...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » Black-headed Sumerians and Black-headed Tut - a re-evaluation (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Black-headed Sumerians and Black-headed Tut - a re-evaluation
Marc Washington
Member
Member # 10979

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Marc Washington   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
 -
http://www.beforebc.de/Made.by.Humankind/Real.People/02-16-200-00-02.html

Be careful who you believe. Someone at this site proposed the sharp-nosed picture of Nefertiti was authentic. White.

 -
http://www.beforebc.de/Made.by.Humankind/Real.People/02-16-800-00-12.html

Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Marc thanks for the pictures showing how Europeans have re-Written history by redoing works to make the African characters more 'white looking'.

.

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

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are a number of articles which discuss the Sumerian relationship with African and Dravidian languages including the following:

David, H S , "Some contacts and affinities between the Egypto-
Minoan and the Indo(-Dravido) Sumerian Culture",Tamil
Culture 4, no2 (1955), pages 169-175.

Winters,Clyde Ahmad,"Tamil,Sumerian and Manding and the Genetic Model",International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 18,(1989) nol.

Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1991). The Proto-Sahara. The Dravidian Encyclopaedia. (Trivandrum: International School of Dravidian Linguistics) pp.553-556. Volume 1.

The Sumerian, Dravidian and African speakers originated in the Fertiel African Crescent, which was the Highland regions of Middle Africa. These people belonged to the Maa Clan.The Maa Confederation was the name of the major Paleo-African clan during the last great wet period in Saharan history 5000-3000 B.C. The Maa confederation includes the Egyptians, Elamites, Dravidians, Manding and Sumerians. In this paper we call members of this civilization: Proto-Saharans. To denote their ethnic origin they added the term Ma, to their ethnonyms, e.g., the Manding called themselves Ma-nde (the children of Ma); and the Sumerians called themselves Mah-Gar-ri (exalted God's children).For more information about the Proto-Saharans and the Maa civilization see Clyde A. Winters, The Proto-Culture of the Dravidians, Manding and Sumerians, Tamil Civilization,3(1), 1-9.
The Sumerian language shares many features with African and Dravidian languages.
PRONOUNS
There is a similarity in pronouns:
  • Language Singular Plural
    1st.Per.2nd Per. 3rd Per. 1st Per. 2nd Per. 3rd Per.
    Dravidian an,naa l a an an,ani aru
    Manding na, n' i a, e alu
    Elamite u nu ri un nun r: ir
    Sumerian ga, gal za, au ene men zu,ne ene -ne
DEMONSTRATIVE
  • Language Proximate Distant Finite
    Dravidian i a u
    Manding i a u

    Sumerian bi a

The Proto-Saharan languages share locative constructions. These directional elements can be simple or compound. Common suffixial directional elements include:
  • Elamite Sumerian English Manding
    -ak and ka
    kuttu so,also,as ka
    -hi this ni
    ukku ku on ku, kuna
    -ma -na in,at na
    itaka da with la, ti
    -na of -no
    -lina -ta for -ti
Common directional elements include:
  • ma -a in na
    imma, ni out,of ma, no
    ikku (ikki) -ra to koro
    lina ta for ti
    mar from a place ma 'area,land'
    itaka da with la, ti

All the Proto-Saharan languages share certain grammatical features. Those grammatical elements shared by Dravidian, Elamite, Sumerian and Black African languages include 1) vowel harmony, 2) absence of initial clusters of consonants, 3) abundance of geminated consonants,4) distinction of inclusive and exclusive pronouns in first person plural, 5) absence of
degrees of comparison for adjectives and adverbs as distinct morphological categories, 6) consonant alteration on nominal increments noticed by different classes,7) distinction of completed action among verbal paradigms as against specific tense distinction and 9) use of reduplication for emphasis (and plural).

AFFIXES

In the Dravidian, Egyptian, Elamite, Manding and Dravidian languages words are formed by adding an affix to a radical. In this section we will discuss certain aspects of shared Proto-Saharan morphology.
In these languages suffixes are usually used to create words. These suffixes can be a single consonant (C) or vowel (V), or a monosyllabic form (CV). The most common suffix in Dravidian, Egyptian, Elamite, Manding and Sumerian are the postfixes -ki, -ka and -ta , which are used to denote clans, nationality, lands and countries .

PLURAL


In the Proto-Saharan languages the plural is formed by adding -u,-w,-ba, -pa and -lu.In Egyptian, the -w suffix is used to form the plural. In the Dravidian (Dr.) . languages the plural if formed by -lu, especially in Telugu. In the Manding (M) group, and other African languages we find -lu or -u (-w), e.g., M. mogo 'husband,(pl.) mogo-lu 'husbands'; Telugu magaadu 'husband , man', (pl.) magaalu 'husbands'.

In many Black African languages ba means 'abundance, many'. In Elamite pa or fa is used to make plural numbers, e.g., ko-fa inna 'of the Kings', Bapitu fa-pa "to the Babylonians". The use of -pa, by the Elamites corresponds to the Manding use of the -ba suffix , which is joined to nouns to denote the idea of greatness, physical or moral e.g., -folo 'good,rich'
, no-folo-ba 'great fortune'; and so-kalo 'piece', so-kala-ba 'considerble quarter of a village'.

