians appeared in Southern Mesopotamia around five and half thousand years ago carrying with them the seeds of civilization. It was also suggested that they migrated from the west coast of India. The fact that they were not a local people is suggested by the fact that their language belongs to a completely different and isolated group. There are two further lines of investigation one may adopt to confirm this hypothesis. The first is to explore for other groups in India with a similar language and the second is to carry out a physical examination of the Sumerian skeletons as available at the present time to detect racial similarities.
In western India there are a number of tribal groups that have existed from ancient times. Today many live on the fringes of mainstream communities as exist in India today. The mainstream communities belong to either the Indo-Aryan or Dravidian linguistic groups. Sumerian does not belong to either. As regards the tribal, it is now fruitless to look for any similarities between Sumerian and present tribal languages in India because over thousands of years their original languages have disappeared because of the overwhelming influence of other languages. The western tribal communities of India now speak modified versions or mixtures of the mainstream languages. However, all is not lost because although the tribal in India such as kols and Bheels have been overly influenced, it is not so with some of their branches that migrated further east towards Australia in ancient times, and form a branch of the same human groups. One may then look for similarities between Sumerian and Austric languages. This study has in fact been already done and the consensus is a resounding, yes. The austric languages are indeed similar to ancient Sumerian. The similarities are so numerous and clear that they are beyond doubt or a result of any chance coincidence. (The Austric Origin of the Sumerian Language, Language Form, vol. 22, no.1-2, Jan.-Dec. 1996.)
Therefore now it may be said with confidence that ancient Sumerian is not a linguistic isolate. It belongs to the australoid/ austric group of languages. They belong to this group because the ancient tribal people of Indian west coast also belonged to the same group of people, and it is from here that they must have migrated to Mesopotamia. Both the Australoid and Austric type are found in India. There are clear reasons to rule out any other location for the Sumerian migration: Western India is geographically close to Southern Mesopotamia as compared to south East Asia and Australia and there are no know instances of civilization east of the Indus valley around five thousand years ago. Such evidence has been found in the Indus valley.
The second study concerns physical examination of Sumerian skulls. Buxton and Rice have found that of 26 Sumerian crania they examined 22 were Australoid or Austrics. Further According to Penniman who studied skulls from other Sumerian sites, the Australoid Eurafrican, Austric and Armenoid were the "racial" types associated with the Sumerians. Here is Penniman's description of the Austric type found at Sumer:
"These people are of medium stature, with complexion and hair like those of the Eurafrican, to which race they are allied with dark eyes, and oval faces, broad noses, rather feeble jaws, and slight sinewy bodies."
This description also closely describes the regal person seen on a famous clay tablet from the Indus Valley. This same tribe in an evolved version undoubtedly established the Indus civilization as well as the Sumerian one after the submergence of their coastal cities. In North-western India they would have encountered Neolithic people of Indo-European origin with which manpower they established the Indus cities. An analysis of skeletal remains from Indus valley confirms this mixture. Both the IndoSumerian-austric language must then have persisted side by side as in Mesopotamia with the official language of the rulers being IndoSumerian-austric. Just as in Mesopotamia, ancient Sumerian was replaced by the language of the majority(Akkadians) in the Indus valley it would have been replaced eventually by an Indo-Aryan language. At what precise moment in history this occurred is not certain but most probably the Sumerian language disappeared from India by 2000 BC. In this latter case there was no question of preserving it for ritual purposes either. This is because the IndoSumerian-Austric language never developed as a fully written language in India to inscribe full texts. In any case, a better Indo-Aryan language with its own full-fledged script soom emerged probably because of Hittite influences in the Indian sub-continent around that time.
Contribution of Armenians to ancient civilization
In the Indus valley from which the Sumerians emerged there were other tribes that lived in close proximity of the Austric Sumerians. These were prehistoric indo-Aryan tribes of an Armenian origin - followers of the God Ara. The indo Aryans were fair skinned and light haired. Hence the reason for the indo-Sumerians to label themselves as dark headed in comparison to the Ara people who were shining. Sumerians also began using the word Ara for fair and bright and eventually they labeled all indo-Aryan people as Ara or Arya. The word Armenian has its origin in AR-MA, i.e. the children of Ara and Ma the fertility Goddess.
