posted
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 |
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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:
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 |
posted
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 |
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 |
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.
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.
posted
^ 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 |
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 |
posted
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 |
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 |
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 |
posted
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 |
posted
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 |
posted
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.
posted
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 |
posted
^ Well.. since all the silly trolls are gone, someone has to provide the entertainment around here! LMAOPosts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 |
posted
^ 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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
posted
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
posted
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 |
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.
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 |
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 |
posted
^ 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.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 |
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 |
posted
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 |
posted
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.
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 |
posted
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.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
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 |
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.
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 |
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 |
posted
^ 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 |
posted
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 |