NEGATIVE

In Black African languages including Egyptian the -n, is used to show negation. In Egyptian we often find -nn, e.g., nn wn 'there is nothing'. In Elamite the negative is formed by an uninflected nominal derivative in -n (active participle), e.g., ink 'I not", inr 'he not' and ani 'not'. This suffix is analogous to the M. negative suffix -na, employed as a suffix to -ka, e.g., ka na ku na tara so "I did not say I was going to the house" .

In Tamil the negative verbal participle is formed by suffixing a-mal or -mei, e.g., sey (y)-a-mal 'without stopping'. The Tamil suffix -mei is also used as a termination for abstract nouns.


The negative suffix in Manding is -na, which is proceeded by ka and nt'i, e.g., kalu mba-nt'i. In Sumerian the negation of the verb is expressed by the prefixes nu- or la-, e.g., nu-zu "not to know", la-gin "not to fix" and nu-dug "not good. The optative mood are negatived by the element na,na-ma-pad "she may not".

PARTICLES
In Elamite personal nouns are formed by adding -ra, e.g., Kellira 'commander', kutira 'bearer'. This relates to the Manding suffix of the past and present participle -ra, this particle is used to make verbs passive or active, e.g., kyi 'send', kyi-ra 'messenger', gyi (ji) 'dry up', gyi-ra 'arid'.

In Sumerian the dative is expressed by the suffix -ra, which may appear in the form of -ar, -ir , and -ur, e.g., ma-ra 'to me', lugal-e-a-ra ' to the owner of the house'. This parallels the Manding locative suffix -ra, and -la , which can represent 'to,or, for, in ', e.g., tu-ra 'in the forest'.

The Elamite indefinite article is -ra, e.g., Parsar-ra 'a Persian', Afartu-ra 'an Elamite'. This corresponds to the Manding locative suffix -ra, e.g., Ton-ra 'land of Ton'.

The Proto-Saharan languages share the present participle -tu/-to. In Telugu (Tel.),the suffix -tu , is used as the present participle while in the Manding languages -to has the same function e.g., Tel. chestu 'made', M.tege 'to cut', tege-to 'cutting'.


The active participle in Elamite is -n, e.g., talu-n 'writing', or hali-n 'toiling'. This corresponds to the Manding -ni and -li elements e.g., sa 'buy', sanni 'buying', or du-mu 'eat', dumu-ni 'eating'. This -n, active participle is found in many other Black African languages including Egyptian.

The use of the -ka element is frequently found in the formation of Dravidian, Elamite, Egyptian, Manding and Sumerian languages. In Egyptian as outlined by Cheikh Anta Diop, in Nouvelles Recherches Sur l' Egyptien Ancien et Langues Negro-Africaines Modernes (pp.55-57), he outlines the use of /k/ and /t/ , to form agent nouns. In Parente genetique de l'Egyptien Pharonique et des langues Negro-Africaines (p.18), Diop explains the evolution of the -ky, and -kt particles.

In Elamite the passive participle is formed by -ka, e.g., hulta-ka 'done', turu-ka 'said'. This corresponds to the Manding -ka 'make, do',e.g., nyine 'see', nyini-ka 'interogate'.

In the Dravidian and Manding languages -ka, is used to represent the verb 'to be', as well as the subjunctive. For example in Manding languages ka, is a particle of different values, which corresponds to -kaa, the infinitive element in Telugu of the verb ag-uta 'to become'. In Tamil this element appears as aaga. For example, in Manding we have a ka-nye 'it's good'; and in Telugu kaa valenu 'it is necessary'. The same radical -ka represents the optative form in Telugu, e.g., aapani mundara kani 'how is labor given first place?'

In the Dravidian languages the suffixes -ke, -ge and -ka are used as the primitive verb 'to be' or 'to do'. They are usually used with abstract nouns e.g., ol 'to reign', ol-ka 'domination'. This corresponds to the Manding verb 'to do' ke , which is often joined to -la to form derived nouns e.g., sene 'cultivate', sene-li ke-la 'cultivator'.

These languages also share many cognate terms.
  • ENGLISH SUMERIAN MANDING Tamil
    chief kal,kala kele-tigi gasa(n)
    field gan ga kalan
    eye(l) igi --- akki
    eye(2) ini,en nya kan
    arrow kak kala kakam
    granary kur k'ur-k'ur kutir
    road sila sila caalai
    father pap pa appan
    lord manus mansa mannan
    male mu moko maakkal
    to recite sid siti
    to buy sa sa cel
    grain se se
    seed gen ge 'to sprout'


The linguistic evidence makes it clear that the Sumerians and Africans are closely related and probably had similar origins as suggested by Col. Rawlinson.

.

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is controversy surrounding the African origin of the Sumerians. Every since Oppert, people have tried to deny the African origin of the Sumerians.

The reason they made this lie was because Rawlinson said that the Sumerians came from Africa. This offended many scholars during the time because they had perpetuated the idea that Blacks had no history. Rawlinson also implied that the Semitic speaking people were originally also Blacks.