Later indo-Aryan migrations of around 1500BC into the Indus regions were apparently of Hittite origin. Apparently, some intermarriage also took place between these indo-Sumerians and Armenians probably leading to a more vigorous community then would have been possible otherwise. A physical marriage also resulted in a marriage of the religious traditions of the Sumerian and Armenian tribes as well as the Sumerian language being influenced by Armenian. Such influences can be found by comparisons between the Armenian (or even Hungarian that emerged from ancient Armenian) and Sumerian language. Are was the Sun God and the roots of sun worship in the world appear to have an Aryan origin rather than a Sumerian one. Archaeologists refer to Transcaucasus region, including modern Armenia, as the earliest known prehistoric culture in the area, carbon-dated to roughly 6000 - 4000 BC. A recently discovered tomb has been dated to 9000 BC. Another early culture in the Armenian Highland and surrounding areas, the Kura-Araxes culture, is assigned the period of ca. 4000 - 2200 BC. Armenians are one of the oldest Indo-European subgroups. Therefore, it is not surprising that from amongst the Aryans it was the Armenians who spread around the ancient world of Mesopatomia and Indus valley first. The Hittite Aryans that became more powerful than the Armenians by 1500 BC were close neighbors and racial cousins of the Armenians, at times clashing with them and at times co-existing, yet probably gaining form the interaction at all times.
Buxton and Rice have found that of 26 Sumerian crania they examined 22 were Australoid or Austrics and four armennoid. Further According to Penniman who studied skulls from other Sumerian sites, the Australoid Eurafrican, Austric and Armenoid were the "racial" types associated with the Sumerians. Certainly it cannot be confirmed without further investigation if the Sumerian-Armenian alliance took place on Sumerian or Indian soil. It is also not certain if it was a forced or voluntary one. The fair skinned Armenian ladies are likely to have regarded the dark broad nosed Sumerians as ugly. Nevertheless, it may be deduced that the earliest Sumerians who introduced civilization in our world were around 85% Austric and 15% Armenian Aryans.
It is surprising that one of the most significant contributions to mankind should come from the Austric/australoid races. Elsewhere their contribution has not been remarkable. However, apparently a small genetic change is all that is necessary for this achievement. Similar races have illustrated that this can happen elsewhere as well. An example of that is Angkor Vat of Cambodia that illustrates technical mastery on an unprecedented scale, noted for its architectural and artistic perfection, not to mention its sheer size, Angkor Vat is the most famous and no doubt the most remarkable of all of ancient temples with extraordinary architectural and artistic innovations, one of the grandest achievements of mankind.
posted
the ubadians and sumerians were probably the remnants of the natufians, my bet is that they were related to the sudanese, all the cultures there are natufians be they hassuna,samarra,halaf,ubaid,uruk,jemdat, its strange in this day and age so called experts cant figure out by the bones and stuff they left behind who the sumerians are and what they looked like? if they were white they would off by now tell the world, but they generally only show gutians as the representation of the sumerians
Posts: 142 | From: england sw | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jari - One thing about you, you are dependable. Anybody else would have found a mainstream scholarly article on Sumerians, and posted that for discussion. But no, not you; as is your normal pattern, you had to find the stupidest piece that any White boy ever wrote, and post that.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by viola75: the ubadians and sumerians were probably the remnants of the natufians, my bet is that they were related to the sudanese, all the cultures there are natufians be they hassuna,samarra,halaf,ubaid,uruk,jemdat, its strange in this day and age so called experts cant figure out by the bones and stuff they left behind who the sumerians are and what they looked like? if they were white they would off by now tell the world, but they generally only show gutians as the representation of the sumerians
I agree, Interesting maybe they were related to Natufians..Seems that Sumaria was "Mixed" with Aryans and blacks..according to the article(Which is kind of Skiddish at some points) ..Lioness should be overjoyed
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
viola75, you seem too easily taken in by a known fool. I hope it's a one-time thing.
BTW - I would suggest you do some research into Armenians. I noticed Wiki changed their article, it's now pure bullsh1t. But in the process of tracking them down, you might learn a lot.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Mesopotamian civilizations (Sumerian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Chaldean, Median and ancient Persian) devoted great care to oiling and dressing their beards, using tongs and curling irons to create elaborate ringlets and tiered patterns.
Beards predominated among the Greeks until 323 B.C., at which time Alexanter the Great ordered his soldiers to be clean shaven, fearing that their beards would serve as handles for their enemies to grab and to hold the Greek soldier as he was killed.
Grecian beards were frequently curled with tongs to create hanging curls.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lioness - I sense that your posting of nonsense goes beyond simple trollism. You seem to take an inordinate pleasure in it. Do you masturbate as you do this?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic