Kushites of Sumer and Akkad
By
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 Headsâ€. 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 lordsâ€. It was the Semitic speakers who called themselves Akkadians.
Assyrians called the Ki-en-gi people Sumiritu “the sacred languageâ€. 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 headsâ€, 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 peopleâ€, 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 headsâ€. 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 “whitesâ€, 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.
Hi Dr. Winters,
I am so glad to have found this post of yours. For years I’ve wondered why different histoians made the statement that the brachycephalic physical type representated on the monuments was not reflected in the physical remains. But, I wanted to find out where or how you are know that the artifacts date to a period othe than that of the Sumerians. This is a very important assertion that i think few people know about.
Thanks in advance.
this is a great website and I hope it will remain for a long time. I hope even more that, others will be exposed to it, just like the main stream chat lines. These truths which you bring forward is so neccessary. But even more important than this, how do we educate the masses of miss educated African/Edenic people. How do we wake them to their greatness, and importance to bring back Yah consciousness, Yah Righteousness. Through my studies I now realize that we are the salt of the world. The world is sufferring from the erroneous lead of the oppressors, and can only be right when we the Edenic people wake up and take our place. This is Written in the canons of The Deuteronomy’s, specifically 28:15-68. We are truly being deceived by the advocery.
couldn’t disagree with you . the jats [guts or gutian] of punjab india dna shows “caucasian” mostly but some are dark due to dravidian /dasu indians of negro origin mixing . jats are gothic, who also went through mixing.goths relatives of juts,aryans, celts, anglo-saxons and israelites hence saxons means sons of issac . issac of abraham
It not likely that the Guti were jats or not. More likely the Guti if they were fair were ancestral Kurds. The ancient Jats on the other hand were in certain references called Zatti or Zut and there were references to them as “black Zotti”. A 9th writer refers to the Jats as children of Ham as does the 11th century Mujmat ut-Tawarikh (1026).
The fact that fair -skinned Central Asians have taken over the lands of the Jats who are still mostly dark-skinned (as far as what I have read) means little. Except it is the cause of much “racial” discord among Jats themselves as far as i can see tell (from looking at the internet Jat websites). on these sites dark Jats are called by the same invidious names that “blacks” are in America and the rest of the world. I have been told by some untouchables from India in the U.S. that India is the most racist place in the world. I have some ancestry from India and thus have nothing against Hindus however, you can’t believe all you see from books, and movies about India. In their films for obvious reasons dark skinned Indians who make up that country of a billion people are rarely seen and yet make up the bulk of that country.
I must state that the term white semite is not a true statement. The shemetic people consist of Arabs and Sephardic Jews who are African in origin and Asiatic in migration. To your point about Assyrians not having African features; if one looks at the vast majority of Americans, one will find it extraordinarily difficult to recognize Native Americans features in the populous. Moreover, there are over 6 billion people in the world, of that number, nearly 2/3 of the population are influenced via religion, lifestyle, and philosophy by the biblical scriptures. Many of the “founding parents” of archeology have entered this particular field of study to try and compare and contrast biblical history with perceived “mainstream” history.
By and large, these archeological pioneers who have discovered these civilizations which are the topics of our discussions conclude that biblical history is accurate history in with respect to archeological evidence. Considering the aggregate of this lengthy lead in if you will, biblical history is only taken with a grain of salt when it either suggests the origins of religion and civilization as an achievement of Black Africans, or when it underscores what is perceived as unfavorable views of caucasians e.g. II Kings 5.
This is not true and most historians do not support this ideaology, If you look at the Assyrian kings and queens, then you will same features as their Persian neighbors so that tells us that the ancient Assyrians were white Semites and not blacks. Among all Assyrians nowadays, there is not 1 Assyrian person that has Black feature or something close to the Ethiopians, not even a single Assyrian. With my respect to the African race.
Finally, someone who can disagree with a racio-historical subject without resorting to cheap racial name calling. I think people should keep in mind that we all owe our existence to black people, if whom wouldn’t have left Africa, would be a homogeneous people.
Why is it that no ancient Mesopotamian or Persian artwork depicts any black people? They all have big noses, which is a semitic/Indic trait. Only south asians/arabs have noses as big as the people in Sumerian artwork. They were not black. And the Elamites were from India, they spoke a Dravidian language. i don’t care what the bible says. The bible is not accurate history.
can anybody tell me anything about queen puabi and how her body looked when she was dead. who cares about all of this other crap yall talk about.
To the question of, ‘Why is it that no ancient Mesopotamian or Persian artwork depicts any black people? They all have big noses, which is a semitic/Indic trait.”
What is important to note is Ephraim Speiser and others have commented on the apparent discrepancy between ancient numerically predominant skulls of the ancient Mesopotamians (which were Ethiopic) while the monuments shown in books are of a prominent nosed Eurasiatic type. This is because of what was said by Dr. Winters on one of these blogs about when the art was made.
It is clear now that the art and sculpture was made for the most part much later than the Sumerians existed and it was not made by early Akkadians either but belongs to non-semitic Guti some other late coming people which makes some sense since supposedly early “semites” thought it taboo to sculpt or paint the human image .
In 1972 historian William Langer wrote, “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 .
In the “Syria, Arabia, Mesopotamia and Sumer were parts of the original domain of the Brown Race” p. 145-146. Grafton Elliot Smith What does that mean? Was Smith delusional?
Historian Ephraim Speiser also mentions in his book Oriental Studies, the monuments appear to represent an Armenoid type while the bulk of the early Mesopotamians were in fact of the long-headed Mediterranean which is the “brown” or East African i.e., hamitic type. The same is the case with Anatolia or Turkey (Asia Minor).
1911 – anatomist Grafton Elliot Smith wrote – “the physical characteristics of the present day Nubian, Beja, Danakil, Galla, and Somali populations are …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.
An O. R. Gurney mentioned in 1952 that , “Examination of the skulls which have been found on several sites in Anatolia shows that in the third millennium the population was preponderantly long-headed or dolichocephalic, with only a small admixture of brachycephalic types. In the second millennium the proportion of brachycephalic skulls increases to about 50 percent.”” (6) Gurney, O.R.; The Hittites, Penguin Books, 1990, First Ed. 1952 p. 284
Carleton Coon who was one of the first to misinterpret this “Mediterranean race” terminology was also one of th efirst to admit that dolichocephaly is “no where to be found on a regional based in Europe”. Among fair-skinned North Africans as well heads tend toward the mesocranic and brachycephalic unlike the ancient peoples there. This is because dolichocephaly is basically a trait of Africans. So wherever you see populations in the ancient world that were predominantly dolichocephalic you can rest assured that they were dark in color like modern sub-Saharans.
People need to understand that the early neoltihic world and the earliest civilizations throughout most of the Bronze Age across the world were basically “black African” affiliated and continued to be so well into the history period and that includes Europe, the Near East and southern Asia extending well into East Asia. That also includes the people who made the megaliths of Europe, the Stone Henge and those of Asia and North Africa.
Elliot Smith – “a 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
The earliest megalithic astronomical ruins – the prototype of the Stone henge is found 1000 year searlier in the Nabta Playa or Nubian desert. Needless to say these sites are associated with African physical types. And that is not some African American making this up. That is a fact that Western scholars have concluded.
It doesn’t mean there was some biological disposition that dark-skinned people possessed that led to the development of early civilizations. It just so happens dark skinned African-looking people were the numerically predominant people of the world in that time.
The Bronze Age North African, such as Naqada man which was related to neolithic and bronze age Saharans and who spread out over Egypt directly before the rise of the pharoahs was unquestionably related to modern peoples of the Horn of Africa but also to the neolithic North Africans and Europeans and Near Easterns. That is not some African saying that , that is what has been discovered by European scholars. So most people who are coming to Afrocentric sites as they are called really need to get a grip and learn what science is actually saying. Why should people in the horn of Africa be taught that ancient Egyptians looked like Turks or like the rendition of ancient Egyptians presently in National Geographic’s April 1990 issue.
Said Loring Brace 2005 and 2006, ““Modern Europeans ranging all of the way from Scandinavia to Eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean on to the Middle East show that they are closely related to each other. The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants…”
Elsewhere in the same article he writes, “Basques and Canary islanders are clearly related to modern Europeans.” That article is, “The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form, C. Loring Brace,*† Noriko Seguchi,‡ Conrad B. Quintyn,§ Sherry C. Fox,¶ A. Russell Nelson, Sotiris K. Manolis,** and Pan Qifeng Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 January 3; 103(1): 242–247.
Also in the same article we are told these same people that had no significant connection to modern peoples of Europe and the Near East were related to – guess who?
Brace et al. says, “”It is a further surpise that the Epi-palaeolithic Natufian of Israel from which the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to sub-Saharan Africa.” He mentions these sub-Saharans as being of the Niger-Congo group. and “The Niger-Congo speakers, Congo, Dahomey and Haya, cluster closely with each other and a bit less closely with the Nubian sample, both the recent and the Bronze Age Nubians, and more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel. When those samples are separated and run in a single analysis as in Fig. 1, there clearly is a tie between them that is diluted the farther one gets from sub-Saharan Africa” (Brace, 2005)
He is saying that the so called “true Negro” is closely linked to the Natufians and Nubians while the people of the horn of Africa are related to the early Egyptian or proto-Egyptian and agriculturalists who’ve recently moved up from the Arabian peninsula – or am I just misinterpreting something.
Understand what European physical anthropologists in general are saying! It is not that subtle :
“”There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas.” (Nancy C. Lovell, ” Physical Anthropology of Egyptians,”" in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York Routledge, 1999, pp 328-332.
So it is not that people like Dr. Winters or so called Afrocentrics are making things up. The fact that African types were predominant in the Near East Southern Asia and North Africa have been called Mediterranean has been misconstrued by many people over the last century who have expertise in only one area of the anthropology. Geneticists are a good example of this and there is now a debate taking place among scholars about the obvious discrepancy between the genetic sciences and the physical anthropological findings also founded now today genetic based morphological change.
“Hanihara (1996) also shows that ancient West Asians resembled Africans.(Hanihara T., “Comparison of craniofacial features of major human groups,” Am J Phys Anthropol. 1996 Mar;99(3):389-412.)” What does that mean? Why would Hanihara find ancient West Asians related to Africans. Why does he not say modern West Asians (Middle Easterners, etc).
Because THEY WERE NOT THERE!
I know this has been hard for some of us to grasp but that is to say they were not the predominant population of that area yet – period!
That was also what said by the early anthropologists. Yet if someone like Dr. Winters repeats what has been discovered by Europeans they are supposed to be something radically Afrocentric.
Understand the relationship that ancient Egyptians biologically and culturally before the Ptolemaic period had with the rest of sub-Saharan Africa goes back for thousands and thousands of years, as does their culture. “”We also compare Egyptian body proportions to those of modern American Blacks and Whites… Long bone stature regression equations were then derived for each sex. Our results confirm that, although ancient Egyptians are closer in body proportion to modern American Blacks than they are to American Whites.. Intralimb indices are not significantly different between Egyptians and American Blacks.” (“Stature estimation in ancient Egyptians: A new technique based on anatomical reconstruction of stature.” Michelle H. Raxter, Christopher B. Ruff, Ayman Azab, Moushira Erfan, Muhammad Soliman, Aly El-Sawaf, (Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008, Jun;136(2):147-55
So beware what you read in blogs –
It is important to understand that Egyptian culture can only be studied in the context of an African one. That is why it is not doing anyone any good to send a tour of Tut around the world with a forensically recast version in white as if there were some scientific proof of it , or to show photos in books wear the paint has been worn of ancient Egyptians or soft Ethiopian hair made straighter and redder from hair chemicals and then have the audacity to get upset when some “Afrocentric” proclaims the Egyptians were “black”.
Thus we read: ” “…2 years was found to be the maximum duration of Caucasian hair buried under the ground” in Rogers Spencer Lee – Personal Identification from Human Remains 1987.
Also the breakage of bond in the human hair of the mummies,”was related to mummification and cosmetic teatments embalming materials . See “Microbeam Synchrotron Imaging of hairs from Ancient Egyptian Mummies” Bertrand, L. Dumas P Synchrotron Radiation 2003 Spet. P. 387-92 from the Centre de Recherche et de Restauration de Musees de France UMR 171
“Afrocentric ” history explains why Brace and other physical anthropologists from the beginnings of anthropolgy until now have said that the majority of the ancient neolithic people, Cro-Magnons and their Mesolithic descendants were not directly ancestral to modern Europeans or Eurasians of the Middle East who also moved into India.
What do the anthropologists say about Egyptians until very late period in Egypt when other physical types had become numerically significant in Palestine, “If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans.” (Barry Kemp, “Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge. p. 52-60)
The anatomist G. Elliot Smith said of the modern east Africans: “The essential identity to the early Neolithic Europeans and of the proto-Egyptians is generally admitted” p. 20
The works of Krogman, Haddon and other early physical anthropologists make clear that there is no way in heaven or on earth that modern European or even fair-skinned people now living in the Near East were even a significant number of the early Bronze Age populations. Thus people reading about the ancient world need to revise their own thinking when reading into genetic studies and come to terms with what is really being said. How were African haplotypes and genes really transferred to present Europeans and Near Easterners? It is obvious that the early haplotypes in Europe and Eurasia belonged to people with no strong link to modern Europeans. So what does that mean for genetics that they were transferred so late .
What does it mean for linguistics when the Nostratic theory says that the semitic culture and for that matter the Indo European language group began to spread from the Natufians 8 to 9,0000 years ago or people from that period in the Levant – a people that have been long known to have been of “Negro” and Negroid. What does that really mean? Does everyone really want to know? No – I think people would rather turn history around so that it fits into their MGM picture view of what ancient peoples like “semites”, and Akkadians and Philistines and Phoenicians, and Moors and Persians and the builders of stone henge really looked like. I won’t say Olmecs since they haven’t done a film on them yet.
So – sorry that Afrocentrics are as one book title reads – in search of “an imaginary past”. But as early Africans were well aware the ancestral ties were the ties that bind and that’s a link thats not going to be broken – not even through time.
Well researched, well constructed, just a magnificent amalgamation of evidence to support your thesis. I have read myriad books of ancient history and one of the facts that I outline to those who debate me and denigrate me is that, the vast majority of evidence to support Black Africans pioneering achievements in antiquity come from white scholars. Therefore, “Afrocentrism” as many people call it, is rooted in large part, on white scholarly evidence; talk about bitter irony.
Keep up the good work I beg, beseech, and implore you to do so.
Thank You
Sorry should have said Natufians 8-9,000 years ago. Just writing my letter too quick .
Another interesting thing about the Natufians who first lived 10,000 -12000 years ago or 8,9,000 B.C.. The crania Brace studied he described as “robust” while the later Natufians that were more gracile were also “Negroid” and were either influenced by the Mushabians from the Nile or were the Mushabi. It probably needs to be made clear if the pre-Mushabians were related to teh Niger -Congo group or if the latter ones were.
Later Ubaid skeletons that spread the neolithic culture over Mesopotamia and Arabia had the same skeletal markings as the Natufians and were also described as robust, large bodied and “negroids” by s few early antrhopologists.
oh yes indeed dana marniche ,the confirmation information reality be mad tight ,,,360 degrees,,,,,,,,,,,,,,this is terrell ali bey ,.indeed
To put it bluntly. A man by the name of Dr. Malachi Z York wrote over 500 books, many saying all of this same information about the Sumerian Doctrine. His first book was written in 1967 and Zachariah Sitchen first book “The 12th Planet” was written in 1976 – 10 years later, so he didn’t bite Stichens work. He has pretty much covered all of this information. Much respect to the brother who wrote this article because the information still needs to be brought forth. If you are looking for many of Yorks books, sorry, they are out of print, or cost several hundreds of dollars. It’s amazing that all these years later, both black and white scholars are confirming things he talked about over 30 years ago. Absolutely Phenominal.
Brother Kush said it…. Dr. York has been on the track of Ether peoples liberation for over 35 years now. His freedom has been compromised for it as well. The world will behold the facts revealed.
Many of Dr. Yorks books are out of print, while others are hard to find, yet alleyesonegipt.com, factology.com and heisinnocent.com will provide anybody seeking the profound writing of Dr. york. You may also become aware of the tremendous price he pays for raising “Niggazs to GOD’S”. He need our aid and assistance. Hotep Hau
We’re all waiting for your book Queen Dana !!!
http://www.torontolife.com/features/were-here-were-tamil-get-used-it/?pageno=1
this is tamil dravidians are from elamites
http://jackgruber.com/athens/iraq-2/
moroccan soccer in green is like us tamils many we have like him
actually i need to make a correction the dravidians are the sumerians! I dreamt of this twice i was assuming it was the elamites.too many people telling lies calling dravidians broad nosed stuff like this whereas this part of our culture is brown to very dark have nice features finer features some of the stuff i read on the internet is just crazy!
DRAVIDIANS ARE FROM THE SUMERIANS !
Descendants of Sumerians are Gypsies check their Dna and language they Still using some words of sumerian language. They are native Americans mix with Jews and Dravidians.
Native Americans from Siberia via India to midle east. They founded Sumer and they form Dravidian with Jews. Akadians and Amorites and Chaldeans are all Ethiopians mix with Jews .
The term Amorites is used in the Bible to refer to certain highland mountaineers who inhabited the land of Canaan, described in Genesis 10:16 as descendants of Canaan, son of Ham. They are described as a powerful people of great stature “like the height of the cedars,” who had occupied the land east and west of the Jordan; their king, Og, being described as the last “of the remnant of the Rephaim” (Deut. 3:11). The terms Amorite and Canaanite seem to be used more or less interchangeably, Canaan being more general and Amorite a specific component among the Canaanites who inhabited the land.
The Biblical Amorites seem to have originally occupied the region stretching from the heights west of the Dead Sea (Gen. 14:7) to Hebron (13:8; Deut. 3:8; 4:46-48), embracing “all Gilead and all Bashan” (Deut. 3:10), with the Jordan valley on the east of the river (4:49), the land of the “two kings of the Amorites,” Sihon and Og (Deut. 31:4; Josh. 2:10; 9:10). Both Sihon and Og were independent kings. These Amorites seem to have been linked to the Jerusalem region, and the Jebusites may have been a subgroup of them. The southern slopes of the mountains of Judea are called the “mount of the Amorites” (Deut. 1:7, 19, 20).
Five kings of the Amorites were first defeated with great slaughter by Joshua (10:10). They were said to have been utterly destroyed at the waters of Merom by Joshua (Josh. 11:8). It is mentioned that in the days of Samuel, there was peace between them and the Israelites (1 Sam. 7:14). The Gibeonites were said to be their descendants, being an offshoot of the Amorites that made a covenant with the Hebrews; when Saul would break that vow and kill some of the Gibeonites, God sent a famine to Israel.
Imam Tabari said that lud ibn shem was progenitor of the canaanites mix between canaans descendants and lud ibn shem
he also said that the dark sindis andindians are from cush abbysinians were another race from cush.well as i said i think there has been a innocent mistake yes nubia was also called cush but the peoples of sudan(nubia)were from canaan so the dark indians (mediterranean people are from canaan
thats why there are some indian looking faces in somalia and ethiopia some there are not a lot
the word inn above post inian should be indian
Clyde the sythians were from the steppes of russia in pre history and came into what we know as iran they are called a old iranic race they are farsi faris races are from lud ibn shem who married shakbah bint japeth the medes were in power prior to the scythians,the scythians came after not before hittites if i am correct were a aryan race but they mixed with canaanites their aryan origin is from madai bin japeth not magog the hittites adopted many things from the sumerians the vedic culture actually belonged to the dravidians not aryan type
The Persian historian Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (c. 915) recounts a tradition that the wife of Canaan was named Arsal, a daughter of Batawil son of Tiras, and that she bore him the “Blacks, Nubians, Fezzan, Zanj, Zaghawah, and all the peoples of the Sudan.” the dark straight haired type mediterranean type came from nubia not ethiopia!
Canaan is a Biblical figure who, according to the Old Testament, was the son of Ham and the grandson of the patriarch Noah. The Book of Genesis states that the Canaanites, a people who mostly occupied modern-day Israel, were descendants of this Canaan. Canaan fathered the Phoenicians through his son Sidon, and the Hittites through his son Heth. The Bible also says that he fathered the Jebusites, Hivites, Arkites, Girgashites, Zemarites, Amorites, Sinites, Arvadites, and Hamathites.
In Genesis, Canaan was cursed by Noah because of his father’s transgressions. This is referred to as the Curse of Ham.
However, according to the Book of Jubilees, both the Israelite conquest of Canaan and the curse are attributed instead to Canaan’s steadfast refusal to join his elder brothers in Ham’s allotment beyond the Nile, instead “squatting” on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, within the inheritance delineated for Shem.
(tyre is mediterranean coast)
http://www.tamil.net/list/2000-10/msg00020.html
sumerian/dravidian
http://arutkural.tripod.com/sumstudies/sumerverb.htm
sumerian/dravidian
http://arutkural.tripod.com/sumstudies/sum-as-arch-tamil.htm
sumerian is archaic tamil
Nubian Kamitic Sumerian Civilization 2
——————————————————————————–
Kohl did not mention the red-and-black ware. This ceramic style was found at NKSD sites and is discussed by Singh and Andersson.
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.
Posted by Truthseeker
http://thiru2050.blogspot.com/2011/01/sanskrit-is-dravidian-and-not-indo.html
sanskrit is dravidian not aryan
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2740952
elamite and dravidian
Lexical Correspondences between Sumerian and Dravidian
DrK.Loganathan, Universiti Sains Malaysia
(Part of the paper originally published in the Journal of of the Inst. of Asian Studies, Chennai March 1989)
Introduction
The last few decades have seen some important advances made in unfolding the mystery surrounding the prehistory of the Dravidian speakers in India. Evidence are accumulating to show that there are close linkages between the present day Dravidian speakers and those ancients who established remarkable civilizations in the Indus, ancient Persia and in the valleys of Tigris-Euphrates, called respectively Melluha, Elam and Sumer. The claim David W. McAlpin 91974, 1975) that the ancient Elam is cognate with Dravidian seems to be have been well received by scholars. While uncertainties still surround the decipherment of the Indus script , Walter A.Fairservis Jr. (1986) concludes, after a careful consideration of a variety of factors, that Dravidian remains the best possible candidate for the Harappan language.
Another conjecture that further strengthens the above hypothesis comes from J.V.Kinnier Wilson(1986). He claims that the Harappans and Sumerians were in fact the same people, that the Sumerians were in fact INDO-SUMERIANS, a small group of people who probably separated from the parent stock, the Harappans, settled in Sumeria and began to develop independently.
Now in addition to the above thesis of Indo-Sumerian, we shall propose here what can be called the thesis of Sumero-Dravidians; that sometime after the second millennium B.C. when Sumer was sacked by Hammurabi and taken over by the semitic speaking people who lived initially in Akkad, a substantial number of Sumerians came to India particularly the extreme South and today constitute the basic population of the speakers of Tamil, Malayalam, Kannada, Tulu and other S.Dravidian languages and were probably the people who established the Sangam Culture around the period 800 B.C to 300 A.D . Evidences in favour of Sumero-Dravidian thesis are accumulating.
In 1975, we have shown the existence of remarkable lexical correspondences between Sumerian and Dravidian (particularly S.Dravidian) for more than 200 lexical items. In 1982, it was shown that a line occurring in “Lamentations over the Destruction of Ur” transliterated and translated by S.N Kramer points to the possibility of the existence of an Academy very much like the Tamil Sagkam of the historical period even in Sumeria in those ancient days. There are also many similarities in literary conventions, stylistic features, metaphors and similes which when sufficiently well documented would constitute strong evidences for the thesis we are proposing here. We should also mention here that Hannah Fane (1980) appears to subscribe to this thesis as well. On the basis of numerous archeological evidences she tries to identify the Nilgiri Hills as the location known as “Turkish” to the Sumerians, the furthest trading post in the route: Ur-Elam-Makkan- Meluhha-Turkish. If this is accepted, the possibility of at least some Sumerians settling in the deep South around the first or second millennium B.C could not be ruled out.
In the present paper, we propose to furnish additional evidences for the above thesis . The linguistic, literary and cultural similarities are so striking that thesis seems to essentially sound. The problem is mainly that of documentation. Since this area of study has not still attracted the attention of many scholars, a preliminary attempt is made here with the limited resources at our disposal with the hope that it would attract the attention of the relevant authorities who would then initiate more systematic studies of this sort.
We have taken for analysis a single Sumerian text: Nin- me-sar-ra, transliterated and translated by W.Hallo & J. Van Dijk(1968) and published with an extensive commentary and analysis of the text from a number of angles. The published text also includes a glossary that turned out to be very useful for the present study. For it includes a number of Akkadian equivalents, some obviously borrowings from Sumerian(e.g sir-ku & Ak. sir-kugu) and some with no such relationships.
Ta. tampi: younger brither etc; Go. tammur:id (DED 2513). Also note the ‘tam’ as in tam-akkai:sister; tam-aiyan: brother, may be derived from ‘dumu’ meaning ‘sibling’. Also note tam-ar: relatives etc (W.550)
19. Su. e; Ak. bittu: house, sanctuary, temple ; 104 etc
Ta. il: home, temple etc Kol. ella, Nk. ella;id (DED 420)
20. Su.en; Ak.eenu, eentu : high priest(ess) 67, 120
Ta. Ta. eenthu: to rise high , be eminent ; eenthal : dignitary etc (DED 739); Ta. eeN: boundary, limit (DED 751); firmness stability (DED752)
21. Su.ezi-nu: vegetation; grain, 10,43
Ta. aaciNi,aayiNi: bread-fruit tree, Artocarpus Incisa (DED310); Ta. eL,eN: sesamum indicum; Ma. eLLu:id (DED726) Ta. ezu: to rise up
22. Su. gaba : breast; gaba-tab: close to breast, 8.
Ta. KavuL: cheek, temple or jaw of elephant: Ma. kavil: cheek(DED 1124); Ta.paakam(ga-ba> paakam?): the arm(W751). Ta. kavan-tam, kapantam: headless body (W.240); kapaalam(>SK.kapaala) : the skull, cranium; Ta. kapoolam (Sk. kapola: the cheeks); Ta. kappaNam: an iron collar for the neck; a kind of neckalace (kappa: neck?)(W.241)
23. Su ga-la, Ak.kalu:ritual singer , 140
Ta. kal: to learn, practise(as arts); kalai: arts and sciences, learning ,etc; Ma. kala:id ; Ka. kali: a learned man(DED 1090)(.Sk. kalaa: an art)
24. Su.gi(s) : dark, night; gi-u-na ,56
Ta. kari: black; Ta.kaar: darkness, blacknessetc (DED1073). Also Ta. mai: black, blackness (W899)
25. Su.gi-ri, Ak. sepu: feet, R-n–se..na , 78
Ta.ukir: finger-nail, claw; Tu.uguru, Te.goru. Kol. go.r, Nk. goor, Pa. geeri; Ca9s) geere:id Also T. kooRai: a scratch(kooR-; claw?0; Ka. kooRee: tusk, fang etc (DED 1869)
26. Su. gis-ka(n), gis-ka-na , giska-an-na : doorsill
Ta. kannam, kannakkool: an instrument for breaking into a house; kannakam:id (W.274) Ta. kannam: a hole made by burglars in a home-wall; Ka. kanna:id (DED1188)
27. Su. gizzu(<gis-zu : something dark? ) Ak. sillu: shadow,shade , 71
Ta. kal: stone, preciuos stone (DED1091)
40. Su. kalam; Ak. maatu: (native ) lad ;13,18
Ta. kaLam: place, open space etc (DED 1160)
41. Su. kas: drink; kas-du: sweet drink , ir… R-ga-gim, 82
Ta. kasi: to ooze out; Ka. kasi: to ooze, trickle, flow etc(DED918) Also Ta. kanjci: rice-water poured off rice; To. koj: rice porridege
42. Su. ki; Ak: ersetu: earth Ak: asru, asar: place, where
Ta. ku, kiiz: place or space below; bottom, east etc(DED1348). Ta.kiiz: (agricultural) land as kiz-aan: landowner, kiz-aar: garde etc (W305)
43.Ta. Su. ki-aga(=ki-angka> kaamma?) Ak. ramu: to love; beloved
Ta. kongkaN: husband, kongka-: to love? Kur. conhaa: to love; beloved etc
Also note , Ta. irammiyam: beauty, pleasantness etc
44. Su.ku, Ak. ellu: holy, pure, divine etc R-innana,83
Ta.kO: king, emperor, god etc (DED 1810) Also Ta. kOL: a planet; heavenly phenomena (W382) Ta. kO: greatness etc (W374)
45.. Su. kur; Ak: nakaru, nukkuru : something hostile, alien etc, 9,20
Ta. kURRu: yama-the god of death; Ma. kURRam, kURRan: enemy, destroyer(DED1602); Ta. kuRumpu: wickedness, battle, war etc (DED 1541) Also note Ta. naraku: hell (< Ak. nakaru?)
46. Su. kur; Ak. sadu, maatu : mountain, land, country etc (DED 1548)
Ta. kunRu: hill, mountain Ta. kURu: a division of land, territory etc; Go(w) : kuRu : hill (DED1548) Also Ta. maatu: wealth, property
47. Su. lu; Ak. awilu: man ,119
Ta. aaL: man, husband etc ; Ta. aaN: male, manliness (DED 342) Also Ta. avaaL; awwaaL: that person (in Brahmin register)
48. Su. ma; Ak. elippu: boat, R-a-nir-ra , 98
Ta. maram: tree; maa: mango tree (DED3919)
49. Su. ma-sa-b; Ak; masabbu: basket , 68
Ta. makkari; makri: basket plaited out of stout slits of bambooor of the date tree(DED 3772)
50. Su. me-lam ; Ak. mela/ emmu: radiance , R-gur-ru ,2
Ta. mEl: the sky, the visible heaven(W.897); Ta. veL. veN; white, pure, shining; Ma. veLLi: silver, Venus etc 9DED45240
51. Su. mi, munus; Ak. awiltum, sinnistum : woman
Ta. mai: a barren woman (W.899) Ta. manusi: id (W.857)
52. Su. mu-ru-(m); maru-man: sister-in-law; brother-in-law etc , 90
Ta. marumakan, marumaan: man's son, woman's brother's son, son-in-law, descendent, scion, member of a clan etc (DED 3860)
53. Su. num-dum: lip nun-dum nun-dum : lips
Ta. n-utambu: to become soft or moist as soap in water; to become damp (n-utam : something soft and wet?) (W.687)
54. Su. pa; Ak. elaaatu: bright ?, an-pa:zenith
Ta. pakal: day, daytime, sun etc ; piyal: noon (DED3151). Also paal: milk,something white;
Ta. paal: part, portion, section etc
55. Su. sag-kal; Ak. asaredu : first, foremost
Ta. tAngkaL: you (honorofic plural) (DED 2582)
56. Su. sag-ki; Ak. puutu: forehead, face ; R-hus-a, 37
Ta. cenni: head,cheek; Te. cekku, cengka, cempa: cheek (DED1655)
57. Su.sahar: dust
http://arutkural.tripod.com/sumstudies/su-ta-lex.htm
go to this link for more on above topic
No worries gypsy man the reason you are connected to the Sumerians is because of your connection to the Subar or Savari people. Some think gypsies were Mesopotamian smiths affiliated with both the Austronesian and Dravidian speakers – Gondh Sindhu THey may have been known in India and Asia as Savari and Sabari.. They may also have been linked to the lower caste division of the Jati. Dravidians however appear to have been connected to Elamite and Taman people of Sumer judging from the similarity near cosmologies. Dravidians also share too much in common with East Africans culturally and linguistically to have not once had a connection to east Africans. I’m just not sure which came first. Sumerians claim to have come from the Magan or Makkan in Arabia, not the Sabari. This would make it likely they wre early Kushitic people. Some people thing that Atzinganoi or Sicani in Europe was an early name for gypsies was related to the early Persian name Zangani or Zanj, a relatively early Persian name for black people in Asia (including Indonesia) as well as Africa.
Their were at least 4our black types occupying both India and Mesopotamia including the man of Eridu or Tepe Hissar who was big bodied and robust probably related to the Natufian, second the Austronesian-speakers possibly related to certain people in Sumatra as well as the painted pottery people of neolithic Asia, 3rd the small Mediterranean type similar to the Dravidians and Beja and ancient Egyptians, 4th, the tall elongated type of Afro-Arabian ancestral to the earliest Jats. This was the extremely tall “eastern Ethiopian” of Saureshtra mentioned in the Periplus of the Indian ocean which Herodotus claimed was identical in culture to the Ethiopians of the West of the same height. It may have had connection to the early Meluhhas or speakers of sanskrit.
Of course Andaman Islanders and certain other groups that look truly Austroloid appear to be have been in India for a much longer time period of time. Then the latest group were the Siddis were of course mainly recent east Africans derived from people stretching from Somalia to Zanzibar .
Tzigani is word for Gypsies its been derived from sing-gani that was name for Sumerians by Greeks. Check sing-gani language it was spoken in Sumer. Sing-gani Sumerian language it’s mix of austrodravidian. They came from Sibiria via India after they setled in Kerala and later they come to Harappa . They bring book with knowledge they join with Jews,I don’t know where and when but they came to Harappa and form Dravidian . There was two rulers in Harappa but they seprated one start worship the moon and he stayed in Harappa and the other one move to Mesopotamia .(Sumer).
Indians & Pakistanis are a mix of Semetic & Cushitic, & Indigenous cultures, with most of the other Ethnic groups being Indigenous to India itself.
Why do you think that so many people mistake Ethiopians for Indians? Why do you think they look alike?
They are all still black people! Black people don’t just have Big flat wide noses, Nappy hair & pitch black skin.
If you are melinated, you are black.
The Elamites are Semetic. And Indo-European languages should be called Ethio-European languages since Sanskrit is of Ethiopian Origin.
i have dreamt of Prophet Muhammad 8times i have dreamt two times the dravidians are the sumerians and one time they are from canaan ibn ham not kush lies lies lies giving credit to people which is not theirs also i have dreamt the elamites are afrio asiatic and they are not ethiopian in feature between dravidian and australian aboriginies i have seen ethiopians some are like dark indians but most are not!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.torontolife.com/features/were-here-were-tamil-get-used-it/?pageno=1
this is tamil also they get very dark as well but features like this i have dreamt of
and it could be the people of phut are the elamites as they are a afro asiatic race
In semitic tradition phut is also called Kuth and is supposed to be ancestor of “Hind” who colonized india. Also in the Rozit ul Suffa it says ” god bestowed on Ham nine sons Hind Sind, Zeng, Nuba, Canaan, Kush, Kopt, Berber, and Hebesh, and their children have increased to an immense multitude…” . But the earliest Arab genealogies make shem and Japhet, Africans and Afro Asiatics as well.
Kab al Ahbar of Yemen claimed Ham “begetting black children multiplied and spread along the shore. Among them are the Nubians, the Zanj, the brbr, the sind and the hind and all of the al- Sudan. ”
Wah ibn Munabbih said the Phut’s sons children were the indi while Kush and Canaan’s descendant the various peoples including the Nuba, Qaran (or Kor’an?), Fezzan , Zaghawa, Habesh, Kipti and Berber, whom he calls al -asawid or blacks. p. 107 The Curse of Ham p. 107 David Goldenberg.
“Jews “were Sumerians or black face peolpe. They claimed descent from Kush and some of them claim descent from Shem, both was right!!!!!!
There is no such a thing like Pure Jewish! !!
They also bring two religions the sun worshiping and moon worshiping.