Hincks an English scholar and Oppert, a French Jewish
scholars began the myth that Sumerian was not related
to any other known language because it was
demonstrated that Sumerian was not related to the
Scythian language. These authors knew that when
Rawlinson talked about Scythians he was talking about
Blacks in Africa, and not Turks and etc. Form this day
until today they continue to maintain this line.


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 Salmat kakkadi ‘black headed people”,
were all Blacks of Kushite origin.
Eventhough de La Couperie 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.


Gutian on Right...Sumerian on the Left

 -

Gudea
 -

[IMG]http://www.geocities.com/ahmadchiek/Sumerian.png
[/IMG]

.

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rawlinson claimed that the Kushites originated in Africa. The genetic relationship between the Mande, Dravidian, Sumerian and Elamite confirm the research of Col. Rawlinson. The ancestors of these people originally lived in the Sahara.

Elamite
 -

Medes
 -

Babylonians
 -

Armenian
 -

Gandaran

 -

.

These pictures make it clear that there were many Blacks in Central Asia during this period. Already by this time many of the Libyans were looking the same as the Thracian and Greeks. It is interesting that these people have the European hair common to contemporary Europeans.

The Blacks like the Elamites, Nubians, Medes and etc., had the kinky curled hair. More pictures are found at the following site:

Foreign People Associated with the Persians

These numerous Blacks in this area in ancient times may be explained by the presense of Rl in the Caucasus and Central Asia?


Concomitant Replacement of Language and mtDNA in South Caspian Populations of Iran - all 6 versions »
I Nasidze, D Quinque, M Rahmani, SA Alemohamad, M … - Current Biology, 2006 - Elsevier
... Haplogroup J2 (M172) was found at high frequency in both groups, as was haplogroup
R1 (M173); together, these two haplogroups account for more than 50% of ...

This is interesting because the M89 and M9 lineages are ancestral to R1*-M173. Haplotype IX (R1*-M173)has been found in several Cameroonian and Guinea-Bissau populations. Other Central Asians carry E-M78 which belongs to E3b(E-M215) that originated in Northeastern Africa. Whereas 93.8% of the Mande speakers in the Senegambia are E(xE3b)=E-M78 6.3%, and 2 Mande speakers from Guinea Bisaau carried the M3b*-M35 gene.

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Marc Washington
Member
Member # 10979

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Marc Washington   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dr. Winters. Thanks very much for this material which I will be reading in more detail. I have more examples of revisionist plaigarism where African originals are re-done to make them look White. Really insidious stuff those guys have been up to for the last 4000 years.

Respectfully,


Marc

--------------------
The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation.

Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Medes

Leo Wiener in Africa and the Discovery of America, suggested that the Mande speakers and Medes were related based on the conical hats they wore. We now have genetic evidence to support the linguistic evidence that the Medes were probably originally Mande speakers.

The original Proto- Saharan tribes of Central Asia were known as the
Kushana, Yuehshih, Mandaga (Manda > Mande), and Kasu. The four kingdoms of Saka were the Maga (Manga), Masaka, Mansa and Mandaga (Manda). The term Saka, now used to describe a late Indo-European group that conquered Central Asia formerly was used to refer to the Kushites/Proto-Saharans of ancient Central Asia. The name Maga, reminds us of the Magians or Maka, of the Persian inscriptions who lived in Media.

The ancient Sumerian name for Medea ,was Mada. One of the six tribes of Mada,was the "Mages" or "Magu" in Persian. The name Mage signified "the great,the High". Herodotus, claimed the the Medes came from Athens. This would support a Mande origin.

Many cities of eastern Greece were early settled by the Manding
speakers who presently live in West Africa. Moreover, in the Manding
languages "Maga" means 'great". Moreover, the name of the King of the
Soninke (Manding) speaking empire of Ghana (300 BC to AD 1100) was called Manda.

The Magians or Medians, were probably descendants of the Manding tribes which also included the Garamantes of European and Libyan fame, and in Asia under the name of Mandaga/Medians. This view is supported by linguistic, historical and cultural data.

The language of the Medes, like Elamite is genetically related to the Manding languages. In addition the term Mandaga agrees with the title of the Manding tribes: for example, Manda agrees with Mande, the name of major group of Africans, who along with the Dravidians settled many parts of Asia.

Concomitant Replacement of Language and mtDNA in South Caspian Populations of Iran - all 6 versions »
I Nasidze, D Quinque, M Rahmani, SA Alemohamad, M … - Current Biology, 2006 - Elsevier
... Haplogroup J2 (M172) was found at high frequency in both groups, as was haplogroup
R1 (M173); together, these two haplogroups account for more than 50% of ...

This is interesting because the M89 and M9 lineages are ancestral to R1*-M173. Haplotype IX (R1*-M173)has been found in several Cameroonian and Guinea-Bissau populations. Other Central Asians carry E-M78 which belongs to E3b(E-M215) that originated in Northeastern Africa. Whereas 93.8% of the Mande speakers in the Senegambia are E(xE3b)=E-M78 6.3%, and 2 Mande speakers from Guinea Bisaau carried the M3b*-M35 gene. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Celt
Member
Member # 13774

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Celt     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Absolutely amazing. LOLOLOL
Posts: 197 | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yonis
Member
Member # 7684

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Yonis     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Clyde Winters:
These pictures make it clear that there were many Blacks in Central Asia during this period. Already by this time many of the Libyans were looking the same as the Thracian and Greeks. It is interesting that these people have the European hair common to contemporary Europeans.

The Blacks like the Elamites, Nubians, Medes and etc., had the kinky curled hair.

Actually those pics don't help the position you propose , they infact strenghten their west asian indigenous identity.

Nothing black about these Medes paying tribute, atleast not in the sense that distinguish them from the contemporary population of the levant region. They would however look out of place in majority of Africa.

 -

Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yonis:
quote:
Clyde Winters:
These pictures make it clear that there were many Blacks in Central Asia during this period. Already by this time many of the Libyans were looking the same as the Thracian and Greeks. It is interesting that these people have the European hair common to contemporary Europeans.

Actually those pics don't help the position you propose , they actually strenghten their west asian indeginious identity.

Nothing black about this Medes man paying tribute, atleast not in the sense that distinguish him from the contemporary population of the levant region. He would however look out of place in majority of Africa.

 -

Afro-American Alexander Crummal

 -

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yonis
Member
Member # 7684

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Yonis     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Clyde winters:
Afro-American Alexander Crummal

 -

 -

Sorry I don't see any significant similarities at all!

But i see a hell lot more with Ayatollah Khomeini, the Medes were an Iranian speaking people afterall.

 -

Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ I agree with Yonis. I've always felt this way about the pictures of ancient SouthWest Asians which supposedly are meant to prove that they are African.

quote:
Winters: Rawlinson claimed that the Kushites originated in Africa. The genetic relationship between the Mande, Dravidian, Sumerian and Elamite confirm the research of Col. Rawlinson. The ancestors of these people originally lived in the Sahara.
^ Perhaps you have a fan base who reads the above without giggling.

It's like using the name Moses and Ahmose [the moon is born] to prove thae the AE come from Outer Space.

How broken does ones brain have to be in order to not detect and dismiss the outragious non-sequitur.

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
blackman
Member
Member # 1807

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for blackman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
[QB] ^ I agree with Yonis. I've always felt this way about the pictures of ancient SouthWest Asians which supposedly are meant to prove that they are African.

I don't believe they were African, but definitely they were black.

Black people aren't confined to Africa.

Why are so many of them painted black and have tight curly hair? Most people of the region today aren't as dark as the reliefs and their hair isn't tightly curled.

Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
alTakruri
Member
Member # 10195

Rate Member
Icon 12 posted      Profile for alTakruri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah, but are the curls by nature or artifice in
each and every instance, and are you sure?

Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lord of the Nile
Member
Member # 10305

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lord of the Nile   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Ah, but are the curls by nature or artifice in
each and every instance, and are you sure?

Would you have evidence demonstrating that the curls are artifice? In the absenceof such evidence I would rather presume the simplest and the most logical preposition which is that those men have actually made an accurate reproduction of their images.

I still have not seen a white or leuco-derm population with predominantly pepper-corn curly hair and beards. Such features only occur in phenotypical Blacks...whether you call them Africans or West Asians.

The Lord

Posts: 83 | From: Quebec, Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
blackman
Member
Member # 1807

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for blackman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Ah, but are the curls by nature or artifice in
each and every instance, and are you sure?

alTakruri,
I don't think it is artifice because other reliefs have differnt types of hair. You can see straight and bushy from the link provided.

http://www.livius.org/a/iran/persepolis/people/people.html

Prognathism isn't only confined to black people, but it's trait is predominately in black people.
The same is for tight curly hair.

So, in the relief you have tight curly hair and dark skin. Why question if they were black?

Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Marc,

This is absolutely ridiculous. Sure, there were ancient strains of Africans in the Levant and Mesopotamia from a far distant past, but posting random images from Persian art and calling them "reworked" is nonsense, because it DENIES the fact that many OTHER populations who DID NOT have features resembling Africans also inhabited these areas. Teach facts not fantasies.

Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Marc Washington
Member
Member # 10979

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Marc Washington   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Doug. In all due respects, those populations came much later. Africans were there since paeolithic times. Those from the North (read Steppes) came mostly after 2100 BC and have nothing, really, to do with contributing to the culture. In most cases, they came and utterly destroyed towns, villages, committed genocide and slavery on the indigenous populations while at the same time taking on their culture. Witness the fact that the entire Near East today produces very few examples of "pure" indigenous Africans yet everyone there speaks the Semitic language "invented" by Africans.

Take care.


Marc

--------------------
The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation.

Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Marc Washington
Member
Member # 10979

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Marc Washington   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is this picture showing what happened to Africans when people from the North came. The two men with knives are proto-Turks back in 900 BC. Compare noses between the seated individual with the very broad nose and his two assailants who have him disabled pinning him with their legs wrapped around his own.

 -
Tell Halaf, Turkey, 900 BC

There is a large amount of material that can be pretty easily produced by leading researchers in the Near East showing the havoc and destruction to indigenous peoples that happened when those from the North came in the second and first millennium.

So while you are right to say there were other ethnic groups in the region for the time during which the pictures I uploaded refer - the incoming people did little more than destroy then replace and carry on the culture of those they dispensed with - the Africans.

