Black Kushites of Sumer and Akkad – by – Clyde Winters Ph.D

Kushites of Sumer and Akkad


Clyde Winters Ph.D

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 given 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 salmat 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.

66 thoughts on “Black Kushites of Sumer and Akkad – by – Clyde Winters Ph.D”

  1. Roma Gypsies are descendants of Rechabites the Midianite tribe when lived in Israel. Brahmin claim descent from Ishvaku or Ishbak which was brother of Midian . Midian and Ishvaku were son’s of Abraham or Brahma (in Veda) and Akkadian princess Ketura or Gajarati (in Veda). Midianites and Brahmins were related they had and have similar language and also DNA. And that’s the reason why Midianites (Gypsies)spoken similar to Brahmin . Prakrit or Sanskrit belong to Ishvaku or Brahmin race not to descendants of Harappeans(Dalit or Sudra low caste). Sanskrit or Prakrit language came from Akkadian language and belong to semitic languages. Why? Because Akkadians were one of tribe of Habiru or Sabiru or Hebrew whatever you want to call it.

  2. Akkadians were descendants of Kushite HORRITES and Joktanite Habiru or Hebrew clan. Akkadians were Kushite-semitic tribe or better Kushite -Hebrew. Rechabites were descendants of Midianite priest Jethro and Levite Aaron . Rechabite were Levites in fact. They were and still are Aronite clan of Nazarites. Rechabites spoken slowdown language very similar to Ishvaku or Brahmin. Rechabite priests are still here and they still do Rechabite custom and traditions and can speak in arameic language and they are Roma Gypsies. Sinti Gypsies and Kale are similar origin to Roma Gypsies . Sinti are descendants of Ziporah and Mosses . Ziporah was daughter of midianite priest Jethro . Mosses was brother of Aaron.

  3. Sinti Gypsies are descendants of Ziporah and Mosess they got two son’s . One of them was Slider or Balak . From Balak family became royalty of Hyksos. When Hyksos everything lost in Egypt they came back to Israel. Some of Hyksos priest intermarried to Juda royalty. Zoroaster which was descent of Juda royalty and Hyksos royalty founded Achaemenid dynasty and Anshan kingdom in Elam. Zoroaster was descent of Midian /Gypsy, don’t be confused with Roma Gypsies.Roma Gypsies have nothing to do with Parthians. Persian royalty were and still are Sinti Gypsies.

  4. Rechabites/Roma Gypsies were taken to captivity by Nebucadnezar the Babylonian king. When Babylonians lost with Persians most Jews and Rechabites moved to Persia they lived in Baluchistan for some time like refugee. When Parthians struggle with their power because of Arabs they form Habarri kingdom in India with Mewar Bhill peolpe. Royalty of Habarri dynasty were Parthians royalty. All Jews and Rechabites moved to Habarri kingdom. Bene Israel and Habarri kingdom is that where Roma Gypsies came from in 1024 AD. They lived there like refugees. Roma Gypsies are not Hindu. Sinti and Kale with Domari and Gujars and Kurds and many more are Parthians .

  5. Akkadians descent from Kushite tribe Sheba (Sabaeans, which were Sumerians) and Joktanite Hebrew. Joktan brother of Pelag they both were son’s of Eber. SARGON. I wich is also known as Nimrud of Bible was ancestor of Abraham and also Ketutah. KETURAH was Akkadian princess. Abraham and Ketutah were progenitors of all Indo -Aryans race. Ishvaku or Ishbak ancestor of Brahmin race. His brother Midian ancestor of all Gypsies. Roma Gypsies descent from midianite priest Jethro and Levite Aroon. Roma Gypsies are half Indo -Aryans but also Levies by Aroon. RECHABITES. the sons of Rehab how they call us in ancient Israel. Roma also belong to Akkadians because of their ancestor Ketutah. RECHABITES spoken Akkadian language which is similar to Ishvaku race or Brahmin, which is Prakrit or Sanskrit.

  6. Bene Mosheh tribe (Children of Moses) were descendants of Moses and Ziporah daughter of midianite priest Jethro. Bene Mosheh tribe and Rechabites were same people in fact because Mosess and Aroon were brother’s and Ziporah was daughter of midianite priest Jethro. Bene Mosheh tribe became royal in Moab with other 4 midianite princes. Latter they became Hyksos with Amalekites and Ishmaelites (two black tribe’s of Khazar /Edom). Amalekites and Ishmaelites are today Domari and Gujars. After they lost everything in Egypt they came back to Israel. Hyksos priest elite intermarried to Levites, some of them managed married to Juda royal family. (Bene Mosheh were accepted in Israel because they were descendants of Mosess and they were Levites.) And that’s Zoroaster came from. He was. Descent from Hyksos and from Juda royal ???? family. He was founder of Achaemenid dynasty and Anshan kingdom (Partial)in Elam. Descendants of Bene Mosheh tribe are today Sinti Gypsies and Romanichel. They are closely related to Roma Gypsies.

    1. I’m romanichel gypsy, that we are descendants of Moses? What’s the sources ? From where did you get these informations?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *