The Sumerians and Akkadians

- Homo Sapiens: origin Egoli. Date of birth: 204.000 B.C. Lives 150.000 years in Afrika, then moves to the other continents. Conclusions? Read this....

I wish we could separate the history of the Middle East from race, but it is impossible to do so because of the desire of Eurocentrists to make Semitic speakers members of the “white” race.

The 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 gave 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.

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 şalmat 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.

Genetic structure Blacks in ancient Mesoamerica
If Africans early colonized the Americas there was be genetic evidence supporting their ancient presence. Evidence which should exist today in Amerindian populations.

Lisker et al, noted that “The variation of Indian ancestry among the studied Indians shows in general a higher proportion in the more isolated groups, except for the Cora, who are as isolated as the Huichol and have not only a lower frequency but also a certain degree of black admixture. The black admixture is difficult to explain because the Cora reside in a mountainous region away from the west coast”.

Green et al (2000) also found Indians with African genes in North Central Mexico, including the L1 and L2 clusters. Green et al (2000) observed that the discovery of a proportion of African haplotypes roughly equivalent to the proportion of European haplotypes [among North Central Mexican Indians] cannot be explained by recent admixture of African Americans for the United States. This is especially the case for the Ojinaga area, which presently is, and historically has been largely isolated from U.S. African Americans. In the Ojinaga sample set, the frequency of African haplotypes was higher that that of European hyplotypes”.

The genetic evidence for Africans among the Mexicans is quite interesting. This evidence supports the skeletal evidence that Africans have lived in Mexico for thousands of years.

The foundational mtDNA lineages for Mexican Indians are lineages A, B, C and D.The frequencies of these lineages vary among population groups. For example, whereas lineages A,B and C were present among Maya at Quintana Roo, Maya at Copan lacked lineages A and B (Gonzalez-Oliver, et al, 2001). This supports Carolina Bonilla et al (2005) view that heterogeneity is a major characteristic of Mexican population.

Underhill, et al (1996) noted that:" One Mayan male, previously [has been] shown to have an African Y chromosome." This is very interesting because the Maya language illustrates a Mande substratum, in addition to African genetic markers. James l. Gutherie (2000) in a study of the HLAs in indigenous American populations, found that the Vantigen of the Rhesus system, considered to be an indication of African ancestry, among Indians in Belize and Mexico centers of Mayan civilization. Dr. Gutherie also noted that A*28 common among Africans has high frequencies among Eastern Maya. It is interesting to note that the Otomi, a Mexican group identified as being of African origin and six Mayan groups show the B Allele of the ABO system that is considered to be of African origin.

Amerindians carry the X hg. Amerindians and Europeans hg X are different (Person, 2004). Haplogroup X has also been found throughout Africa (Shimada et al,2006). Shimada et al (2006) believes that X(hX) is of African origin. Amerindian X is different from European hg X, skeletons from Brazil dating between 400-7000 BP have the transition np 16223 ( Martinez-Cruzado, 2001; Ribeiro-Dos-Santos,1996). Transition np 16223 is characteristic of African haplogroups. This suggest that Africans may have taken the X hg to the Americas in ancient times.

Some researchers claim that as many as seventy-five percent of the Mexicans have an African heritage (Green et al, 2000). Although this may be the case Cuevas (2004) says these Africans have been erased from history.


Brooke Persons Genetic Analysis and the Peopling of the New World
ANT 570, November 9, 2004.

Carolina Bonilla et al. (2005) Admixture analysis of a rural population in the state of Gurerrero , Mexico, Am. Jour Phys Anthropol
128(4):861-869. retrieved 2/9/2006 at :

M.H. Crawford et al (1974).Human biology in Mexico II. A comparison of blood group, serum, and red cell enzyme frequencies and genetic distances of the Indian population of Mexico. Am. Phys. Anthropol, 41: 251-268.

Marco P. Hernadez Cuevas.(2004). African Mexicans and the discourse on Modern Mexico.Oxford: University Press.

James L. Guthrie, Human lymphocyte antigens:Apparent Afro-Asiatic, southern Asian and European HLAs in indigenous American populations. Retrieved 3/3/2006 at:

Carlson,D. and Van Gerven,D.P. (1979). Diffussion, biological determinism and bioculdtural adaptation in the Nubian corridor,American Anthropologist, 81, 561-580.

Desplagnes, M. (1906). Deux nouveau cranes humains de cites lacustres. L'Anthropologie, 17, 134-137.

Diehl, R. A., & Coe, M.D. (1995). "Olmec archaeology". In In Jill Guthrie (Ed.), Ritual and Rulership, (pp.11-25). The Art Museum: Princeton University Press.

Irwin,C.Fair Gods and Stone Faces.

R. Lisker et al.(1996). Genetic structure of autochthonous populations of Meso-america:Mexico. Am. J. Hum Biol 68:395-404.

Angelica Gonzalez-Oliver et al. (2001). Founding Amerindian mitochondrial DNA lineages in ancient Maya from Xcaret, Quintana Roo. Am. Jour of Physical Anthropology, 116 (3):230-235. Retreived 2/9/2006 at:

Keita,S.O.Y. (1993). Studies and comments on ancient Egyptian biological relationships, History in Africa, 20, 129-131.

Keita,S.O.Y.& Kittles,R.A. (1997). The persistence of racial thinking and the myth of racial divergence, American Anthropologist, 99 (3), 534-544.

MacGaffey,W.(1970). Comcepts of race in Northeast Africa. In J.D. Fage and R.A. Oliver, Papers in African Prehistory (pp.99-115), Camridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marquez,C.(1956). Estudios arqueologicas y ethnograficas. Mexico.
Rensberger, B. ( September, 1988). Black kings of ancient America", Science Digest, 74-77 and 122.

Martinez-Cruzado, J C, Toro-Labrador, G, Ho-Fung, V, Estevez-Montero, M A, Et al (2001). Mitochondrial DNA analysis reveals substanial Native American ancestry in Puerto Rico,Human Biology, Aug 2001

Makoto K. Shimada*, , Karuna Panchapakesan , Sarah A. Tishkoff , Alejandro Q. Nato, Jr* and Jody HeY, Divergent Haplotypes and Human History as Revealed in a Worldwide Survey of X-Linked DNA Sequence Variation, Molecular Biology and Evolution 2007 24(3):687-698

Underhill,P.A.,Jin,L., Zemans,R., Oefner,J and Cavalli-Sforza,L.L.(1996, January). A pre-Columbian Y chromosome-specific transition and its implications for human evolutionary history, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA,93, 196-200.

Van Rossum,P. (1996). Olmec skeletons African? No, just poor scholarship.

Von Wuthenau, Alexander. (1980). Unexplained Faces in Ancient America, 2nd Edition, Mexico 1980.

Wiercinski, A.(1969). Affinidades raciales de algunas poblaiones antiquas de Mexico, Anales de INAH, 7a epoca, tomo II, 123-143.

Wiercinski,A. (1972). Inter-and Intrapopulational Racial Differentiation of Tlatilco, Cerro de Las Mesas, Teothuacan, Monte Alban and Yucatan Maya, XXXlX Congreso Intern. de Americanistas, Lima 1970 ,Vol.1, 231-252.

Wiercinski,A. (1972b). An anthropological study on the origin of "Olmecs", Swiatowit ,33, 143-174.

Wiercinski, A. & Jairazbhoy, R.A. (1975) "Comment", The New Diffusionist,5 (18),5.


The modern Amerinds have nothing to do with the original settlers of the Americas who came from Africa not Siberia.

1) the Australians represent the OOA population that settled Asia

2) during the OOA event mush of Siberia and North America was under ice from 110,000 - 10,000BC. As a result there was no way Siberians could cross Beringa before the end of the ice age

3) Ice even separated much of South America east to west


4) the first Americans appear in Brazil, Chile and Argintina Latin America around 30,000 BC

5)using craniometric evidence I have pointed out that the first Americans look like Africans not modern Amerinds

6) using craniometrics I have pointed out that Asia was dominated by the Australian population until the rise of Suhulland when the Melanesian people appear in the area, at this time the Beringa was still under Ice

7) I pointed out that the Melanesian type reach East Asian mainland by 5000 BC, long after Africans had settled Latin America

8) between 15,000-12,000 we see numerous African populations in Mexico and Brazil; and statues dating to this period have even been found off the Yucatan coast in the Caribbean

9) these first Americans did not look like the Australians or modern Amerinds

10) iconography of PreClassic people like the Cherla, Ocos and other groups is of Negroes not Amerinds like the Maya

11) Amerind groups not associated with African slaves carry African genes

12) Maya carried African y chromosome

13) Mayans carry African genes

14)Negrocostachicanos claim that they have never been slaves and are indigenous to Guererro and Oaxaca on the Pacific coast

In conclusion, the first Americans came from Africa--not Siberia. These people probably came to the Americas by boat.



Paleo-Africans in America
Several types of blacks entered the Americas including the Anu or negrito type and the Proto-Saharan variety of blacks. Up until recently it was believed that the first humans crossed the Bering Strait 12,000 B.P., to enter the North American continent.(Begley 1991, p.15) This view was never accepted by physical anthropologists who have found skeletal remains far older than 12,000 B.P.

The last ice age in North America lasted between 110,000 and 17,000BP. The ice-free corridor on the eastern flank of the Rockies did not open before 13,000 years ago. Africans were in the Americas long before the end of the last Ice Age when the “Siberians”, who also were more than likely Africans began to cross the Bearing Straits. By 12,500 BC Africans were already living in Chile.

The first Americans did not cross the Bearing Straits to enter the Americas.The earliest sites for Negroes date between 20,000 and 40000 years ago Old Crow Basin Canada(38,000BC) Pedra Furada (45,000BC) Brazil. These people were pygmies and bushman types according to Dr. Dixon, & Dr. Marquez(p.179).

Chile: Monteverde (12,500 years), Tierra del Fuego, Cueva de Fell, Tres Arroyos and some other places.

There are older ones in the Argentinian Patagonia.

Today archaeologists have found sites from Canada to Chile that range between 20,000 and 40,000 years old. There are numerous sites in North and South America which are over 35,000 years old. These sites are the Old Crow Basin (c.38,000 B.C.) in Canada; Orogrande Cave (c.36,000 B.C.) in the United States; and Pedra Furada (c.45,000 B.C.) Given the fact that the earliest dates for habitation of the American continent occur below Canada in South America is highly suggestive of the fact that the earliest settlers on the American continents came from Africa before the Ice melted at the Bering Strait and moved northward as the ice melted.

The appearance of pebble tools at Monte verde in Chile (c.32,000 B.P), and rock paintings at Pedra Furada in Brazil (c.22,000 B.P.) and mastodont hunting in Venezuela and Colombia (c.13,000 B.P.), have led some researchers to believe that the Americas was first settled from South America. C. Vance Haynes noted that:

"If people have been in South America for over 30,000
years, or even 20,000 years, why are there so few sites?....One possible
answer is that they were so few in number; another is that South America
was somehow initially populated from directions other than
north until Clovis appeared".

P.S. Martin and R. G. Klein after discussing the evidence of mastodont hunting in Venezuela 13,000 years ago observed that :

"The thought that the fossil record of South America
is much richer in evidence of early archaeological as-
sociations than many believed is indeed provocative....
Have the earliest hunters been overlooked in North
America? Or did the hunters somehow reach South Am-
erica first"?

The early presence of ice-age sites in South America suggest that these people probably came from Africa. This would explain the affinities between African languages and the Amerind family of languages.

In very ancient times the American continent was inhabited by Asian and African blacks. The oldest skeletal remains found in the Americas are of blacks. Marquez (1956,p.179) observed that "it is [good] to report that long ago the youthful America was also a Negro continent." Dr. Dixon (1923) noted that as early as 70,000 B.C., Austroloid and later negritos crossed the Bering Strait to reach the New World. And Lanning (1963) noted that "there was a possible movement of negritos from Ecuador into the Piura Valley, north of Chicama and Viru" in early times.

Penon woman has been characterized as a Negro and is physically different from Native Americans. The Penon skeleton has been dated between 12,500-15,000BP. The skull of Penon woman is dolichocephalic like most Negroes, not brachysephalic (short and braod) like modern Native Americans. She is related to the Fuegians of Parana Argentina and the Luizia population of Brazil.

Here we have a comparison of ancient skulls found in the Americas.

In the picture above we have three ancient American skulls. They are a) Penon woman (12.755 Ka), b) Texcal Man (9.5ka) and c) Pericul Indian (18th Century). If you look notice Pericul man shows broad features characteristic of the mongoloid type, while both Penon and Texcul do not.

Some researchers claim that these skeletons are of Australian or Melanesian Blacks. This is highly unlikely given the fact that that have been found near the Atlantic Ocean and suggestive of a migration from Africa to Mexico, like the migration of the Olmec 11,000 years later. This view is supported by the discovery of the so-called Eva Neharon skeleton (c.13,600 ) dating to around the same period found in the Caribbean.

By 11,500 we see the appearence tall Negroes from Africa in Colombia, Venezuela and Brazil e.g.,Luiza. Negroes settled America both from the Bearing & South America. Cite an archaeological site where Amerind skeletons have been found prior to the Negro skeletons.

A Short Guide to Ancient World History
I accept the fact there were ancient Blacks in EurAsia. These Blacks were the Australian type people who mainly live in Australia and the Hill regions of Oceania.

The coastal Melanesians on the otherhand, are descendants of recent Africans who settled the area after being forced from Asia. The Polynesians/Filipinos and etc., who are known as the [b]original Mongoloid people and called Classical Mongoloid [/b] in the literature probably originated in Anatolia or Mesopotamia.

The Australians are the original settlers of Asia (around 60kybp), and may represent members of the first out of Africa migrants. I never refer to these people as Africans, although I do recognize them as Blacks.

The Bushmen/ Khoisan probably represent the second African migration of homo sapien sapiens out of Africa. I would class these people with the CroMagnon/Grimaldi group who entered Iberia after 34kybp. Remnants of this great people were found on every continent when Europeans first explored the world.

The Anu or Black pygmies (/Proto-Bantu) type may represent the Natufians who began to migrate out of Africa after 20,000 and settled in the Levant which was first settled by Cro Magnon people who early replaced the Neanderthal folk. The Natufians would represent the fourth African migration into Eurasia.

By the time the Anu entered Eurasia the Classical mongoloid people who are the ancestors of the Indonesians/Vietnamese/Filipinos and etc. were probably already settled in Anatolia. The classical mongoloids probably constructed Catal Huyuk.

The close relationship between Sumerian and the AustroAsiatic languages suggest that the classical Mongoloid people may have also inhabited Mesopotamia by the time the Sumerians entered the area. It appears to have been a natural catastrophe which caused the classical mongoloids to migrate eastward. We know this because many of the former sites of the Classical mongoloids in Anatolia were occupied by the Kushites (Kaska) people after 2500 BC.

By 1200 BC the clasical mongoloids had become well established in India. Around this time they conquered the Dravidian people who founded the first Shang empire, and set up a new Shang Empire at Anyang.

By 1000 BC the Hau/Han tribes came down from the mountains and pushed the classical mongoloids southward into Yunnan and eventually Southeast Asia. The Han began to make the Yueh and li min people their slaves. The Han often used the Qiang (another Black tribe) as sacrifice victims.

The Han killed off as many Black tribes as they could. The only thing that saved the pygmies in East Asia, was the fact that they moved into the mountains in areas they could easily defend from Han attacks.

This movement of Han and classical mongoloid people southward forced the Kushite/African (Qiang, li min and other African) tribes onto the Pacific Islands. It is these Africans who represent the coastal Melanesians.

The Sumerians, Elamites, Xia (of China), Harappans of the Indus Valley and coastal Melanoids are the Proto-Saharan people known in History as the Kushites.These people originated in the Highland regions of Middle Africa, and began to occupy the former trade centers of the Anu in Eurasia and the Americas. It is for this reason that we find West African placenames in the Pacific and India.

Given the origin of the classical mongoloids in Anatolia, and the Han Chinese somewhere in North China or Central Asia,the Southeast Asians are not descendants of the first African migration to Eurasia. This is why the Chinese and Classical mongoloid people share few if any genes with the Australians. The Classical mongoloids share genes mainly with the coastal Melanesians who are of African origin, but few genes with the Chinese of East Asia.