The original web page deals with the fact that black niggers (to make turn scars into stars), black-skinned people contributed the lion's share to the human civilizations we all share today as reported by leading scholars even in Ivy League institutions such as Kramer who reported the fact.


From one Philadelphia-ite (I'm from Philly) to another (you live in Philly). A Homeboy.

Take care

--------------------
The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation.

Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
alTakruri
Member
Member # 10195

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for alTakruri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In my opinion, excepting most Elamites and
the Lachish Judahites, it is indeed artifice.
The curls aren't natural. You can see the wavy
or straight character of the hair when looking
down on a carvings head from above or looking
directly at a relief's hairline where a crown or
helmet sits upon the hair. The beard's texture
 -
is another indicator of the hair's true quality.

I question the unneccessary application of blackness
onto people where it does not belong. The "penis envy"
like condition of many diasporan blacks needing to make
peoples who aren't black into blacks and thus claim said
peoples' accomplishments just shows the lack of knowledge
of, or distaste for, actual black peoples and their cultures
and a preference for the cultural accutrements of their "hosts."

However, as posted here once, the Medes and iirc the Persians
were looked upon as mulato in origin by the Greeks when
examining their Perseus & Andromeda and Jason & Medea mythos.


quote:
Originally posted by blackman:
quote:
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Ah, but are the curls by nature or artifice in
each and every instance, and are you sure?

alTakruri,
I don't think it is artifice because other reliefs have differnt types
of hair. You can see straight and bushy from the link provided.

http://www.livius.org/a/iran/persepolis/people/people.html

Prognathism isn't only confined to black people, but it's trait is
predominately in black people.
The same is for tight curly hair.

So, in the relief you have tight curly hair and dark skin.
Why question if they were black?


Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Marc Washington
Member
Member # 10979

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Marc Washington   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Doug. Not. I put a few more (not all) pictures where African historical or mythological figures were plaigaized. Maybe call it identity theft? Interesting that even the Son of Man (with wooly hair - Daniel: 7:9) becomes blond haired and white. So, being the Savior and Son of Man, by implication, in one direction, His Father, God, is Black. In the other, White. And His Mother? The origination of the Holy Mother was something sort of simple - it was the tribal mother. Nurturing her symbolic son was, in metaphorical language, her nurturing role for the tribe of 10, or 40, or 50 people. I have a friend in Philly who travels to Africa all the time and has a godzillion statues of the Holy Mother and Child he sells. He's done exhibits on them all around the country.

But, she starts out African (and we can see examples near 3100.BC BC)

 -

but, the man impersonates her and her Black son as White. As the word "Conquerer" they like so much. It really means mass-murderer, theft of whole tribes, cities, nations, and cultures; the stealer of their gold and wealth, cattle, farms, women. Conquerer means something portrayed as glorious but it is absolutely the most heartless and worst of human nature that a conquerer represents. Why, they even stole God Himself and act like it was a righteous act carrying out the Crusades torturing and killing the same people they stole the idea of Christ from.

And then tell you not to change a word in the Bible (after he already did) cause you'll go to hell. Man. What a trip.

Anyhow, to stay on focus, and warn you again about a certain TWO PEOPLE (MAYBE 3 - THE CUT BUDDY OF THE TWO) on this site parading as intellectuals on African history who aren't African and are probably on somebody's PAYROLL (I won't call them Agents with the government's intelligence agencies; they have aliases and on other sites as well) to hammer away at the wish that Africans aren't to be found outside of Africa.

It was the Black nigger, the Black-skinned person, who pulled humanity out of the Stone Age. But, as bad as things have gone in a White-controlled world (all the killing and genocide, theft, sale of guns to people they instigate to fight so they can take their resources and what little money they have), we probably should have remained in the Stone Age.

Last word. Black-skinned people like Tut and the the Black-headed Sumerians gave civilization to the world.

Caoi.

--------------------
The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation.

Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 10 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ Well.. since all the silly trolls are gone, someone has to provide the entertainment around here! LMAO [Big Grin]
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Marc Washington
Member
Member # 10979

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Marc Washington   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some people seem to think the destruction of African civilizations, the local genocides and slaveries coupled with the vast North Atlantic Slave Trade at the hands of white invaders and men seeking wealth is a smug, humorous joke. As I told posters here at the forum, beware of the people you choose to put faith in. This particular one is no different than any who torched and leveled African villages from the times of Alexander or Caesar. LOL? Really?

--------------------
The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation.

Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ translation: If you can't convince based upon evidence, appeal to ethnic resentment and paranoia to get presumably childish people, on 'your side'.

One problem. There are few if any children on this forum, and that's why you get nowhere.

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by alTakruri:
The "penis envy"
like condition of many diasporan blacks needing to make
peoples who aren't black into blacks and thus claim said
peoples' accomplishments just shows the lack of knowledge
of, or distaste for, actual black peoples and their cultures

Yup. This is what value I glean from the bizarre and bent focus of the Mark Washington threads.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marc Washington:
Here is this picture showing what happened to Africans when people from the North came. The two men with knives are proto-Turks back in 900 BC. Compare noses between the seated individual with the very broad nose and his two assailants

 -

The two men on the side are seen in profile, the man in the middle is shown from a frontal view. That's the main reason their noses look different.

Funny that all 3 have the same curly hair, and now it no longer seems to prove anything to you.

^ Blackman, LOTR, et. al, I sincerely find it hard to believe that you can't see how silly this stuff is.

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marc Washington:
Doug. In all due respects, those populations came much later. Africans were there since paeolithic times. Those from the North (read Steppes) came mostly after 2100 BC and have nothing, really, to do with contributing to the culture. In most cases, they came and utterly destroyed towns, villages, committed genocide and slavery on the indigenous populations while at the same time taking on their culture. Witness the fact that the entire Near East today produces very few examples of "pure" indigenous Africans yet everyone there speaks the Semitic language "invented" by Africans.

Take care.


Marc

OK, then if that is the case, why do you keep posting pictures of people from cultures who came into being AFTER the "africoid" element had long been removed and call them African? You are contradicting yourself.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Marc Washington
Member
Member # 10979

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Marc Washington   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Doug. That picture is not "after" removal. It is during the genocide that eliminated Africans from the Near East more-or-less completely by the AD, not BC. Consider this population that gave us the bible now long gone:

 -

--------------------
The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation.

Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
blackman
Member
Member # 1807

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for blackman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE] Blackman, LOTR, et. al, I sincerely find it hard to believe that you can't see how silly this stuff is.

Rasol,
With all due respect. I only comment on the truth I find in the post in reference to the trolls. As I stated before and again, they weren't Africans. However, they were Black. I will welcome and appreciate if you or anyone can prove me otherwise.

Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yonis
Member
Member # 7684

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Yonis     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by blackman:
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE] Blackman, LOTR, et. al, I sincerely find it hard to believe that you can't see how silly this stuff is.

Rasol,
With all due respect. I only comment on the truth I find in the post in reference to the trolls. As I stated before and again, they weren't Africans. However, they were Black. I will welcome and appreciate if you or anyone can prove me otherwise.

Even if they were "black"(whatever that means) they were still not related to any group in africa more than the groups who lived next to them.
I don't understand with this fascination of "blacks" as if it had any meaning scientifically.
The Sri lankans and south Indian Tamils are also black, but what do they have to do with you or other blacks outside south asia? It's like trying to prove that the ancient chinese royalty were fat and thus had more connection to other fat people of africa than the thin people of ancient china, it doesn't make sense.
These people were genetically and culturally not closer to other africans than their immediate neighbours, so calling them black, blue or yellow is totally irrelevant, they were still indigenous to west asia and closely related to other west/central asians than to any other people outside this region regardless if you call them black, green, white or yellow .

Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
blackman
Member
Member # 1807

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for blackman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yonis:

These people were genetically and culturally not closer to other africans than their immediate neighbours, so calling them black, blue or yellow is totally irrelevant.

Yonis,
Do you have genetic data on the ancient Sumerian? I understand the people of the region today aren't genetically close to africans.

That is like saying the people of Egypt today aren't genetically or culturally close to africans.

It may take me a little time to find again, but I posted info on the skulls of ancient sumerians quite a while back.

Please post your genetic data on the ancient Sumerians. I look forward to seeing it.

Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yonis
Member
Member # 7684

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Yonis     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Blackman:
Please post your genetic data on the ancient Sumerians. I look forward to seeing it.

Who talked about Sumerians? The Medes were not sumerians, we know that they spoke an Iranian language and were cousins of the persians. Those are the people Clyde winters claimed to be African.

As for Sumerians there is no genetic studies of them as i know, even their language is still unidentified, so it's futile to even bring them up. But we can for certain say they were not africans since they lived in west asia which isn't africa if that comes to help. And if they were "black" that's irrelevant since alot of other non-africans are also "black" but genetically different.

Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
blackman
Member
Member # 1807

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for blackman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yonis:
quote:
Blackman:
Please post your genetic data on the ancient Sumerians. I look forward to seeing it.

Who talked about Sumerians? The Medes were not sumerians, we know that they spoke an Iranian language and were cousins of the persians. Those are the people Clyde winters claimed to be African.

As for Sumerians there is no genetic studies of them as i know, even their language is still unidentified, so it's futile to even bring them up.

If there is no genetic data, how can you say they weren't genetically related?

I never stated the Medes. I only stated the ancient Sumerians as in the title of the thread.

Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yonis
Member
Member # 7684

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Yonis     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Blackman:
If there is no genetic data, how can you say they weren't genetically related?

I never mentioned the sumerians so i don't know where you picked this from.

quote:
I never stated the Medes. I only stated the ancient Sumerians as in the title of the thread.
Actually you commented on a post where rasol commented on clyde winters post where winters identifying Medes as african. And later you also wrote back on a post where AlTakruri replied on an image of the Medes posted by clyde winters. You never mentioned the Sumerians.
So it's you who's out of sync.

Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
blackman
Member
Member # 1807

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for blackman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yonis,
You are the one in your previous post stating they weren't genetically related, not me.
I am only trying to find out how you can make a statement like that, even if you are talking about the Medes and not the Sumerians.

I made it clear from my fisrt post to Rasol they weren't african. Also, my comment to Al was in debate to their looks and hair texture.

I'll talk more later.

Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by blackman:
Rasol,
With all due respect. I only comment on the truth I find in the post in reference to the trolls. As I stated before and again, they weren't Africans. However, they were Black. I will welcome and appreciate if you or anyone can prove me otherwise.

Fair enough.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yonis
Member
Member # 7684

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Yonis     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by blackman:

Yonis,
You are the one in your previous post stating they weren't genetically related, not me...even if you are talking about the Medes and not the Sumerians

Genetically related to who, people on the Africa continent? No they were not! Not more than their neighbours.

The Medes were an Indo-Iranian speaking people and as far as i know there are no Indo-Iranian speaking people in Africa, so it's safe to say they were more related to their neighbours than any other groups outside this region, let alone African groups.
This kind of foolishness seriously needs to stop, it's borderline childish.

Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
blackman
Member
Member # 1807

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for blackman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yonis:

The Medes were an Indo-Iranian speaking people and as far as i know there are no Indo-Iranian speaking people in Africa, so it's safe to say they were more related to their neighbours than any other groups outside this region, let alone African groups.
This kind of foolishness seriously needs to stop, it's borderline childish.

Again you are avoiding my question.
How do you know who was geneticly related to who in ancient times?

If you have data please provide it so I may apologize to you.

I agree the childishness needs to stop, so please stop.

Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 11 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ Because we have genetic evidence showing the origin and/or divergence of lineages, and before that we have archaeological and written historical evidence of who was in the area. Fact is Iranian speaking peoples from Central Asia like the Medes, Persians, etc. were NOT black. [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
blackman
Member
Member # 1807

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for blackman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Djehuti,
I'll provide info to back up my belief later.

For Yonis,
Please answer.
If I'm a black man born and raised in America and I speak english (european language), am I genetically closer to Europeans of African?

Am I culturally closer to Eurpeans or African?

Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yonis
Member
Member # 7684

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Yonis     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by blackman:


For Yonis,
Please answer.
If I'm a black man born and raised in America and I speak english (european language), am I genetically closer to Europeans of African?

Am I culturally closer to Eurpeans or African?

Thats modern world, people were not as mobile as today 2500 years ago, most ethnicities were quite homogenious then. Even today you would expect a certain phenotype of a British, Zambian or a Japanese. I don't see any reason to think an iranian speaking Medes from 2500 years ago should look any different from the people of west/central asian region.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
blackman
Member
Member # 1807

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for blackman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yonis,
A lot can happen in 2500 years. Even America isn't the same culturally, language, racially, it was 500 years ago.

My next post shows the different people coming into the region over time. How do you expect it to be the same?

Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
blackman
Member
Member # 1807

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for blackman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Djehuti,
I will use current info on the net and the bible as a reference to back up my statements.
My beliefs are for the Sumerians. I never made claims on the Medes or Persians. The region has
been invaded and conquered by different people at different times. As I stated before, the reliefs of the region differs from the people in the region today.

Net info first.
Timeline of the region shows the land was conquered by many different people,so how can you claim the original people weren't black.
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_time_neareast_my_sumer.htm

Another timeline with other good info.
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/TIMELINE.HTM

The Akkads invades Sumer. The Akkads spoke a semitic language. I believe semetic languages are Afro-Asian.
Through war, absorbtion, or whatever the people merge.
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/SUMER.HTM


Racial Type of the Sumerians by Skulls
This isn't the site I posted a while back but it will do.
Quote:
"In other words, they had very broad noses.
The skulls had both subnasal and alveolar prognathism, or fullness of the lower and upper lips."
I believe prognathism is a predominate trait of black people.
http://www.geocities.com/pinatubo.geo/sumer.htm


Now for the Bible which is considered less, mainly because some here don't believe it.
Genesis 10:6-11
We have Nimrod, the son of Cush, the son of Ham. Nimrod is responsible for he kingdom of Babel and Ninevah of Assyria.
If you read you will find Cush (Ethiopia), Mizraim (Eygpt), Put (Libya?),
and Canaan (Present day Isarel/Palestine) are brothers/related.

Even the Greek historian Herotodus linked (Mizraim) Eygptians with (Cush) Ethiopian
culturally with gods and circumcision.

For some reason the writer if Genesis in his time linked the people of North Africa,
Isarel/Palestine, Babel, Shinar, Assyria, and Ninevah to black people.

Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of course you can use genetics to determine who was related to whom in ancient times.

That is the whole basis of the concept of most recent common ancestor in dna typing.

DNA is probably the best, and most accurate way of researching this.... just as DNA is the most accurate way of resolving paternity.

And no.... in principal there is no difference between using DNA to denote paternity and using it to denote ancient ancestral relationships.

Many people understandably beleive there is such a distinction based on intuitive reasoning, but intuition is sometimes faulty.

Your blood carries information from the past just as much as a bone or historical artifact does.

And if your blood doesn't *literally* travel back in time, then neither does any skeletal remain or historical written document, which can only be literally assessed in the here and now.

Intuitively the world remained flat for many peoples....even 1000's of years after they grasped the basic principals of trigonometry that could be easily used to determine not only the oval shape but also the overall size of the Earth.

Yes genes can prove biological relationships of peoples, which by definition is carried in their genes.

It is actually and open question whether *any other method* can.

Historical reference can be misinterpreted or flat out wrong.

Skeletal remains allow inferences, but can be misleading because of the great native variability of skeletype within all human populations.

People *suspect* genetics because they don't understand, and actually it's *right* to question what you don't understand.

But only if you follow thru by attempting to learn. [Smile]

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
blackman
Member
Member # 1807

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for blackman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Of course you can use genetics to determine who was related to whom in ancient times.

People *suspect* genetics because they don't understand, and actually it's *right* to question what you don't understand.

But only if you follow thru by attempting to learn. [Smile]

Rasol,
Then please help me understand how we can geneticly relate the ancient sumerians to anybody?

We don't know who are descendants of the Sumerians are with all of the invasions.

That would be almost like taking DNA from almost any American and stating the Ancient Native Americans were related to europeans.

Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Rasol,
Then please help me understand how we can geneticly relate the ancient sumerians to anybody?

Ah now. That's a different, and valid question. I have no strong views on Sumerian identity because information is so limited.

I'm open minded to considerations of any evidence on their identity.

Note my reply was to Winters:

The genetic relationship between the Mande, Dravidian, Sumerian and Elamite confirm the research of Col. Rawlinson

^ We do have evidence of Mandingo and Dravidian.

They are *not* related.

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 11 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by blackman:

Djehuti,

I will use current info on the net and the bible as a reference to back up my statements.
My beliefs are for the Sumerians. I never made claims on the Medes or Persians. The region has
been invaded and conquered by different people at different times. As I stated before, the reliefs of the region differs from the people in the region today.

Net info first.
Timeline of the region shows the land was conquered by many different people,so how can you claim the original people weren't black.
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_time_neareast_my_sumer.htm

Another timeline with other good info.
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/TIMELINE.HTM

The Akkads invades Sumer. The Akkads spoke a semitic language. I believe semetic languages are Afro-Asian.
Through war, absorbtion, or whatever the people merge.
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/SUMER.HTM


Racial Type of the Sumerians by Skulls
This isn't the site I posted a while back but it will do.
Quote:
"In other words, they had very broad noses.
The skulls had both subnasal and alveolar prognathism, or fullness of the lower and upper lips."
I believe prognathism is a predominate trait of black people.
http://www.geocities.com/pinatubo.geo/sumer.htm


Now for the Bible which is considered less, mainly because some here don't believe it.
Genesis 10:6-11
We have Nimrod, the son of Cush, the son of Ham. Nimrod is responsible for he kingdom of Babel and Ninevah of Assyria.
If you read you will find Cush (Ethiopia), Mizraim (Eygpt), Put (Libya?),
and Canaan (Present day Isarel/Palestine) are brothers/related.

Even the Greek historian Herotodus linked (Mizraim) Eygptians with (Cush) Ethiopian
culturally with gods and circumcision.

For some reason the writer if Genesis in his time linked the people of North Africa,
Isarel/Palestine, Babel, Shinar, Assyria, and Ninevah to black people.

Uh.. 'Blackman', I am well aware of the history of the peopling of Mesopotamia. The earliest known inhabitants of Sumer was not the Sumerians but a preceeding people called the Ubaidians, and YES I know that they and the neighboring Elamites were black, but WHAT DOES ANY OF THAT HAVE TO DO WITH CENTRAL ASIAN GROUPS, SPECIFICALLY INDO-IRANIAN SPEAKING PEOPLES LIKE THE MEDES??!!
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mystery Solver
Member
Member # 9033

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mystery Solver         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yonis:

quote:
Blackman:
Please post your genetic data on the ancient Sumerians. I look forward to seeing it.

Who talked about Sumerians? The Medes were not sumerians, we know that they spoke an Iranian language and were cousins of the persians. Those are the people Clyde winters claimed to be African.

As for Sumerians there is no genetic studies of them as i know, even their language is still unidentified, so it's futile to even bring them up. But we can for certain say they were not africans since they lived in west asia which isn't africa if that comes to help. And if they were "black" that's irrelevant since alot of other non-africans are also "black" but genetically different.

Depends on what part of "west Asia" is question. Technically, as noted time and again, the Great Rift Valley portion of "south west Asia", which comprises the Arabian peninsula all the way to northern Jordan, is actually still African, notwithstanding subjective geopolitics. Moreover, there is genetic and linguistic continuity from north Africa to the so-called "South west Asia".
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ True, but Yonis is referring to the Sumerians and others of the Mesopotamian valley. Where does the African continutity stop and Asian cline begin?
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
blackman
Member
Member # 1807

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for blackman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Djehuti,
With your question you also have to consider the timeframe. As of today the Africa cline is minimal.

In the timeframe of Genesis I would think the influence is stronger because the author linked the people of the region with other African people "kingdom of Babel and Ninevah of Assyria".

In the timeframe of the Akkadian invasion (Semitic people) who knows. Do semetic people today carry similiar DNA of African people today?

If they do, they more than likely carried the DNA in the past.

Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3