posted
Not to speak for Anguish but he never made the claim that they were blks from Africa just that they were blks period.but he can clarify if he choose to.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
that the sumerians were blacks from anyplace is an outlandish claim without a scrap of supportive evidence. I have heard some really nutty things on this board but this one is near the top of the list.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel that their should be three criterion that indicates the founders of a particular civilization was African, or the result of indigenous development and creation of ancient Asian , European and American Blacks.
These criteria are: 1. Archaeological and anthropological evidence linking the Africans to a particular civilization; 2. Presence of genetically related languages; and 3. Historical evidence and social technologies invented over the past 5k years.
The archaeological evidence is clear. The River Valley civilizations of Africa and Asia were related.
The Africans who took civilization to Asia used a common black and red ware that has been found from the Sudan, across Southwest Asia and the Indian Subcontinent all the way to China (Singh 1982:xxiv) .The earliest use of this BRW was during the Amratian period (c.4000 3500 BC). The users of the BRW were usually called Kushites.
The best evidence for Africans founding the first civilizations are vessels from the IVBI workshop at Tepe Yahya (c.2100 1700 BC). The IVBI workshop vessels have a uniform shape and design. Vessels sharing this style are distributed from Egypt to Mesopotamia; and Soviet Uzbekistan, to the Indus Valley
The archaeological evidence suggest a widespread dispersal of of Proto Saharan tribes between 3800 2500 BC. This explains the common arrowheads at Harappan sites, and sites in Iran, Egypt, Minoan Crete and early Heladic Greece.
This archaeological evidence shows an African origin for the River Valley civilizations.
Henry Rawlinson used the Book of Genesis to find the identity of the Mesopotamia. He made it clear that the original inhabitants of Babylonia were represented by the name Nimrod and were represented by the family of Ham: Kushites, Egyptians and etc. This name came from the popularity among these people of hunting the leopard (Nimri). And as noted in earlier post the Egyptian and Nubian rulers always associated leopard spots with royalty, just as Siva is associated with the feline. As a result, Rawlinson used an African language Galla, to decipher the cuneiform writing.
The Sumerians and Elamites came from Africa, like the founders of the Indus Valley civilization. This is why the Elamite and Sumerian languages are closely related to African and Dravidian languages.
The Kushites when they migrated from Middle Africa to Asia continued to call themselves Kushites. This is most evident in place names and the names of gods. The Kassites, chief rulers of Iran occupied the central part of the Zagros. The Kassite god was called Kashshu, which was also the name of the people. The K-S-H, name element is also found in India. For example Kishkinthai, was the name applied to an ancient Dravidian kingdom in South India. Also it should be remembered that the Kings of Sumer, were often referred to as the " Kings of Kush".
The major Kushite tribe in Central Asia was called Kushana. The Kushan of China were styled Ta Yueh-ti or "the Great Lunar Race". Along the Salt Swamp, there was a state called Ku-Shih of Tibet. The city of K-san, was situated in the direction of Kushan, which was located in the Western part of the Gansu Province of China.
The Elamites later conquered Sumer. They called this line of Kings,he "King of Kish'. This term has affinity to the term Kush,that was given to the Kerma dynasty, founded by the C-Group people of Kush. It is interesting to note that the Elamite language, is closely related to the African languages including Egyptian and the Dravidian languages of India.
The most important Kushite colony in Iran was ancient Elam. The Elamites called their country KHATAM or KHALTAM (Ka-taam). The capital of Khaltam which we call Susa, was called KHUZ (Ka-u-uz) by the Aryans, NIME (Ni-may) by the people of Sumer, and KUSHSHI (Cush-she) by the Elamites.In the Akkadian inscriptions the Elamites were called GIZ-BAM (the land of the bow). The ancient Chinese or Bak tribesmen which dominate China today called the Elamites KASHTI. Moreover, in the Bible the Book of Jeremiah (xlxx,35), we read "bow of Elam". It is interesting to note that both Khaltam-ti and Kashti as the name for Elam, agrees with Ta-Seti, the ancient name for Nubia located in the Meroitic Sudan.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Rawlinson was convinced that there was a relationship between the Sumerians and Africans. As a result he used two African languages: one Semitic and the other Cushitic to decipher the cuneiform writing.
Rawlinson was sure that the ancient Nubians and Puntites founded Mesopotamian civilization.(1)
The Sumerians came from the Sahara before it became a desert. Affinities exist between Nubia ware and pottery from Ennedi and Tibesti.
These Saharan people were round-headed ancient Mediterranean type. They were often referred to as Cafsa or Capsians; a group of people not devoid of negroid characteristics according to J Desanges.(11) Wyatt MacGaffey, claims that the term "Mediterranean" is an anthropological euphemism for "Negro".
The boats of the Saharan people are similar to those found on ancient engravings of boats in Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley. Many of the boats found in the eastern desert of Egypt and among the Red Sea Hills show affinities to Mesopotamian models.
S.N. Kramer in The Sumerians, claimed that Makan was Egypt, Mekluhha was Nubia-Punt, and the Indus Valley was Dilmun. Today Dilmun is believed to be found near Arabia. But the archaeological evidence suggest that the Indus Valley which was settled by Dravidian speakers was the source of the lapis lazuli , which made Dilmun famous .(2)
Archaeological research has confirmed that cultural interaction existed between the contemporary civilizations of the 4th and 3rd millenia B.C. Extensive trade routes connected the Proto-Dravidians of the Indus Valley, with African people in Egypto-Nubia, and the Elamites and Sumerians. P. Kohl discovered that vessels from IVBI worshop at Tepe Yahya, have a uniform shape and design. Vessels sharing this style are distributed from Soviet Uzbekistan to the Indus Valley, and Sumerian, Elamite and Egyptian sites. (2) In addition, we find common arrowheads at Harappan sites, and sites in Iran, Egypt, Minoan Crete and Heladic Greece.
It appears that the locus for this distribution of cultural traditions and technology was the Saharan-Nubian zone or Kush. This would explain why the Sumerians and Elamites often referred to themselves as "ksh". For example the ancient Sumerians called their dynasty "Kish". The words "kish", "kesh" and "kush" were also names for ancient Nubia-Sudan.
The Elamites also came from Kush. According to the classical writer Strabo, Susa the centre of the Elamite civilization was founded by Tithonus, king of Kush.
B.B. Lal has shown conclusively that the Dravidians came from Nubia and were related to the C-Group people who founded the Kerma dynasty.(3) They both used a common black-and-red ware (BRW) which Lal found was analogous to ceramics used by the megalithic people in India who also used analogous pottery signs identical to those found in the corpus of Indus Valley writing. (4)
Singh believes that this pottery spread from Nubia, through Mesopotamia and Iran southward into India.(5) The earliest examples of this BRW date to the Amratian period (c4000-3500 B.C.).
This same BRW was found at the lowest levels of Harappan sites at Lothal and Rangpur. After 1700 B.C. This ceramic tradition spread southward into megalithic India.(6) It is also found in Uzbekistan and China. (12)
Dilmun was an important source of lapis lazuli. If the Indus Valley civilization was Dilmun as hypothesized by Kramer, it would explain the control of the Harappans/ or Dilmunites of this important metal.
The Indus Valley people spoke a Dravidian language.(7) The Harappans controlled the lazurite region of Badakhshan, and the routes to the tin and copper fields of central Asia.(8)
The major city of the Harappans/Dilmunites in the lapis lazuli region was Shortughai. Francefort believes that many lapis lazuli works were transported to Iran and Mesopotamia from Shortughai.(9) The BRW at Shortughai is typically Harappan.
When we put all of this evidence together we must agree that there is some historical evidence for a connection between the NKSD people. These people used similar arrow heads, red-and-black pottery, and intercultural vessels.This shows the common culture of these people.
Footnotes
(1)C.B. Rawlinson, "Notes on the early history of Babylon", Jour. Royal Asiatic Society (First Series) 15, p.230.
(2). Philip L. Kohl, "The balance of trade in the mid-Third millenium BC", Current Anthropology, 19 (1978), pp.463-492.
(3)B.B. Lal, "From megalithic to the Harappan: Tracing back the graffiti on pottery", Ancient India, 16 (1960).
(4)B.B. Lal, "The only Asian mission in threatened Nubia", The Illustrated London Times, 20 April 1963.
(5) H.N. Singh, History and Archaeology of Black-and-Red Ware , Delhi, 1982.
(6) C.A. Winters, "The Dravido-Harappan Colonization of Central Asia", Central Asiatic Journal , 34 (1-2), pp.120-144.
(7) C.A. Winters, "The Dravidian language of the Harappan script", Archiv Orientalni, (1990).
(8) B. Brenjes, "On Proto-Elamite Iran", Current Anthropology, 24 (2) (1984), pp. 240-.
(9) Henri-Paul Franceport, "La civilisation de l'Indus aux rives de l'Oxus", Archeologie , (Decembre) p.50.
(10) Ibid., p.49.
(11) J. Desnages, "The Proto-Berbers". In General History of Africa vol.2, (Ed.) by G. Mokhtar (Heinemann Educational Books, London) p.25.
(12) Andersson,T.G. 1934. CHILDREN OF THE YELLOW EARTH:STUDIES IN PREHISTORIC CHINA. London.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Oppert knew Rawlinson had used African languages to decipher cuneiform writing. But he did not compare the Sumerian to African languages, probably, due to the fact that he knew they were related given Rawlinson's earlier research.
It is strange to some observers that Oppert,never criticized Rawlinson who had proposed the Turanian origin of the Ki-en-gi (Sumerians). But this was not strange at all. Oppert did not attack Rawlinson who was still alive at the time because he knew that Rawlinson said the Sumerians were the original Scythic and Turanian people he called Kushites. Moreover, Rawlinson made it clear that both the Akkadians and Sumerians were Blacks. For Oppert to have debated this issue with Rawlinson, who deciphered the cuneiform script, would have meant that he would have had to accept the fact that Semites were Black. There was no way Oppert would have wanted to acknowledge his African heritage, given the Anti-Semitism experienced by Jews living in Europe.
