THIS IS WHAT THE SUMERIANS LOOKED LIKE (OBVIOUSLY WHITE)

http://www.zwoje-scrolls.com/zwoje35/text11p.htm

THE KINGLY LINE FROM ADAM DECENDED THOUGH SUMERIA, THE PROMENENT KING AROUND 3500BC. WAS AKALEM(LAMECH),HIS TOMB WAS DISCOVERD BY SIR CHARLES LEONARD WOOLLEY AMOUNG THE SIXTEEN ROYAL GRAVES OF THE PRE EGYPTIAN DYNASTIC KINGS (LUGALS) OF UR. THIS NOTABLE KING WAS AKALAM-DUG, AND THE MAGNIFICENT GOLDEN HELMET OF HIS SON MES-KALAM-DUG IS AN OUTSTANDING EXAMPLE OF THE GOLDSMITHS ART. THE GREAT VULCAN AND MASTERCRAFTSMAN OF THE ERA WAS TUBAL-CAIN(MES-KALAM-DUG, WHOS KNOWLEDGE FORMED THE BEDROCK OF FREEMASONRY)WAS THE SON OF LAMECH(AKALAM-DUG). TUBAL-CAINS WIFE WAS NIN-BANDA, THE DAUGHTER OF A-BAR-GI(ABARAZ),LORD OF UR,WHOSE GRAVE WOOLLEY ALSO FOUND. THE WIFE OF A-BAR-GI WAS QUEEN SHUB-AD OF UR,(TO SEE THE BUST OF QUEEN SHUB-AD GO TO http://www.zwoje-scrolls.com/zwoje35/text11p.htm) SHE WAS A MATRIARCHAL DYNAST OF THE DRAGON DESCENT FROM LILITH. QUEEN SHUB-AD (ALSO KNOWN AS NIN PU-ABI) IS BETTER KNOWN TO US FROM GENESIS AS NAAMAH THE CHARMER, THE DAUGHTER OF LAMECH AND ZILLAH. SO IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE SUCCESSION FROM ADAM RULED THEIR VARIOUS KINGDOMS FROM UR IN SOUTHERN MESOPOTAMIA AND THIS SAME LINE DECENDED THROUGH THE EGYPTIAN PHAROAHS,THE SAME KINGLY LINE AND THE SAME RACE WHICH WAS WHITE.
 

MORE SUMERIAN DEPICTIONS DIFINITELY NOT NEGROID , OBVIOUSLY INDO EUROPEAN CAUCASOIDS
 

Stop trying to make Arabs white, and stop trying to claim Mesopotamia for whites. sad to say Americans usually deem the Arabs as sand n------s

fact is, if Adam is the first man, then it is logical that Noah is the second first man, with all descending from Noah, since all others were destroyed through the flood.

Now if all descended from Noah, what we have is Noah being the father of all races. Or are you going to try to claim that Negroes came another way?????

[This message has been edited by BigMix (edited 21 March 2005).]
 

LOOK AT THE NOSE ITS AQUILINE NOT HOOKED LIKE A TYPICAL ARAB OR SEMITE.
 

ALSO EVEN IF YOU STILL TRY TO SAY THAT THE SUMERIANS WERE ARABS , ARABS ARE STILL CAUCASOID DEFINITELY NOT NEGROID.
 

THE SUMERIANS WORSHIPED GODS CALLED ANUNNAKI.

THIS IS HOW THEY DEPICTED THEM , WHITE WHITE BLUE EYES
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by AKOBADAGETH:
SHE IS MEDITERRANEAN CAUCASIAN IDIOT . JUST BECAUSE SHE DOESNT HAVE BLONDE HAIR AND BLUE EYES DOESNT MAKE HER AN ARAB.

LOOK AT THE NOSE ITS AQUILINE NOT HOOKED LIKE A TYPICAL ARAB OR SEMITE.

---

Are you of the opinion that Arabs are caucasians???????

Secondly, you have to choose either evolution or creation. Adam finds his existence purely in the context of creation of being the first man who was the father of all men. Its either that is true or its a blatant lie. You cannot synthesize Creation and Evolution.

If we are to take it that Adam was a King etc of which we have to reference the Bible and its Creationist and Religious statements to justify Adam being a King or even existed, then we cannot in the same instance say that Evolution brought other humans.

The existence of Adam is critical in the development of Biblical Theology of which Biblical Theology seeks to explain the phenomena of mankind, just as how Evolution seeks to explain likewise. It is because of Adam that the author of Genesis was able to say that the Ethiopians and the Egyptians were the Sons of Ham, and the Semites were the sons of Shem.

Since the above is so, then it necessitates that Negroes likewise came from Adam.

Here is Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews Book 1.
2. The children of Ham possessed the land from Syria and Amanus, and the mountains of Libanus; seizing upon all that was on its sea-coasts, and as far as the ocean, and keeping it as their own. Some indeed of its names are utterly vanished away; others of them being changed, and another sound given them, are hardly to be discovered; yet a few there are which have kept their denominations entire. For of the four sons of Ham, time has not at all hurt the name of Chus; for the Ethiopians, over whom he reigned, are even at this day, both by themselves and by all men in Asia, called Chusites. The memory also of the Mesraites is preserved in their name; for all we who inhabit this country [of Judea] called Egypt Mestre, and the Egyptians Mestreans. Phut also was the founder of Libya, and called the inhabitants Phutites, from himself: there is also a river in the country of Moors which bears that name; whence it is that we may see the greatest part of the Grecian historiographers mention that river and the adjoining country by the apellation of Phut: but the name it has now has been by change given it from one of the sons of Mesraim, who was called Lybyos. We will inform you presently what has been the occasion why it has been called Africa also. Canaan, the fourth son of Ham, inhabited the country now called Judea, and called it from his own name Canaan. The children of these [four] were these: Sabas, who founded the Sabeans; Evilas, who founded the Evileans, who are called Getuli; Sabathes founded the Sabathens, they are now called by the Greeks Astaborans; Sabactas settled the Sabactens; and Ragmus the Ragmeans; and he had two sons, the one of whom, Judadas, settled the Judadeans, a nation of the western Ethiopians, and left them his name; as did Sabas to the Sabeans: but Nimrod, the son of Chus, staid and tyrannized at Babylon, as we have already informed you. Now all the children of Mesraim, being eight in number, possessed the country from Gaza to Egypt, though it retained the name of one only, the Philistim; for the Greeks call part of that country Palestine. As for the rest, Ludieim, and Enemim, and Labim, who alone inhabited in Libya, and called the country from himself, Nedim, and Phethrosim, and Chesloim, and Cephthorim, we know nothing of them besides their names; for the Ethiopic war (17) which we shall describe hereafter, was the cause that those cities were overthrown. The sons of Canaan were these: Sidonius, who also built a city of the same name; it is called by the Greeks Sidon

[This message has been edited by BigMix (edited 21 March 2005).]
 

OF COURSE DUMMY WHERE DO YOU THINK THE MEDITERRANEAN IS?

"Are you of the opinion that Arabs are caucasians???????"

NO THEY ARE CAUCASOID, AND ITS NOT OPINION ITS FACT.

"Secondly, you have to choose either evolution or creation. Adam finds his existence purely in the context of creation of being the first man who was the father of all men. Its either that is true or its a blatant lie. You cannot synthesize Creation and Evolution."

WRONG STUPID, OF COURSE I CHOOSE EVOLUTION BUT THE CHARACTERS IN THE BIBLE LIKE ABRAHAM ARE HISTORICAL FIGURES NOT JUST BIBLICAL MYTHOLOGY.

THE SUMERIANS WERE AN INDO EUROPEAN MEDITERRANEAN CAUCASIAN RACE OF PEOPLE .

DEFINITELY NOT NEGROID.

 

My question to you is who were the Ubadians that proceed the Sumerians. Alot of the representations are of the Gutians who are not necessarily Summerians.

The best canidate for the modern desendants of the Sumerians are the modern Marsh Arabs living in Southern Iraq. Not to mention the Sumerian dialect has words that are similar to Dravidian languages in southern India.

There are contemporary cultures within areas like Iran like the Elamites. How would you explain these people.

The following model of Pu-abi and the other princess was a reconstruction done at a very early period. No modern forensic reconstruction has been done on the Sumerian remains.
 

WRONG AGAIN MOST EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT THE SUMERIANS CAME FROM AN HUNGARIAN SOURCE AS DID THE SYNTHIANS READ UP.
 

AS FAR AS THE SUMERIAN GODS ,THEY HAD MANY, ENKI WAS ONLY ONE. AND I WOULD LIKE YOU TO POST A SOURCE THAT STATES THAT ABOUT OMAN.

NOW AS FAR AS THE SUMERIANS CALLING THEMSELVES THE "BLACK HEADED ONES" THAT IS TRUE BUT NOW YOU ARE GETTING INTO THIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ,BECAUSE IT WAS THE ANUNNAKI THAT LABELED THEM THE BLACK HEADED ONES TO DISTINGUISH THEMSELVES FROM THE HUMANS (BECAUSE THE ANUNNAKI THEMSELVES WERE WHITE).

ALSO YOU HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THERE WERE TWO SUMERIAN KINGDOMS THE ONE BEFORE THE FLOOD (WHICH WAS WHEN THE GODS THEMSELVES RULED THE LAND) AND THEN AFTER THE FLOOD WHEN KINGSHIP WAS LOWERED TO MANKIND.

IF YOU HAVE READ THE TEXT "ATRA HASIS" IT GIVES THE ACCOUNT OF WHEN MAN WAS CREATED ,THE FIRST BATCH OF MANKIND ACCORDING TO THIS TEXTS IS THE ONES THAT WERE CALLED THE BLACK HEADED ONES, THESE WERE CREATED BASICALLY TO BE SLAVES TO THE ANUNNAKI. IM ASSUMING YOU HAVE READ THESE STORIES.

BUT ENKI DID NOT STOP THERE, HE CREATED MORE HUMANS AND THE LAST BATCH WAS THE MOST LIKE THE ANUNNAKI THEMSELVES (WHITE) AND IT WAS THESE PEOPLE THAT KINGSHIP WAS LOWERD DOWN TOO.

NOW OF COURSE YOU COULD SAY THAT THESE STORIES ARE ALL MYTH BUT THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE BLACK HEADED ONES ALSO.

THE SUMERIANS WERE WHITE

I COULD POST A THOUSAND LINKS THAT WOULD STATE THAT THE SUMERIANS AND HUNGARIAN, SCHNTHIANS ALL HAD ANCIENT TEXTS THAT HAD SIMULAR WRITTING.

FACE IT STUPID THE SUMERIANS WERE INDO EUROPEAN MEDITERANEAN CAUCASIANS.
 

READ AND WEEP SILLY AFO BOZOS
 

The term “Mediterranean Caucasian” is a very loose term, which could describe anyone from southern Europeans, to West Asians, to South Asians, to even peoples in Africa!! Whatever the terms you apply it is obvious that the Sumerians do not resemble Europeans at least not closely. I find it funny sometimes that white people like you are so quick to identify Middle-Eastern people as “white” when referencing their civilization, but other times the become “dark-skinned”, “uncivilized” bastards, or even “sand-ni****s”!! They’ve been called that more often since 9-11!

