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.
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