Although Oppert successfully hid the recognition that the Akkadians and the Sumerians both refered to themselves as sag-gig-ga “black heads”, some researchers were unable to follow the status quo and ignore this reality. For example, Francois Lenormant, made it clear, following the research of Rawlinson, that the Elamite and Sumerians spoke genetically related languages. This idea was hard to reconcile with the depiction of people on the monuments of Iran, especially the Behistun monument, which depicted Negroes (with curly hair and beards) representing the Assyrians, Jews and Elamites who ruled the area. As a result, Oppert began the myth that the Sumerian languages was isolated from other languages spoken in the world evethough it shared typological features with the Altaic languages. Oppert taught Akkadian-Sumerian in many of the leading Universities in France and Germany. Many of his students soon began to dominate the Academe, or held chairs in Sumerian and Akkadian studies these researchers continued to perpetuate the myth that the Elamite and Sumerian languages were not related.
There was no way to keep from researchers who read the original Sumerian, Akkadian and Assyrian text that these people recognized that they were ethnically Blacks. This fact was made clear by Albert Terrien de LaCouperie. Born in France, de LaCouperie was a well known linguist and China expert. Although native of France most of his writings are in English. In the journal he published called the Babylonian and Oriental Record, he outlined many aspects of ancient history. In these pages he made it clear that the Sumerians, Akkadians and even the Assyrians who called themselves ºalmat kakkadi ‘black headed people”, were all Blacks of Kushite origin. Eventhough de LaCouperie taught at the University of London, the prestige of Oppert, and the fact that the main centers for Sumero-Akkadian studies in France and Germany were founded by Oppert and or his students led to researchers ignoring the evidence that the Sumerians , Akkadians and Assyrians were Black.
In summary, the cuneiform evidence makes it clear that the Sumerians, Akkadians and Assyrians recognized themselves as Negroes: “black heads”. This fact was supported by the statues of Gudea, the Akkadians and Assyrians. Plus the Behistun monument made it clear that the Elamites were also Blacks.
The textual evidence also makes it clear that Oppert began the discussion of a typological relationship between Sumerian and Turkic languages. He also manufactured the idea that the Semites of Mesopotamia and Iran, the Assyrians and Akkadians were “whites”, like himself. Due to this brain washing, and whitening out of Blacks in history, many people today can look at depictions of Assyrians, Achamenians, and Akkadians and fail to see the Negro origin of these people.
To make the Sumerians “white” textbooks print pictures of artifacts dating to the Gutian rule of Lagash, to pass them off as the true originators of Sumerian civilization. No Gutian rulers of Lagash are recognized in the Sumerian King List.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The evidence is not clear clyde. Nobody agrees with that position. You lay out a criteria and then you fall into one supposition after another.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
come on son they not rocking beards like this in Africa
Mesopotamian civilizations (Sumerian, Assyrians, Babylonians, Chaldeans and Medians) devoted great care to oiling and dressing their beards, using tongs and curling irons to create elaborate ringlets and tiered patterns.
Look below, this is not a match:
you mus be trippin
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
These photos are of people dressed exactly like the Eblaites a semitic-speaking people of Syria. I always wondered if these were the people from the Diyala region that settled among the dark brown dolichocephals or Afro-Mediterranean Akkadians, since they are broad-headed or brachycephalic, unlike the earliest Sumerian and Semitic skeletons of the region.
“Anthropolometrically the evidence is ambiguous and confused… The consensus would seem to be with all reservations that the basic population of the whole region consisted of Mediterranean longheads who were joined in the course of time and relatively late by several groups of Alpine roundheads… In this connection it should be stressed that there is a marked discrepancy between the evidence of the cemetaries uncovered in Sumer and the appearance of the historic Sumerians depicted on the monuments. For it has been repeatedly observed that the monumental representations of the Sumerians paoint for the most part to pronounced roundheads.” Oriental and Biblical Studies collected writings of E.A. Speiser 1967. Ephraim Speiser p. 217.
Historian William Langer said virtually the same thing - “The population of both Upper and Lower Mesopotamia in prehistoric times belonged to the brown or Mediterranean race. While this basic stock persisted in historical, times especially in the south, it became increasingly, mixed especially with broad-headed Armenoid peoples from the northeastern mountains owing to the recurrent incursions of mountain tribes into the plain.” In William L. Langer – An Encyclopedia of World History, Houghton Mifflin Company Boston 1972 . Elliot Smith of course makes them originally descendants of the Ethiopians, Somali and Beja group - “Syria, Arabia, Mesopotamia and Sumer were parts of the original domain of the Brown Race” The Ancient Egyptians and the Origins of Civilization p.161 2007 version.