Also, Ausar is right! The Sumerians were not the original founders of agriculture and urbanization in Mesopotamia, their predecessors the Ubadians were!! It is not really certain who the Ubadians were, let alone their racial identity, LOL but it’s just silly to say they were Indo-Europeans, since again there has been no evidence to suggest this!! If anything, the Ubadians probably resembled peoples like the Elamites who, by the way even though they weren’t African, were definitely black!! There are many pictures and painted statues depicting such peoples around Iran and adjacent areas in Mesopotamia, so....

Akobada, dude, you need to lay off the Arthur Kemp crap, because it is apparent that all your information’s been coming from him! Arthur Kemp is a pseudo-scholar and is just as bad, if not worse than some of the nutty Afrocentrics you argue against!

LMFOThe only bozo around here is YOU!!

[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 22 March 2005).]
 

I NOTICE AFRO BOZOS LIKE YOU ALWAYS STAY TUCKED AWAY IN LITTLE HIDDEN CREVICES LIKE THIS BOARD.

I CHALLENGE ANY OF YOU TO TAKE YOUR NONSENCE TO ANY REAL HISTORICAL DISCUSSION BOARD AND TALK THIS **** .

I CANT WAIT UNTIL THEY ACTUALLY DO SOME DNA TESTS ON THE MUMMIES OF THE EGYPTIAN PHAROAHS AND SETTLE THIS NONSCENCE ONCE AND FOR ALL.
 

Second:

quote:

---

...WHY DONT ANY OF YOU TAKE YOUR AFRO BULLSHIT TO A REAL HISTORICAL WEB SITE AND SEE HOW QUICKLY YOU GET SMASHED???

---

I'd like to see YOU take your messed up info to a historical forum, I'd bet you'd be a laughing stock!! Heck, you're already one in real life ROTFL!!!

[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 22 March 2005).]
 

I invite you to post at the following website:
http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html

As far as Dna testing on mummies it will not tell us much about their race. Most of the DNA studies is done for biological relationship between mummies. Ancient Dna is very unreliable because only live samples on decayed material can be found in the teeth or in deep tissue.

I have this theory that the Sumerians are related to the people northern India! I base this on these facts:

• The features of Sumerian statues, paintings, and other depictions look like those of north Indians.
  
• As you may know, the Hindu religion is derived from Aryan Vedic elements as well as Dravidian elements, but there are certain beliefs of Hinduism that don't seem to correspond to either. One of these is the belief in sages, or mystic holy men who can gain power through certain ascetic pratices. This belief however, seems to be prominent in Sumerian mythology.
  
• The Bible states in Genesis that the people of Shinar(Sumer) orginally came from plains farther east, and travelled west until they finally settled in Mesopotamia.
  
• Many Iraqi people, especially those along Mesopotamia, resemble northern Indians. Many look somewhat more Pakistani or north Indian than Arab.

What do you guys think of this?

[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 22 March 2005).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

The Bible states in Genesis that the people of Shinar(Sumer) orginally came from plains farther east, and travelled west until they finally settled in Mesopotamia.
.[/list]

---

If all the genetic code for all the races existed in Noah and his 3 sons (using the Bible as the first premise), then that can explain the variations of races of the Sumerians.

What is interesting also is that Ham's son Cush (Which means Black) fathered Nimrod who was the original founder of Babylon. Using Augustine's reference from the City of God, Augustine believes that after the confusion of the tongues as per Genesis, Nimrod, and the family of Cush moved away from Shinar.

Now going back to the Bible, we see the children of Cush and Ham settling Egypt and Nubia (purely a Biblical explanation). With the Nubians naming their City Seba (before it became Meroe) because Seba was a child of Cush. Whereas the Egyptians name their land Kemet, referencing the Patriarch Ham. This can explain North Eastern Africa from Egypt to Sudan even to Punt shared a particular culture with particular similarities between the people.

The above can then explain why Sumeria in its early stages seemed heterogenous with different people types, whilst in the later stages it became homogenous.

quote:

---

Interesting insight. What is also mentioned in the Bible that after the flood, the whole earth was of one language, and all the people who were descendents of Noah, journeyed from the East and dwelt in Shinar.

If all the genetic code for all the races existed in Noah and his 3 sons (using the Bible as the first premise), then that can explain the variations of races of the Sumerians.

---

quote:

---

What is interesting also is that Ham's son Cush (Which means Black) fathered Nimrod who was the original founder of Babylon. Using Augustine's reference from the City of God, Augustine believes that after the confusion of the tongues as per Genesis, Nimrod, and the family of Cush moved away from Shinar.

Now going back to the Bible, we see the children of Cush and Ham settling Egypt and Nubia (purely a Biblical explanation). With the Nubians naming their City Seba (before it became Meroe) because Seba was a child of Cush. Whereas the Egyptians name their land Kemet, referencing the Patriarch Ham. This can explain North Eastern Africa from Egypt to Sudan even to Punt shared a particular culture with particular similarities between the people.

---

quote:

---

The above can then explain why Sumeria in its early stages seemed heterogenous with different people types, whilst in the later stages it became homogenous.

---

[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 22 March 2005).]
 

That being said, I think the Bible is valid at least since the names Assyria comes from Asshur, Elamites come from Elam, and Seba the son of Cush is found in the area we call Ancient Ethiopia.

In terms of Historicity the Bible has proven itself valid concerning the original father heads of the inhabitants of the Middleeast and North Eastern Africa.

[This message has been edited by BigMix (edited 22 March 2005).]
 

compare with... www.globalindia.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=20&pos=0

btw, Indian actresses are always made whiter looking than they really are, so she's probably as dark as that bust.

[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 22 March 2005).]
 

quote:

---

Hi

I noticed you stayed away from this issue
but the board may be interested in knowing
that the bust is a modern work of art made
by the Iraq Museum for the purpose of
mounting the authentic ancient head dress.

It is not the only bust the museum made.
There is also one that has an authentic
ancient helmut on its head.

Both of these busts hardly resemble any
actual ethnicity of either ancient or
modern times in my opinion.

Peace
alTakruri (still w/o the juice)

---

... I still can't understand why he's unable to re-register on this forum. Has he been banned for life?
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
No, he has not been banned according to my knowleadge. I don't know why he is having trouble loging in. I know that after that short glitch things have been getting weird and many people had to re-register.

---

I am still not able to log in using my old name Keino.
 

You get a F once again.

The Sumerians did not originate from Central Asia. They are not Indo-European speakers, they are not European in anyway. Matter of fact the people of North India today have more Caucasian cultural ways, despite being heavily influenced by a non-Caucasian element. The problem with people like you is that you expand the Caucasian definition to such extents that even I would be considered a Caucasian. Thankfully, modern anthropology considers Caucasian as a defunct term.

What did the Sumerians look like?
They were dark skinned humans, not Negroid, akin to the Marsh Arabs, Iraqis in the South, or Southern Arabs. These people are not white, you will have a better time proving that a hybrid like Abobo is white.
 

quote:

---

# The features of Sumerian statues, paintings, and other depictions look like those of north Indians."

---

The problem here is too many are using Bollywood actors/actresses as a standard. Indians in general are quite dark skinned, whether in North or South.

Example: http://www.hindustantimes.com/wfsf/2002/Dec/25/07_57/images/hiResWeb126540.jpg

quote:

---

Many Iraqi people, especially those along Mesopotamia, resemble northern Indians. Many look somewhat more Pakistani or north Indian than Arab.

---

You are doing it again. An 'ideal' Indian or Pakistan would look like an Iranian. Take a look at some Bollywood actress. On the other hand, a typical North Indian or even Pakistan (from say Sindh or Baluchistan) would be much darker. If you think that Dravidians are typically darker than you are wrong again. Think of those groups just as Arabs, most are darker in skin complexion while there is a minority white population. In other words, a South Indian is NOT Black like an African, he or she is nearly identical to a typical North Indian. Matter of fact there are parts of North India, where people are far darker than those in the South.

quote:

---

Many Iraqi people, especially those along Mesopotamia, resemble northern Indians. Many look somewhat more Pakistani or north Indian than Arab.

---

Again, if you mean the typical dark skinned North Indian or Pakistan than you are correct. The Iraqis around there are dark skinned and not white like a Syrian or heck, even Mexican.

Note: Asking others of the racial reality in Middle East and the Arab World is not very reliable. What happens is many people tend to adore fair skinned and would never like to associate their society with dark skin. This explains why skin lighteners are heavily purchased in this region. If they are so fair than such products will not be purchased.
 

Before I continue, here is a pic for that low-life that created this thread:

They don't seem so white anymore.

Anyhow, there was trade between Sumeria and Harappa, and I believe that both groups were racially similar. This is the reason why we see barbarian-like whites claiming Sumerians are white, because these groups tend to fit in the exagerrated 'Caucasian' group. However those that are with modern science will realize that this is because these features are not exclusive to Caucasians alone.

Some addition sites: http://www.geocities.com/olmec982000/indusDict..pdf http://arutkural.tripod.com/tolcampus/drav-african.htm
 

Does anyone have information on this statue?
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keins:
I am still not able to log in using my old name Keino.

---

My goodness gracious, is that you Keino?? Well, I'll be...
"You be here still", that's great!!
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
My goodness gracious, is that [b]you Keino?? Well, I'll be...
"You be here still", that's great!![/B]

---

Yup...Busy with my research and surgery is tough. Last month I worked 90 hour weeks with some 36 hour shifts. Besides the trolls, this board is great with good information. I have learned much from this board and will always check it.

p.s. Where did homeyu go?
 

quote:

---

The problem here is too many are using Bollywood actors/actresses as a standard. Indians in general are quite dark skinned, whether in North or South.

You are doing it again. An 'ideal' Indian or Pakistan would look like an Iranian. Take a look at some Bollywood actress. On the other hand, a typical North Indian or even Pakistan (from say Sindh or Baluchistan)...

---

Roy, If you read everything I said, then you would know that I also said that Bollywood actors and especially actresses are made to look whiter than they really are! The actress I showed is probably darker in real life, but is made up much lighter looking. You're right that Bollywood actors are bad examples but it was the only picture I could find at that moment. I agree that the darker more authentic looking Indians would fit the Sumerian type a lot better. In fact, I’ve know an Indian woman who would better fit the profile. There are peoples in Iran who are also just as dark, so there has to be some connection. I never specified where exactly the Sumerians orginated, all I presume is that it was to the east. Whether Central Asia or not, the fact is they were not Indo-Europeans. The Indo-Europeans appeared at the very end of the Bronze Age and beginning of the Iron Age. But the Sumerians seem to have also been a nomadic pastoral people.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keins:

p.s. Where did homeylu go?

---

Yeah! That's a good question. Let's send out a "google" search party, see if we can find the woman...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roy_2k5:

http://www.zwoje-scrolls.com/zwoj
e35/sh14.jpg

Does anyone have information on this statue?

---

Again, that "bust" is a modern fantasy not a product of ancient Sumeria.
Here's the backdrop on the headdress and jewelry the "bust" was made
only to serve as a manakin.

The Grave of Puabi

Only one of the Royal Tombs at Ur survived largely intact. The excavator, Leonard
Woolley, revealed an earth ramp leading down about five meters into a pit
approximately
twelve by four meters. On the ramp, as if guarding the entrance to the grave,
lay the bodies of five men with copper daggers. At the foot of the ramp was
the decayed remains of a vehicle, possibly a sled, with the bones of two oxen
and four men. In the middle of the pit were the remains of a wooden chest decorated
with lapis lazuli and shell inlay, against which lay the body of a man. Other
bodies lay near the northeast corner of the grave. At the southern end of the
death pit the bodies of ten women wearing elaborate headdresses were positioned
in two rows facing each other. Some of these attendants were associated with
musical instruments, including a harp and lyre. A stone built tomb chamber was
located to the northeast with its floor nearly two meters below the level of
the death pit. Inside the tomb were four bodies. Clearly the most important
was that of a woman just under five feet tall and roughly forty at the time
of her death. Her body was adorned with beads of gold, silver, lapis lazuli,
carnelian, and agate, as well as other pieces of elaborate jewelry, including
cylinder seals, one of which had an inscription that identified her as Puabi,
the queen.
http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/First_Cities/death_meso.htm

You can find a sketch of the grave here http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/MUS/INFO/NN_Fal00/NN_Fal00_fig2.html
and satisfy yourself that no bust or other statuary
was found there. The accompanying text is at http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/UR/Curator_Notes.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri~:

Again, that "bust" is a modern fantasy not a product of ancient Sumeria.
Here's the backdrop on the headdress and jewelry the "bust" was made
only to serve as a manakin.

The Grave of Puabi

Only one of the Royal Tombs at Ur survived largely intact. The excavator, Leonard
Woolley, revealed an earth ramp leading down about five meters into a pit
approximately
twelve by four meters. On the ramp, as if guarding the entrance to the grave,
lay the bodies of five men with copper daggers. At the foot of the ramp was
the decayed remains of a vehicle, possibly a sled, with the bones of two oxen
and four men. In the middle of the pit were the remains of a wooden chest decorated
with lapis lazuli and shell inlay, against which lay the body of a man. Other
bodies lay near the northeast corner of the grave. At the southern end of the
death pit the bodies of ten women wearing elaborate headdresses were positioned
in two rows facing each other. Some of these attendants were associated with
musical instruments, including a harp and lyre. A stone built tomb chamber was
located to the northeast with its floor nearly two meters below the level of
the death pit. Inside the tomb were four bodies. Clearly the most important
was that of a woman just under five feet tall and roughly forty at the time
of her death. Her body was adorned with beads of gold, silver, lapis lazuli,
carnelian, and agate, as well as other pieces of elaborate jewelry, including
cylinder seals, one of which had an inscription that identified her as Puabi,
the queen.
http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/First_Cities/death_meso.htm

You can find a sketch of the grave here http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/MUS/INFO/NN_Fal00/NN_Fal00_fig2.html
and satisfy yourself that no bust or other statuary
was found there. The accompanying text is at http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/UR/Curator_Notes.html

---

Appropriately addressed, and welcome back.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Appropriately addressed, and welcome back.

---

Thanks, only sorry that I won't be able to contribute very much nor
on a regular basis, but I thought it worthwhile to re-register so as to
lay this slight of hand bullish to rest.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
usually Afrocentrics attack any piece of art that does not fit their views. We have seen that repearedly with old kingdom art that destroys their position. Instead of dealing with it like adults they try to discredit. naturally, any art that can be twisted to agree with their propaganda is fine.

---

Mere impotent rage my boy!

None of which alters the fact that the so-called "bust" is nothing more
than a modern manikin expressly made to display the headdress reconstructed
by Woolley from his finds in tomb PG-800.

The Iraq Museum in fact even has male manikins for the helmets that
were found; this according to
Seton Lloyd
The Art Of The Ancient Near East
New York Frederick A. Praeger 1961

Thus is presented the second reference from established academia, the first
was from Chicago's reknowned Oriental Institute no less. So far, disclaimers have only their own unsubstantiated caterwaul without any archeaological backing.

Mind you, the issue is not some vague notion of afrocentrism but the
facts concerning that so-called "bust" and its provenance.

Those with no academic sources to contribute to the discussion should sit down,
shut up, and perhaps in doing so learn something new.

[This message has been edited by alTakruri~ (edited 28 March 2005).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
May be...but its like the boy who yelled wolf too many times. I am going to be a skeptic when I see an Afrocentric question a piece of art. If they prove to be correct then so be it.

---

Willful ignorance does abound. The ballgame will now stand 3 to 0 in
favor of reproducible and falsifiable facts rather than to one's own
racial pride.
http://www.arthistory.upenn.edu/522/puabi/headdress.html

See, a headdress was found without anything like a bust. Notice in this
jpeg the obvious modern manikin characteristic of the "bust" then scroll
to the top of this thread and notice the shoulder of the so-called "bust"
and compare it to any manikin bust in any store.

Only a self deluded fool cannot see a manikin instead of an authentic
ancient bust especially with no academic ever writing that a bust was
found in tomb PG-800!

So put up or shut up. It's that simple boss.

[This message has been edited by alTakruri~ (edited 28 March 2005).]
 

The population of Sumeria were NOT Caucasian, Near Eastern (Turkish/Hybrid looking), Nordic, or European. Neither were the Sumerians Black, they are akin to typical Indians, Southern Arabs, and some Iranians whom have a similar skin tone as East Africans.
 

a bientot
DMc

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roy_2k5:
Horemheb, whether you dislike 'Afrocentrics', the fact is I am not an 'Afrocentric'.

The population of Sumeria were [b]NOT Caucasian, Near Eastern (Turkish/Hybrid looking), Nordic, or European. Neither were the Sumerians Black, they are akin to typical Indians, Southern Arabs, and some Iranians whom have a similar skin tone as East Africans. [/B]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zulu:
I've studied some history of India and as I recalled, the aryans came from southern russia and the caucousus mountains and conquered the original inhabitants beginning around 1500BC. I have a degree in Chinese and I've read texts where the ancient Chinese were determined not to let these people into there territory. Hence, the first great wall was built. This was built a little northern than where the current on is. However, the aryans were able to penetrate india aroun d the ganges river. They instituted a caste system while intermixing with the natives. Hence, alot of Indians are mixed with aryans and the native blacks. I have Iranian friends who told me that the same thing happened in Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi and other "middle eastern" areas. Egypt and North Africa are a continuation this same transformation. By the way, my Iranian friends called the current people in these areas a "new race" because of the mixture of black and white. Has anyone ever looked up the word semi? It's Greek for half. I've come to believe that the Middle Eastern or Arab are half black and white. In my opinion that's why "pure" whites don't care too much for the Arab or Jew.

---

You are sort of correct.

What is true is that there was a Caucasian migration from Central Asia to India, however it was quite small to alter North India's typical phenotype. Even though some are fair, they are akin to the Iranians, a hybrid stock. Today, the majority of Indians are pretty much the same, and have dark skin comparable to Africans. However they have features that are more 'Caucasoid' than

Second, even though it is quite likely that the language of India was not Indo-European, there has yet to be any significant evidence that the IE tongues spoken in India originate from Central Asia. Matter of fact, Sanskrit is far older than any tongue in Europe or Central Asia. I would not be surprised if the IE tongue actually originated in India or somewhere around the Middle East, and spoken originally by a dark skinned population.

Third, even though Vedic Hinduism spread throughout India, it still doesn't look like they divided the population into races, even if they intended to do so. Many high caste Indians are actually quite dark skinned and many light skinned Indians could belong to the lower caste. Moreoever, while Dravidians in India mainly belong to the lower caste, the Dravidians in Sri Lanka are mainly high caste. This observation breaks the Caste = Racist system theory.

Let us remember that the Eurocentrists have been trying to put the blame on others for the mistakes they have committed in the past. Therefore we must approach this issue more critically. Although, IE speakers were not the founder of IVC, there is a possibility that they were not brutes either.
 

Zulu, while Arabs are likely to be mixed, they are certainly not part white. The real Arabs or the Southern Arabs were a seperate stock and this stock populated Middle East and even many migrated to Lower Egypt. There are Arabs that have Black admixture, however there are also Somalians that also have West Asian admixture.

Tell your Iranian friend that Persians are alot more heterogenous than most Arabs. The people of the Middle East or Southern Europe that look 'white' are actually very mixed. I have seen mixed individuals (Black+White) that have a similar phenotype.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roy_2k5:
You are sort of correct.

What is true is that there was a Caucasian migration from Central Asia to India, however it was quite small to alter North India's typical phenotype. Even though some are fair, they are akin to the Iranians, a hybrid stock...

---

quote:

---

...Today, the majority of Indians are pretty much the same, and have dark skin comparable to Africans. However they have features that are more 'Caucasoid' than

---

quote:

---

Second, even though it is quite likely that the language of India was not Indo-European, there has yet to be any significant evidence that the IE tongues spoken in India originate from Central Asia. Matter of fact, Sanskrit is far older than any tongue in Europe or Central Asia. I would not be surprised if the IE tongue actually originated in India or somewhere around the Middle East, and spoken originally by a dark skinned population.

---

quote:

---

Third, even though Vedic Hinduism spread throughout India, it still doesn't look like they divided the population into races, even if they intended to do so. Many high caste Indians are actually quite dark skinned and many light skinned Indians could belong to the lower caste. Moreoever, while Dravidians in India mainly belong to the lower caste, the Dravidians in Sri Lanka are mainly high caste. This observation breaks the Caste = Racist system theory.

---

quote:

---

Let us remember that the Eurocentrists have been trying to put the blame on others for the mistakes they have committed in the past. Therefore we must approach this issue more critically. Although, IE speakers were not the founder of IVC, there is a possibility that they were not brutes either.

---

Of course many cultures have a flood myth, but it makes it more interesting when putting that together with other aspects of their religion, like sages which was also found in Sumerian belief.

Considering all of this, I assume that the original home of the Sumerians was in Iran, most likely northern Iran, and that they inhabited the region before the 'fair-skinned' Iranians showed up.
 

quote:

---

What are you talking about?

---

And so, I ask you the same question, when you make a generalization such as this:

quote:

---

In Western racial categories, most Indians are 'brown', not black. Those Indians who share the same color as Africans are usually Dravidian speakers.

---

The first Indo-Europeans seems to correlate to the Kurgan culture and domestication of the horse.

Some people like Colin Reinfew have attempted to put the Indo-Europeans around modern day Anatolia.

quote:

---

And so, I ask you the same question, when you make a generalization such as this: "Those Indians who share the same color as Africans are usually Dravidian speakers."

---

If you noticed, I didn't say all Indians who are black are Dravidian speakers. I said usually or most, which is true. I'm aware that there are some black Indians who only speak the Aryan language. Did you know there is a tribe of Indians called Coorgis who live in southern India and look no different from the fair-skinned ones of the north or even Iranians, yet their vernacular is Dravidian?!

Ausar says:

quote:

---

Djehuti, you realize that some parts of Afganistan and northern India have Scythian and Greek admixture? Infact, there have been genetic studies that confirm this ancient admixture that probably came from troops in Alexander's armies.

---

I'm aware of these claims however, I find them to be unsubstantiated.

First off, most Greeks had dark hair and blondes were quite rare, ocurring mostly in the northern areas of Greece and with higher frequencies the farther north you go in the Balkans, but even then, brown was the common hair color of northern Balkan people. The main thing is that blonde haired people have apparently lived in these areas long before the advent of Alexander and his armies. Herodotus reported what he heard from the Scythians about other Aryan nomads farther east who had the same descriptions. late Babylonian and Assyrian texts spoke of pale skinned, yellow haired peoples to the northeast, and even Alexander the Great and his army encountered such tribes when they first made their trek to Afghanistan and northern India. In fact, Alexander's wife Roxane was the daughter of a Saka cheiftain, and her name in Iranian--Roshvane means pale or bright. Her people, the Sakas were known to the Indians by their nordic appearance.

Also, the certain similarities these peoples' languages have with Greek, don't add up entirely. There are certain loan words borrowed from Greek, but this is to be expected since the region of Bactria (Afghanistan) and Persia was under Greek rule, after Alexander's death. Also, many Aryan languages already had features silimar to Greek, before Greek contact which only prove Indo-European common origins. Neither of these facts says nothing about intermarrying with Alexander's troops. In fact, the blonde peoples of Afghanistan--the Kafiri, and Pakistan--the Kalash, both speak Aryan languages called Dardic, that are neither Iranian nor Indian but are distinct from both. Their languages also possess archaic features that the Iranian and Indian languages have lost.

Lastly, I doubt Alexander's troops would had that great a genetic influence on the peoples of these areas, especially considering that these troops were relatively few in number compared to the surrounding locals. BTW, where are these studies that confirm Greek ancestry, could you show them to me?

It's true that the Kafiri and Kalash peoples claim descent from Alexander's armies, but they obviously do this for the same reason why the Romani onced claimed Egyptian ancestry from and why muslim Africans claim Arab ancestry-- for the want of claiming a great heritage.

quote:

---

The first Indo-Europeans seems to correlate to the Kurgan culture and domestication of the horse.

---

quote:

---

Some people like Colin Reinfew have attempted to put the Indo-Europeans around modern day Anatolia.

---

I've heard of this theory as well, but I agree more with the Kurgan one, since the language diversity seems to correspond with this. The renowned Lithuanian archaeologist and mythologist, Marija Gimbutas, further supports this with mythological themes as well as iconography.

Have you heard of a people called the Minaro, who live along the western borders of Tibet? They live in the area of Ladak just south of the Tarim Basin and right around area between Jammu and Kashmir. They speak a dialect of Shina, which is also Dardic language. They appear to be hybrids--a mixture between Tibetan and white. They have much lighter complexions than other Tibetans and although I've never heard of blonde hair occuring among them, they do sometimes have brown hair and even heavy facial hair and hairy chests occuring among the men. They sometimes have light colored eyes like blue and their features are very long and thin, more so than regular Tibetans. Some Eurocentric scholars are saying that Indo-Europeans not just influenced but founded the cultures of ancient Tibet, and few have gone as far as saying that white Indo-European were the original inhabitants of Greater Tibet and have lived there before 'mongoloids'!!

I forgot how we got into the discussion of Indo-Europeans, in the first place. As I said before, The peoples of India are very diverse, physically as well as culturally, and most likely at one time, linguistically. I agree with most scholars who say the linguistic and cultural diversity of India was much greater in ancient and especially prehistoric times, than today. For example, we know that the Dravidian languages were once spoken throughout India and probably came from the north, but was slowly displaced and pushed southward by Indo-Aryan. While Dravidian languages are mostly spoken in the south, there are still small enclaves and pockets of Dravidians in the north, the farthest north being Brahui which is spoken in Pakistan. And I definitely agree that the Harappan people were most likely Dravidian peoples. Many people tend to forget that although Dravidian was the main linguistic group in India before Indo-Aryan, there are others. In eastern central India there are people who speak Munda languages which are part of the Austro-Asiatic language family and are related to certain languages in Southeast Asia like Khmer(Cambodian) and Vietnamese. Further to the northeast are Khasi and Nahali which are both language isolates but show a somewhat distant relation to Munda, and lastly in the northeastern areas of Pakistan is Burushaski which is a totally isolated language with no close relations whatsover. Who knows how many linguistic and cultural groups there were.

The main point I was making is that many of the peoples of central India today must bear some relation to ancient Sumerians. Again, I base this on their physical appearance as well as certain aspects of their religion, besides these there is nothing else to go by. I suggest that the original home of the Sumerians was in central Iran, prior to the appearance of Elamites, and from there they branched off, some traveling west to Mesopotamia and others east. Certain aspects of ancient Harappan iconography and artifacts of course show a relation with Sumerians. While we can infer that such a relation was based on trade, it is probable and even likely that these peoples have had contact longer ago than previously thought.
 

quote:

---

Djehuti:
If you noticed, I didn't say all Indians who are black are Dravidian speakers. I said usually or most, which is true. I'm aware that there are some black Indians who only speak the Aryan language. Did you know there is a tribe of Indians called Coorgis who live in southern India and look no different from the fair-skinned ones of the north or even Iranians, yet their vernacular is Dravidian?!

---

If you noticed, my question was not pertaining to the Dravidians or Indians, but to your generalization of Africans.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
If you noticed, my question was not pertaining to the Dravidians or Indians, but to your generalization of Africans.

---

Whatever Supercar, I meant East Africans! There is no need to play semantic games, I meant it in the politically incorrect sense.

Get over it!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

Get over it!

---

Get over the fact that, when you make intellectually bankrupt claims, you will be called on it!

[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 07 April 2005).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Get over the fact that, when you make intellectually bankrupt claims, you will be called on it!

---

and what exactly is so intellectually bankrupt about my claims?

Why don't you address the main point I'm making anyway, for a change!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
[B] and what exactly is so intellectually bankrupt about my claims?

Why don't you address the main point I'm making anyway, for a change!

---

Re-read your comment, and my follow up question to it. My friend, you'll called be on any stupid claim you make in 'any' aspect of your comment. Why don't you address the stupid claims you've been called on, for a change!
 

Other than that, do you have anything to say about my theories concerning the connection between Sumerians and many Indian people?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Supercar, just explain to me what mistake I made.

Other than that, do you have anything to say about my theories concerning the connection between Sumerians and many Indian people?

---

If you need it re-spelt out for you, then so be it:

Djehuti fails to understand what was wrong with this, his earlier claim:

In Western racial categories, most Indians are 'brown', not black. Those Indians who share the same color as Africans are usually Dravidian speakers

Do Africans correspond to a single type of color, or characteristic.

As for the Sumerians, when I **wish** to make a comment, at my own discretion, I'll keep you posted. Fascism, is something that needs to be left at your doorstep!
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
complexions. Some are black living mostly in the south, some are light skinned living mostly in the north, but many are just brown.

---

Actually most Indians are quite dark skinned. I have seen many Bengalis, Gujuratis, Maharashtrians, etc that are just as dark as a typical Malayali. Let us remember that brown is a dark skinned colour. If you think that most Indians are tawny then you are far from reality. Even many Tamils are tawny but the majority of South Indians and Indians from Gujurat, Goa, Maharashtra are similar in skin complexion. However, the chances of finding a white skinned Indian in the North is more highe.r

quote:

---

What are you talking about? In Western racial categories, most Indians are 'brown', not black. Those Indians who share the same color as Africans are usually Dravidian speakers.

---

You really need to visit Mumbai or even Bhopal. The majority are quite dark skinned. When I say Black, I am referring to a Scottie Pippen, Will Smith or even Puff Daddy range. I am not talking about Idi Amin complexion range. Indians are comparable to the average African, whom are more Brown. If we observe NBA athletes or other Black celebrities, they tend to be more Brown than Black.

I have learned that Pakistanis try to look down at Indians because of their dark skin complexion. The Pakistanis think the same about the Bangladeshis.

quote:

---

Exactly where the Indo-European languages orginated is still a mystery, and exactly how they reached India is even more so! I agree with scholars that say Indo-European orginated somewhere in Eastern Europe, specifically in the steppes of Russia.

---

Indo-European tongue is said to have been originated in Eastern Europe. It is said to have originated in Central Asia, closer to Iran.

quote:

---

My basis for this is the fact that the earliest references to Indo-European peoples all describe pale, tall, blonde, gray-eyed, Nordic Russian types. This is attested by Homers accounts of Achaeans(early Greeks) as well as the remains in the Mycenae tombs of Greece, and even the descriptions in Egyptian texts and tomb paintings of Mitanni royals. Surprisingly, even today, such types of people still survive in small isolated pockets of northern Iran; and even in Afghanistan among the Nuristani (formerly called Kafiri) people, and in northern Pakistan among the Kalash people. All of these people before their conversion to Islam, practiced early forms of the pagan Aryan religion. I do agree about what you say about Sanskrit! Even though it is an Indo-European language, many liguists do note that there are certain features and vocabulary that are peculiar and distinct from Indo-European. The same is said about the Dardic languages of northernmost India that are related to Sanskrit, languages like Kashmiri and Shina. Such evidence suggests that Indo-European displaced the earlier languages indigenous to the area. Perhaps these earlier languages were somehow related to Burushaski, a language isolate spoken in northeastern Pakistan without even remote known relatives??

---

How do these archeological evidence prove that the original speakers of the IE tongue were blondes? It is likely that the early Greeks had Blonde hair and blue eye, but that doesn't mean the original speakers of the IE were Nordic. There has yet to be proof about this assertion, just hollow claims.

quote:

---

I agree. There is evidence that suggests the caste system was indigenous to India, even before the Vedas, since there were Dravidian peoples found who practiced it.

---

Yes. The break up of the caste system appears more urban. With castes that were Artisans and farmers, etc. The Aryan clan were warrior clans, that were on horse back, farmed, etc.
 

Incorrect.

In Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand, Indians are JUST as dark as those from South India. We find more white Indians in the North because of the obvious reasons. Those from Madhya Pradesh, even Uttar Pradesh are mainly dark skinned. Some claim that Muslims tend to more fair, but that seems false. India becomes more fair from Punjab or Rajasthan. Gujaratis are not mainly Tawny, neither are the Goans or Maharashtrians. The last two look exactly the same as the Dravidian.

Have you heard of the Sinhalese of Sri Lanka? They speak an Aryan tongue and are very similar to the Indians of Eastern India. In average, Sinhalese are darker than the Tamils in the North. The only Tamils that would be darker than the Sinhalese would be the Tamils outside the cities in the far North, while the Sinhalese that would be fairer would be those living in the Kandian region. Many believe Sinhalese are dark in complexion because of the Australoid influence, but this is not the case. The Australoids in Sri Lanka (Veddha) are not dark skinned.

As I have stated, most Indians are actually quite dark skinned. The problem is we automatically assume that Blacks or Dravidians are Black in complexion. Hence when we see one dark African, we assume all of them are Black. In contrast when we see a fair skinned Bengali, many assume the pop as mainly fair, even though the majority are not. These selective observations are certainly not needed .
 

http://www.saxakali.com/Saxakali-Publications/runoko31.htm

Though, I do think Ancient Sumeria needs to be looked into more.

Read this too...

http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/iraq.html
 

What a lot of people don't understand is that back in the day (thousands of years ago) there were numerous African tribes located in what we now call the Middle East. They were as black as Africans and today's black people in the Americas....because they were from the same place.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001830-2.html

Thought Writes:

T.D., you are absolutely right. The M1 lineage has not been fully delineated. In addition, many populations in Africa remain unstudied. But even if M does turn out to be South Asian instead of East African the lineage would have nothing to do with “Caucasians“.
The low frequency of M lineages in Iran and Iraq imply that there has been some degree of population replacement in these regions.

Thanks for sharing T.D.!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roy_2k5:
The Greeks also classified the Dravidian phenotype as Ethiopian as well. The Sumerians were most likely related to the Dravidians and the Elamites. The last two do have similarities in culture and phenotype. Whether these three population could be seen as Black is another question.

---