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 (1851). Henry Rawlinson (1810-1895) 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 (Cushite) 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 (agglutinative Turanian speaking) 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 (1792-1866). Hincks continued Rawlinson’s work and identified the ancient group as Chaldeans, and also called them Turanian speakers. Hincks, though, never discussed their ethnic origin.
A late comer to the study of the Sumerians and the Akkadians was Julius Oppert (1825-1905). 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” (Kang, Tr. "predecessors, pra-fathers", later also Kangars). 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 (however, these Semitic people were using an agglutinative language, instead of a flexive Semitic language). 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 (i.e. ancestors) from contemporary Turanian speakers resulted from the fact that Sumerian and the Turkish languages are not genetically related (however, the quantity of genetically related words constitutes a significant portion of Sumerian vocabulary). 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, Kangars). 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 referred 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 (1837-1883) 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 Persian monuments, 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 even though 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 (generally, contained only inside the Euro-centric academic school) 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 (1845-1894). 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. Even though 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 (after Rawlinson identified the Sumerians-Akkadians as Turanian or Scythic people). He also manufactured the idea that the Semites of Mesopotamia and Iran, the Assyrians and Akkadians were “whites”, like himself (you can find a long and winding blurb on the Caucasoidness/Europeoidness of the N.Africans in most of the English-language popular materials. But anybody who saw an Egyptian mummy, and a mummy of a tanned white-skinned corps, can tell that the Hamitic Egyptiand were not lily-white at all, and had a curly hair). 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”, the 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.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
love this article; answers a lot of my questions.
the dravidians who are canaanites are the sumerians and another branch the phoenicians Nimrod was son of cush son of canaan there are 3 different nimrods Arphaxad had a son named nimrod then nimrod from canaan the 3rd was a tyrant
so to say sumerians were blacks is stupid the dravidians had straight hair there are different hamitic types the deity of shiva is sumerian which is dravidian
http://media.torontolife.com/dynimages/features/tamil_vimalachandran.jpg this dravidian
It's quite obvious that "Unknown" is suffering from a severe case of ADHD as well as "Cognitive Dissonance" by his/her ludicrous statement. Since "black" is where ALL of hue-mankind is alleged to have descended from, to say something as inane as "... the [BLACK] Dravidians had straight hair", and by such remark, attempt to give the impression that their particular grades of hair preclude their BLACK skins from them being considered or categorized as BLACK ...well... there are not sufficient words to circumscribe the 'breath' and 'depth' of such stupidity. It is obvious that whites and some blacks believe that "straight" hair is somehow the exclusive phylogenetic providence of the blue-eyed Caucasoid. I weep for hue-manity's future sometimes...
Rawlinson said, Oppert said, Terrien said, etc, but you never give one reference, not even a short bibliography, so I can say that your article is not reliable.
Rawlinson said, Oppert said, Terrien said, etc, but you never give one reference, not even a short bibliography. So I can say your article is not reliable.
I'm so glad I stumbled upon your blog! I'm currently taking a course on the history of Costume in ancient civilizations and after our visit to the Archeology museum at Penn, I greatly suspected that Poabi was black. Thanks for your research! It's amazing that those who have changed numerous historical documents that are now confusingly held as truth, now want "proof"....
Wow do you have so much of an inferiority complexity that you need to make yourself better by turning every civilization into black? Harappans were not blacks! Ancient civilization was not created by BLACK people. Most of the sculptors looks like South Asians. Have you been to those countries? They are not black like Africans but are dark skinned people. I pity you people trying to pass off every great civilization as your own. Next your people will be arguing that Chinese civilization was actually started by blacks and then somehow claim the blacks magically transformed into Hun race.
love yur site
i love your site...i am interested in using one of your images.. are they private, yours, or in the public domain? thank your. My email is email@example.com.
Did you get my message. firstname.lastname@example.org
Rawlinson is quite outdated today. Sumerians could not be black because of many reasons, not to mention they were quite far from Africa and for a long time, and humans adapt to the surroundings. Plus all the populations living in old Sumeria, Mesopotamia etc, are not black.
And more recently archeologists have found tablets with writings on them at Tartaria, Romania, which are OLDER than the sumerian ones. Which leads to the conclusion that not only the first writings ever are found in modern day Romania, EUROPE, but also sumerians might have migrated from the Carpathian space to were they were known to be settled, explaining the major cultural differences between them and the surrounding populations. This further meaning they are descendants of ancient europeans, a.k.a. white people.
@Maddie S it is quite sad that you cannot see with your own eyes the evidence in front of you! Civilization started in Africa.. ALL of the great civilizations were of African (Kushite, Hamite) descent!! Let's look at a simple observation.. No matter how long a TRUE white person (english, scottish, welsh, irish) is in the sun, they burn! African skin tones vary due to our exposure to the sun, darker in summer and lighter in the winter. White skin can't change like ours can. So how could we have all started as blond haired blue eyed whites & then get darker with curly, coarse hair? It simply cannot happen... I agree with you on one thing, Southeast asians are not black (today) HOWEVER they are darker than any "caucasian" person I've ever seen. If you read a book, you would know the first migrations out of Africa went EAST not NORTH to Europe. That is why the INDIANS are dark skinned, the THAIS are dark skinned, the CAMBODIANS are dark skinned, the FILIPINOS are dark skinned, the aborigines of Australia are dark skinned, and so are other every indigenous people in Southeast Asia and Micronesia/Polynesia... These Africans traveled as far as Hawaii (USA) and Hawaiians were truly dark skinned too until the white man discovered them and tried to race mix the negro features away... Now the Chinese, are a touchy subject.. but there are absolutely black Chinese living in China even today.. With straight hair and dark skin... "Whites" didn't come about until the AFRICANS exploring Europe got trapped there during the ice age, and had no choice but to settle there and adapt.. Their skin lightened over time due to the lack of sun they were receiving... There are no writings, artifacts or anything in Europe that predates African ones.. The oldest bones ever found were in AFRICA. I've never heard of Ancient Europeans, because there are NONE! The oldest civilization in Europe is GREEK & THEY ARE OF BLACK DESCENT TOO!!! So for you to say that civilization started out in Europe is complete nonsense.
The Urin people of central Europe are the ancient tribes of Celtic origin dating back to 8,ooo B.C. The out of Africa theory starts somewhere about 50,oooyears ago. A lot can happen in that much time taking in all variables and gene mutation. Travel split between Europe, china, and India in some research takes place about 40,ooo years ago and from there it's off to the race's. Lets keep searching our origins. I'm sure there is more to learn. Large scale DNA tracing is starting to show some interesting facts about ancient migration. Read as much as you can on all levels and connected subjects. From Mike Student, student of world sciences forever.
Informative article but please give references and cite them thoroughly as a recommendation.
You are not very educated
The ignorant,biased,uneducated,opinionated people on this page:The truth is right in front of your eyes:There is "ONLY" one race that can naturally produce:Albinos,light skin,dark skin,brown skin,red skin,blue eyes,brown eyes,gray eyes,green eyes,hazel eyes,skinny eyes,round eyes,oval eyes,naturally on a daily basis!"The Black Race"-"Tribes Of The Moon".Blacks produce melanin on such a rapid level they can naturally create humans that appear as race on the entire planet!No other race can do/nor will do that...Other races produce their own genetic make up/appearance...There is no argument when allll have seen black people & asked:"Are you this??" "Are you that race??" No other race can do it without mixing.The race origins of the world were birthed/created by the black race!
Again:"BLACKS PRODUCE MELANIN ON SUCH A RAPID LEVEL THEY CAN NATURALLY CREATE HUMAN 'BEINGS' THAT APPEAR AS EVERY RACE ON THE ENTIRE PLANET!"
So Nasser was 100% right!
Nasser: THE JEWS LEFT BLACK, AND RETURNED WHITE.
5 years ago
Gamal Abdel Nasser this was a the 2nd president in Egypt in 1956. Abdel went on television and radio in the 50's and stated to the Askenazi "You have left Black and returned White you are impostors and shall never see peace" He was speaking about European Jews This comes from the book How the Hebrews became Jews by Joseì V. Malcioln
Thanks for your courage to actually explain.
Post a Comment