Maybe these broad- headed (brachcephalic prominent nosed people so called Armenoids were in fact Guti as Clyde suggests, but I'd like to see the evidence that they dated from that period.
Few if any round heads or brachycephals are found among the Capsians who were first related to Mechtoids and later on east African peoples, the so called hamitic or brown race.
Earliest Akkad ruled Assyria which may explain the allusion to black heads in that area.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: [QUOTE]Originally : [qb] Brachycephalic Eurasian
Elliot Smith first describes this late coming group into Mesopotamia this way - "...another race, also of short stature and brunet traits, had been evolving features distinctive of itself. In the course of ages those features of cranium and face to which I have repeatedly referred as "Armenoid" were gradually assumed, as well as another trait peculiarly distinctive of this group of peoples, the long beard, which forms perhaps the most obvious contrast between this population and the "Brown Race" Where the original home of the "Long-bearded Race" was is not certain, It is highly probable that theri area of characterization was in Russian Turkestan,..."
Apparently modern physical anthropologists are confirming the fact that groups of African affiliated and African-looking people occupied Syria, Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Arabia, Iran and Central Asia. Gradually the more hairsute and predominantly brachycephalic Eurasiatic groups began infiltrating these same regions as shown in skeletal evidence and rock art as well as burial practices. There were of course many other distinctions that could be made in the osteology of these peoples.
I had summarized these findings over 20 years ago as a graduate student and the conclusions come straight from the works of peoples likes of Arthru Keith, Sayce, Haddon, Berry, Brace, Speiser, Krogman, Penniman, James Mellaarte, Smith, Berry, Armelagos, Ucko, Sergi, Daniel T. Potts, and even Carleton Coon who with Isaac Asimov - rightly claimed dolichocephals are NO WHERE TO BE FOUND on a regional basis in Europe - and that includes among Nordics who are predominantly Mesocranic.
North Arabia remained predominantly African until several centuries ago while the brachycephalic Iranians began influencing the Yemen or south Arabia after the Parthian period.
Of course, such Eurasiatic types didn't make up any significant number in Egypt and North Africa either until the period of the Peoples of the Sea. Although there is mention by both early and modern antrhopologists of a small influx of these brachycephals and lateral headed people between the 2-6th dynasties in some Northern Egyptian towns who were quickly absorbed. " The modern anthropologists repeating the claim that AFrican looking populations occupied Euarsia before the coming of the bearded ancestros of modern Eurasiatics i.e. white people include Brace, Armelagos, and those mentioned by Zarahan, T. Hanihara, Naomichi Ogihara, Ricaut and Waelkens.
There studies show that physical anthropology as a scientifically objective way of discovering links between populations if not origins. They show conclusively that several dolichocephalic populations of African phenotype did occupy southwest Asia which most rock art of Eurasia until 5 -6000 years ago as in the Sahara depict only dark brown men.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Elliot Smith first describes this late coming group into Mesopotamia this way - "...another race, also of short stature and brunet traits, had been evolving features distinctive of itself. In the course of ages those features of cranium and face to which I have repeatedly referred as "Armenoid" were gradually assumed, as well as another trait peculiarly distinctive of this group of peoples, the long beard, which forms perhaps the most obvious contrast between this population and the "Brown Race" Where the original home of the "Long-bearded Race" was is not certain, It is highly probable that theri area of characterization was in Russian Turkestan,..."
^^^^^ Elliot Smith, The Ancient Egyptians and the Origin of Civilization, 1911 (dana's real up to date research)
page 79 of the same book:
"Within recent years many scholars have advocated that there is a large element of Negro in the composition of Proto-Egyptian population, and Ripley, apparently as a result of a misunderstanding of Sergei's views, boldly states that the Egyptians and the whole Mediterranean race are descendants of Negros! There can be no doubt that in respect of many features the Brown and Black Races present many points of similarity. Some of these resemblances are no doubt due to the fact that both peoples retain many traits common to them and primitive man; but other points of likeness cannot be explained in this manner. That there is no close affinity between these two races is shown by an analysis and comparison of the intimate structure of the bodies of representative individuals. In the texture of bone, the architecture of the skull, the nature of the asymmetry of the body and the character of the variations- in these and many other respects there is evidence of the profound gap that separates the Negro from the rest of mankind, including Egyptian."
dana, you didn't want to go there
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Elliot Smith first describes this late coming group into Mesopotamia this way - "...another race, also of short stature and brunet traits, had been evolving features distinctive of itself. In the course of ages those features of cranium and face to which I have repeatedly referred as "Armenoid" were gradually assumed, as well as another trait peculiarly distinctive of this group of peoples, the long beard, which forms perhaps the most obvious contrast between this population and the "Brown Race" Where the original home of the "Long-bearded Race" was is not certain, It is highly probable that theri area of characterization was in Russian Turkestan,..."
^^^^^ Elliot Smith, The Ancient Egyptians and the Origin of Civilization, 1923 (dana's real up to date)
page 79 of the same book:
"Within recent years many scholars have advocated that there is a large element of Negro in the composition of Proto-Egyptian population, and Ripley, apparently as a result of a misunderstanding of Sergei's views, boldly states that the Egyptians and the whole Mediterranean race are descendants of Negros! There can be no doubt that in respect of many features the Brown and Black Races present many points of similarity. Some of these resemblances are no doubt due to the fact that both peoples retain many traits common to them and primitive man; but other points of likeness cannot be explained in this manner. That there is no close affinity between these two races is shown by an analysis and comparison of the intimate structure of the bodies of representative individuals. In the texture of bone, the architecture of the skull, the nature of the asymmetry of the body and the character of the variations- in these and many other respects there is evidence of the profound gap that separates the Negro from the rest of mankind, including Egyptian."
dana, you didn't want to go there
There is no such thing as a Negro snaky even for Smith it simply is a word for any black type that wasn't closely related to the Woodabe, Oromo, Tigrai, Beja and other black people with symmetrical faces.
Smith claimed Cushites were "the brown race" but of course we all know differently now don't we.
Oromo Ethiopians (formerly called Galla whom Smith said Ripley mistakenly thought were "descendants of Negroes"?!)
Otherwise known as the "Brown race" that occupied Europe and built megaliths there according to Smith as oopposed to "the black race"?!
If these are not black people then neither are there any in America.
Of course I'm going there - "The family likeness between present day populations of East Africaa and Egypt and the ancient Neolithic inhabitants of the British Isles and Mediterranean was such that the description of the bones of an Early Briton of that remote epoch might apply in ALL ESSENTIAL DETAILS to an inhabitant of Somaliland… The people were longheaded of small stature, skull is long, narrow and coffin shaped, brow ridges poorly developed, forehead is narrow, vertical and often slightly bulging…” p. 58 -59 GRAFTON ELLIOT SMITH
“the physical characteristics of the present day Nubian, Beja, Danakil, Galla, and Somali populations are if we leave out of account the alien negro and Semitic traits…are an obvious token of their undoubted kinship with the proto-Egyptians.” . Found on page 75 in The Ancient Egyptians and the Origin of Civilization (London/New York, Harper & Brothers) 1911.
Loring Brace basically says the same thing 100 years later.
That is why the Stone Henge megalithic site turned out to be a tradition from of the early Nabta Playa site .
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's not change the subject Your Snakiness, actually I just know you want this information out as much as I do but you just have your doubts about it.
The latest anthropological studies show what I have been saying to you and Mikey about the Persian population and the change after the Achaemenid period to modern Iranic types. "this study suggests that the Himrin population was relatively dolichocranic and generally unaltered until the Parthian period as in southern Mesopotamia (Keith, 1927; Ehrich, 1939; Swindler, 1956), but sometime in or after the Parthian period a more brachycranic population came into this northern Mesopotamian area and craniofacial characteristics within the inhabitants in this area probably became more diverse, as preliminarily suggested by Ishida and Wada (1981) and Wada (1986)... Furthermore, this study depicts the dolichocranic population as tending to have a relatively lower orbit and broader (lower) nose, and vice versa in the brachycranic population. These results are consistent with the findings of Wada (1986), indicating that the present morphometric analysis successfully extracted the morphological characteristics derived from conventional craniometry." Naomichi Ogihara, Hariyuki Makishima, Hidemi Ishida, authors of "Geometric morphometric study of temporal variations in human crania excavated from the Himrin Basin and neighboring areas, northern Iraq",
posted
The stunning artifacts are found in the rock art, skeletons and crania, mummies, megaliths and mounds, ziggurats and pyramids and almost any written script and element of civilization you may see existent before 2000BC.
That should suffice and is usually enough to stun anybody.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Henri Frankfort spoke of the problem in resolving who the Sumerians were - "Following D. Buxton (1925) he noted that the original Mesopotamian population was characterized by the dolichocephaly and supposedly brachcycephalic Mediterraneans (as represented in art) never became a dominating race...although the Mesopotamian population in Earl Dynastic period was composed of many races...This racial motif would become one of important arguments in the later history of the "Sumerian problem". From "Physical Anthropology and the Sumerian Problem", Arkadiusz Soltysiak Studies in Historical Anthropology" 4:2004[2006], pp. 145–158.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: The stunning artifacts are found in the rock art, skeletons and crania, mummies, megaliths and mounds, ziggurats and pyramids and almost any written script and element of civilization you may see existent before 2000BC.
That should suffice and is usually enough to stun anybody.
you mean like this:
Mesopotamia, Mari, (Middle Euphrates): Temple of Ishtar, around 2400 BCE , Early Dynastic Period, Ebih-Il, the Superintendent of Mari, statuette, alabaster, Louvre
The statues found at the Abu Temple in Tell Asmar from c. 2700 BCE
Stone Sculpture of a Sumerian Priest - AM.0096 Origin: Levant Circa: 3000 BC to 2500 BC Dimensions: 8" (20.3cm) high Collection: Near Eastern Medium: Stone
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: Dr. Winters is on another one of his spam rants.
Is there a reason you use these poor quality reproductions?
Below front view of Statue N, Gudea
c.2150 BCE, made of Diorite Gudea, ruler of the city of Lagash, Twenty-seven statues of Gudea have been discovered thusfar, this particular one referred to as Statue N, tip of nose broken off
is the obviously the exact same sculpture as this below:
the latter is just a poor reproduction -hand position and everything else the same sculpture at a different angle
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________^^^^your pic, same facial features Gudea statue, diorite, Neo-Sumerian, c. 2,100 B.C. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York):
this is authentic also with the same hand position as previous you have no evidence that it's not.
_____________________________________________
The "Sumerian handshake" is something you made up
___________________________________________
Seating diorite statue of Gudea, prince of Lagash, dedicated to the god Ningishzida, c. 2120 BC (neo-Sumerian period). Excavated in Telloh (ancient Girsu), Iraq Louvre Museum, Paris, France similar but a different sculpture to previous Metropolitan Museum piece
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually Gudea is probably a good representation of the gracile Ethiopic people of the Sumerian civilization while the Northern guy from Mari is obviously dressed in the same way as the Eblaites of the same period.
The sculptures of the bearded people are traceable to the Diyala region of the brachycephals and it is questionable or rather doubtful whether these people were the original Sumerians who claimed origin from Magan. They certainly had nothing to do with the building of Ur and Eridu early Ziggurats etc. and the hallmarks of early Mesopotamian civilization. Hence the "Sumerian problem" lingers on.
All that can be said is that the bearded that in a certain period they became dominant in certain towns and had a penchant for portraying themselves in sculpture as in the early Ghassul culture where two separate populations one brachycephalic and one dolichocephalic appear.
-------------------- D. Reynolds-Marniche Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Diyala sites of Tell Asmar (Eshnunna) are found in the Diyala plains. "Much of the perceived character of the early dynasties" of Sumer "is based on data from these towns though ironically they were probably relatively peripheral sites." (A Dictionary of Archeology by Ian Shaw and Robert Jamison p. 202.)
These people are also not representative of the bulk of the dolichocephalic Sumerian population (as probably represented by Gudea) of the same period. Hence the "Sumerian problem" lingers on.
Again early archeologists stated - "it should be stressed that there is a marked discrepancty between the evidence of the cemetaries uncovered in Sumer and the appearance of the historic Sumerians depicted on the monuments. For it has been repeatedly observed that the monumental representations of the Sumerians point for the most part to pronounced roundheads.” Oriental and Biblical Studies collected writings of E.A. Sspeiser 1967
"It is now generally accepted that in the Neolithic and early metal ages about 8th to 3rd millennia BC the vast region of Western Asia with its extensions up to the Niles and Indus was occupied by what may be called a black race with its local variations like Proto-Mediterranean, Mediterranean and Hamite. This race is characterized by blackish brown complexion, long head , long straight and narrow face..." K. Lognathan, 2003
Look at it this way - just as in America and Europe there are certain towns inhabited and governed by minorities there are similarly peoples like the bearded ones found in ancient towns peripheral to the Sumerian civilization.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
We know dolichocephalic dark, brown "Mediterraneans" were the predominant people of Lagash, prior to the Guti. Gudea is always represented beardless or not hairsute and obviously had very short woolly or curly hair.
Frankly - it is my opinion there may just be some truth to Clyde's claim the bearded people, large nosed people date from the Gutian period or are ethnic Guti. I'm just waiting for some evidence that shows this.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Why not?
We know dolichocephalic dark, brown "Mediterraneans" were the predominant people of Lagash, prior to the Guti. Gudea is always represented beardless or not hairsute and obviously had very short woolly or curly hair.
Frankly - it is my opinion there may just be some truth to Clyde's claim the bearded people, large nosed people date from the Gutian period or are ethnic Guti. I'm just waiting for some evidence that shows this.
Read the literature on Gutians. I wish you were near the Oriental Institute in Chicago they have a fine library (Reading Room).
You have to also remember that none of the Gutian rulers of Lagash are mentioned in Sumerian King list.
Gutian
Gutians, like their European counterparts usually make a lot of art pieces and archaeologists use these Gutian pieces to represent Sumerians--to maintain the lie Black and African people have no ancient history.
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Why not?
We know dolichocephalic dark, brown "Mediterraneans" were the predominant people of Lagash, prior to the Guti. Gudea is always represented beardless or not hairsute and obviously had very short woolly or curly hair.
Frankly - it is my opinion there may just be some truth to Clyde's claim the bearded people, large nosed people date from the Gutian period or are ethnic Guti. I'm just waiting for some evidence that shows this.
Read the literature on Gutians. I wish you were near the Oriental Institute in Chicago they have a fine library (Reading Room).
You have to also remember that none of the Gutian rulers of Lagash are mentioned in Sumerian King list.
Gutian
Gutians, like their European counterparts usually make a lot of art pieces and archaeologists use these Gutian pieces to represent Sumerians--to maintain the lie Black and African people have no ancient history.
.
.
I spent most of my time at the library at the University of Chicago Oriental Museum. That is where I first saw the original Tjehenu i.e. Fulani above the front entrance which I am told has been taking down and sold at auction.
What makes you call them Gutian. I do know these people from the Diyala plains made a lot of art pieces, and that they were the brachycephals and thus not the original inhabitants of Sumer or Akkad, but what makes you so sure they are Guti as opposed to some other early Mesopotamian. Which literature do you suggest one read on th Guti?
If this man above is Ebih-Il of Mari why are you saying he is a Guti? I know they are often dressed liked the Semitic-speaking Eblaites so of course these epeople were adopting the languages of the regions they lived in.
Some people think the name Guti was teh early name for the Kurds. It is kind of curious that no Mesopotamian sites post pictures of the Guti. lol!
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder what the relationship is between the Natufians, the large prognathic Eridu (Obeid or Ubaid) people and similarly Negroid group of the Umm an -Nar east Arabian culture.
One book by Bedrich Hrozny claimed the Ubaid/Obeid people of the Levant and Mesopotamia used Natufian skeletal markings. They must thus have been in part descended from the more robust type of Natufian people.
Umm an Nar was supposed to have a possessed similar physical type to the earlier Ubaid group in eastern Arabia.
Early people of Umm an Nar of Oman is described thusly:
“In particular the enormously large size of the upper and lower jaws and of the mastoid process. They were also tall (171-182 cm), significantly higher than modern Al-Ain inhabitants. All other measurements confirm they were evidently larger in all dimensions than today's population in the same area...The prognathism is very noticeable and the heads are a little narrower, longer, and with some projection of the forehead.” Mahmoud Y. El-Najjar, "An Anthropological Study of Skeletal Remains from Tomb A, Hili North" in AUAE 4, 1985
In addition the author adds - "The 3rd millienium cultures internal floorplans of the Umm-an-Nar tombs with those of the later Kerma royal tumuli with their Ur-style human sacrifices, etc. are intriguing...
The Umm an- Nar are comprable to earlier Obeid/ Ubaid type remains in Arabia. Descriptions are similar: the population being unusally large bodied and prognathous with platyrhine nasal formation.
Ubaid types are said to have been known in early India as well and Umm an Nar culture had some sort of trade with the Indus.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
dana marniche - You really need to better vet the sources that you use. The world is full of crack-pots and you just quoted one.
In the future, may I suggest that when you see the word "prognathous" associated with Black people, you run away from that source, because it will surely be racist nonsense.
(An unsettling observation - for some reason, your sources often use that term).
You might also want to look-up the technical terms that they use. In this case you would have found that the term "platyrrhine" (which he spelled incorrectly) refers to a "Broad-Nosed" Monkey. Your source is a scientist - No: A racist ass-hole - Yes! I believe he is a Sand Nigger, but I could not find his Bio. He is not exactly famous.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: that the sumerians were blacks from anyplace is an outlandish claim without a scrap of supportive evidence. I have heard some really nutty things on this board but this one is near the top of the list.
Hammer - I see that you are in fantasy mode again. It's not your fault, Whites have trained and programed each other to think like that. Best that I can figure, it is some sort of perverted self-defense mechanism (poor out-numbered us Albinos, surrounded by all of these dark people, lets make-believe that they were really us in the beginning - sad). That is why you assume that everyone outside of Africa was White. It is nothing more than a mass exercise in make-believe, unique only to Whites, because only Whites need it.
As a practical matter:
The average April to September temperature in Iraq is 110 degrees; with an average UV index of 10. If you know of a group of bare-backed White farmers who could survive in that, please tell me who they are. (Lioness, I fully expect you to say that they imported Blacks for farming, it's okay, I know you can't help it).
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Why not?
We know dolichocephalic dark, brown "Mediterraneans" were the predominant people of Lagash, prior to the Guti. Gudea is always represented beardless or not hairsute and obviously had very short woolly or curly hair.
Frankly - it is my opinion there may just be some truth to Clyde's claim the bearded people, large nosed people date from the Gutian period or are ethnic Guti. I'm just waiting for some evidence that shows this.
Read the literature on Gutians. I wish you were near the Oriental Institute in Chicago they have a fine library (Reading Room).
You have to also remember that none of the Gutian rulers of Lagash are mentioned in Sumerian King list.
Gutian
Gutians, like their European counterparts usually make a lot of art pieces and archaeologists use these Gutian pieces to represent Sumerians--to maintain the lie Black and African people have no ancient history.
.
.
I spent most of my time at the library at the University of Chicago Oriental Museum. That is where I first saw the original Tjehenu i.e. Fulani above the front entrance which I am told has been taking down and sold at auction.
What makes you call them Gutian. I do know these people from the Diyala plains made a lot of art pieces, and that they were the brachycephals and thus not the original inhabitants of Sumer or Akkad, but what makes you so sure they are Guti as opposed to some other early Mesopotamian. Which literature do you suggest one read on th Guti?
If this man above is Ebih-Il of Mari why are you saying he is a Guti? I know they are often dressed liked the Semitic-speaking Eblaites so of course these epeople were adopting the languages of the regions they lived in.
Some people think the name Guti was teh early name for the Kurds. It is kind of curious that no Mesopotamian sites post pictures of the Guti. lol!
I identify this figure as a Gutian, because he wears the same outfit as the people in the Lagash art related to the Gutian period. In fact, most of the alleged Sumerian artifacts published in most books relate to the Gutian period at Lagash.
The average April to September temperature in Iraq is 110 degrees; with an average UV index of 10. If you know of a group of bare-backed White farmers who could survive in that, please tell me who they are. (Lioness, I fully expect you to say that they imported Blacks for farming, it's okay, I know you can't help it).
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Why not?
We know dolichocephalic dark, brown "Mediterraneans" were the predominant people of Lagash, prior to the Guti. Gudea is always represented beardless or not hairsute and obviously had very short woolly or curly hair.
Frankly - it is my opinion there may just be some truth to Clyde's claim the bearded people, large nosed people date from the Gutian period or are ethnic Guti. I'm just waiting for some evidence that shows this.
Read the literature on Gutians. I wish you were near the Oriental Institute in Chicago they have a fine library (Reading Room).
You have to also remember that none of the Gutian rulers of Lagash are mentioned in Sumerian King list.
Gutian Gutians, like their European counterparts usually make a lot of art pieces and archaeologists use these Gutian pieces to represent Sumerians--to maintain the lie Black and African people have no ancient history.
.
.
I spent most of my time at the library at the University of Chicago Oriental Museum. That is where I first saw the original Tjehenu i.e. Fulani above the front entrance which I am told has been taking down and sold at auction.
What makes you call them Gutian. I do know these people from the Diyala plains made a lot of art pieces, and that they were the brachycephals and thus not the original inhabitants of Sumer or Akkad, but what makes you so sure they are Guti as opposed to some other early Mesopotamian. Which literature do you suggest one read on th Guti?
If this man above is Ebih-Il of Mari why are you saying he is a Guti? I know they are often dressed liked the Semitic-speaking Eblaites so of course these epeople were adopting the languages of the regions they lived in.
Some people think the name Guti was teh early name for the Kurds. It is kind of curious that no Mesopotamian sites post pictures of the Guti. lol!
I identify this figure as a Gutian, because he wears the same outfit as the people in the Lagash art related to the Gutian period. In fact, most of the alleged Sumerian artifacts published in most books relate to the Gutian period at Lagash.
.
If that is true that is quite interesting and explains why the Sumerian problem has existed for so long. I think early archeologists probably already knew these people probably were not the Sumerians as indicated by the fact that Samuel Kramer considered them small and dark brown people like the Shihu of Bahrein and Oman.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: If that is true that is quite interesting and explains why the Sumerian problem has existed for so long. I think early archeologists probably already knew these people probably were not the Sumerians as indicated by the fact that Samuel Kramer considered them small and dark brown people like the Shihu of Bahrein and Oman.
posted
Lioness - In answer to your question: could this mixed-race Black/Turk man work his fields bare-backed like the ancient Sumerians.
I would have to answer NO! I know of nowhere on Earth, where White or near-White people, can day-in, day-out, work their fields bare-backed in the Summer - including northern areas.
You will notice that this Iraq farmer is covered head-to-toe.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: [QB] Lioness - In answer to your question: could this mixed-race Black/Turk man work his fields bare-backed like the ancient Sumerians.
I would have to answer NO! I know of nowhere on Earth, where White or near-White people, can day-in, day-out, work their fields bare-backed in the Summer - including northern areas.
then how do you explain someone looking like this
being a similar skin darkness level to the people below:
The tomb paintings in Egypt have been repainted - Being the intelligent person that you are (mumf) I know that you didn't really think that a 4 thousand year-old painting, would really be in such perfect condition.
This is the original coloring of those tomb paintings.
posted
What does any of this have to do with Natufians??
What was the argument between Kalonji and Mind about again? It's been a while and I haven't had time to follow all of it.
By the way, to Hammer: The early Sumerian remains have been described as "negroid" and especially "Australoid" similar in appearance to blacks of India..
Posts: 26317 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^I can explain that very easily Lioness;
The tomb paintings in Egypt have been repainted - Being the intelligent person that you are (mumf) I know that you didn't really think that a 4 thousand year-old painting, would really be in such perfect condition.
This is the original coloring of those tomb paintings.
posted
^Haha - Back to troll mode eh? Can't refute anything, so you turn to the trolls old standby, for those times when even the most accomplished idiot of a troll is speechless. "What you talking bout Willis". Ha ha ha ha
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |