Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Aus Der Box Skeptisch

where did the "sumerians" come from?

244 posts in this topic

The issue with Native Americans is an interesting question and probably not something I am fully equipped to answer. However, to hazard a guess (help me out here, cormac) I'd have to say it's due more to their own genetic mixture. Native Americans journeying across the Bering Straight thousands of years ago were a different race from Europeans, having come from ancient Asian populations. And to this day most Asians have brownish-colored skin. The first Europeans, on the other hand, came from a more "Middle Eastern" ethnicity, and to this day many Middle Easterners can be rather light skinned.

But the idea of living in caves is no longer accepted, docy. Extensive acrhcaeological excavations in Europe have found sites of Paleolithic inhabitations largely in river valleys and other sheltered locations (including alongside large rock overhangs), but to this day there is no demonstrable evidence that Paleolithic peoples of Europe lived in caves.

I myself would agree with your mention of "their own genetic mixture" but would shy away from their being called "a different race" as I see no real purpose for such a distinction. To the former while most Europeans are of the R1a, R1b, I1 or I2 mtDNA haplogroups Native American Indians are of completely different mtDNA groups such as A2, B2, C1, D1 X2a and X2g. Also whereas most of Europe is above 45 degrees north latitude the majority of East Asia, particularly where several NA mitochondrial haplogroups originated, is not. It should also be mentioned that there is a great variety in the skin color of Native Americans themselves.

As a last thought if the Sumerians are related to or descended from members of the Samarran Culture specifically or even to Middle Eastern groups in general, with no evidence to the contrary, then they would belong to the mtDNA haplogroups J1 or J2 and are more likely the latter. There is nothing to suggest they are related to Central Europeans, East Indians nor Native Americans. All of which are modern pseudo-scientific "theories" with no real basis in fact.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I myself would agree with your mention of "their own genetic mixture" but would shy away from their being called "a different race" as I see no real purpose for such a distinction. To the former while most Europeans are of the R1a, R1b, I1 or I2 mtDNA haplogroups Native American Indians are of completely different mtDNA groups such as A2, B2, C1, D1 X2a and X2g. Also whereas most of Europe is above 45 degrees north latitude the majority of East Asia, particularly where several NA mitochondrial haplogroups originated, is not. It should also be mentioned that there is a great variety in the skin color of Native Americans themselves.

As a last thought if the Sumerians are related to or descended from members of the Samarran Culture specifically or even to Middle Eastern groups in general, with no evidence to the contrary, then they would belong to the mtDNA haplogroups J1 or J2 and are more likely the latter. There is nothing to suggest they are related to Central Europeans, East Indians nor Native Americans. All of which are modern pseudo-scientific "theories" with no real basis in fact.

cormac

Too late to edit, but "mtDNA haplogroups" should have read "Y Chromosome DNA haplogroups". And the Y Chromosome haplogroup differences between Europeans and East Asians/North Americans is just as distinct as the mitochondrial differences.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I myself would agree with your mention of "their own genetic mixture" but would shy away from their being called "a different race" as I see no real purpose for such a distinction. To the former while most Europeans are of the R1a, R1b, I1 or I2 mtDNA haplogroups Native American Indians are of completely different mtDNA groups such as A2, B2, C1, D1 X2a and X2g. Also whereas most of Europe is above 45 degrees north latitude the majority of East Asia, particularly where several NA mitochondrial haplogroups originated, is not. It should also be mentioned that there is a great variety in the skin color of Native Americans themselves.

As a last thought if the Sumerians are related to or descended from members of the Samarran Culture specifically or even to Middle Eastern groups in general, with no evidence to the contrary, then they would belong to the mtDNA haplogroups J1 or J2 and are more likely the latter. There is nothing to suggest they are related to Central Europeans, East Indians nor Native Americans. All of which are modern pseudo-scientific "theories" with no real basis in fact.

cormac

LOL The use of the term "race" stems from my own minor in anthropology. In general anthropologists are not afraid of the term because in that discipline it is a clinical and technical term, and not weighed down by the ridiculous baggage it brings up in many people today. It's hard to find a better term because, anthropologically speaking, "ethnicity" is not quite correct.

In any case I was wondering why we've been discussing Paleolithic Europeans and Native Americans, neither of which have the least to do with Sumerians. I am too easily distracted.

To which I need to add: Let's stick to the discussion of the origin of the Sumerians. Europeans, Native Americans, and peoples of the Orient beyond Central Asia are not realistically a factor. But I won't be surprised to see this stuff continuing to pop up. Perhaps they were Atlanteans.

I shouldn't have said that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL The use of the term "race" stems from my own minor in anthropology. In general anthropologists are not afraid of the term because in that discipline it is a clinical and technical term, and not weighed down by the ridiculous baggage it brings up in many people today. It's hard to find a better term because, anthropologically speaking, "ethnicity" is not quite correct.

In any case I was wondering why we've been discussing Paleolithic Europeans and Native Americans, neither of which have the least to do with Sumerians. I am too easily distracted.

To which I need to add: Let's stick to the discussion of the origin of the Sumerians. Europeans, Native Americans, and peoples of the Orient beyond Central Asia are not realistically a factor. But I won't be surprised to see this stuff continuing to pop up. Perhaps they were Atlanteans.

I shouldn't have said that.

Unfortunately we've gotten sidetracked because some would like to make a connection between Sumerians and peoples they had absolutely nothing to do with whether linguistically, archaeologically or genetically.

I agree, which would therefore place them in the position of being native Mesopotamian/Fertile Crescent peoples. Imagine that. :lol: Next mystery. :whistle:

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL The use of the term "race" stems from my own minor in anthropology. In general anthropologists are not afraid of the term because in that discipline it is a clinical and technical term, and not weighed down by the ridiculous baggage it brings up in many people today. It's hard to find a better term because, anthropologically speaking, "ethnicity" is not quite correct.

In any case I was wondering why we've been discussing Paleolithic Europeans and Native Americans, neither of which have the least to do with Sumerians. I am too easily distracted.

To which I need to add: Let's stick to the discussion of the origin of the Sumerians. Europeans, Native Americans, and peoples of the Orient beyond Central Asia are not realistically a factor. But I won't be surprised to see this stuff continuing to pop up. Perhaps they were Atlanteans.

I shouldn't have said that.

Well in my mind the Sumerians were a remixture of the western Cauciasians and the Eastern Asian tribes by war. There are the head dresses in the culture of the Sumerian women that are of the co magnon homo sapian man who I think were Cauciasian and of that of the Asian women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in my mind the Sumerians were a remixture of the western Cauciasians and the Eastern Asian tribes by war. There are the head dresses in the culture of the Sumerian women that are of the co magnon homo sapian man who I think were Cauciasian and of that of the Asian women.

Just as long as you realize it's only in your mind and has no basis in fact. Similarities, on their own, don't automatically equate to a 1:1 relationship.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's try this again:

Similarities, on their own, don't automatically equate to a 1:1 relationship.

So have you got anything other that "it looks like" something of Sumerian appearance, since that alone is no reason to assume there's a connection?

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So apparently, according to your mindset, two similar items simply must be evidence of a direct connection. Using that approach then an African girl in Uganda (for example) who wears her hair in corn-rows simply must have a direct connection with some Caucasian girl wearing the same style and living in Malibu, California. :rolleyes: That's not how making a valid cultural connection works.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The head ornament on the Brassempouy figurine could well represent a beaded cap. Our forensic bust of the Magdalenian Woman at the Field Museum is displayed with a theoretical example.

How on earth a 25,000 year old figurine found in France has anything to do with the Sumerians, I cannot begin to imagine. Paleolithic Europeans and the Sumerians are not only separated by thousands of miles but by many thousands of years. While it is certainly possible Homo sapiens passed through what we call Mesopotamia tens of thousands of years ago on their northward journeys (eventually bringing them to Europe), it must be remembered this was tens of thousands of years before the existence of the Sumerians.

The Sumerians date to late prehistoric and early dynastic Mesopotamia, not Paleolithic Mesopotamia. This would be about the same as saying the Chinese and Native Americans are the same people. It doesn't make sense.

Damn, I mentioned the Chinese. And Native Americans. :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The head ornament on the Brassempouy figurine could well represent a beaded cap. Our forensic bust of the Magdalenian Woman at the Field Museum is displayed with a theoretical example.

How on earth a 25,000 year old figurine found in France has anything to do with the Sumerians, I cannot begin to imagine. Paleolithic Europeans and the Sumerians are not only separated by thousands of miles but by many thousands of years. While it is certainly possible Homo sapiens passed through what we call Mesopotamia tens of thousands of years ago on their northward journeys (eventually bringing them to Europe), it must be remembered this was tens of thousands of years before the existence of the Sumerians.

The Sumerians date to late prehistoric and early dynastic Mesopotamia, not Paleolithic Mesopotamia. This would be about the same as saying the Chinese and Native Americans are the same people. It doesn't make sense.

Damn, I mentioned the Chinese. And Native Americans. :whistle:

I was always taught you judge how man made figures in stone relates to another cultures, because you can`t date the stone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An addendum to my previous post and a confession to a rookie mistake.

I should clarify that the first linguistic evidence for the Sumerians dates to late prehistory in Mesopotamia, and specifically the late Uruk period: when writing first appears on the scene. Therefore it's possible Sumerian peoples were already there, before their cuneiform writing emerged. One of the things that makes the Sumerians so mysterious—and perhaps something that contributes to fringies' wild speculations about them—is that the Sumerian language is an isolate. It can be connected to no other known language. That is indeed mysterious, although it needn't lead us far afield from reality.

For example, the Sumerian language was agglutinative in structure. So is Hungarian. This has led fringies to suggest Sumerians and Hungarians might be related, which is ridiculous on the face of it. Yes, both share an agglutinative language, but that connects them only as a linguistic category, not as a shared culture. In point of fact, Sumerian shares no resemblance to any known language.

I just perused some relevant sections of Georges Roux's venerable work Iraq, which arguably is still the best book on ancient Mesopotamia. Of Sumerian graves that have been excavated and the contents examined, the skulls of Sumerians appear to be a mix of Armenoid (Caucasian race native to Mesopotamia) and Mediterranean, the latter being predominant (Roux 1992 ed: 81). Roux emphasizes the two leading theories on the origin of the Sumerians: one being that they migrated in from elsewhere, the other being that they were already there. Many historians favor the latter, and in fact it's altogether possible that they were there all along.

The nature of the isolate language needn't throw us. As any linguist will say, far more languages are dead and lost to history than those which exist today. Who knows how many different tongues were spoken in prehistoric Mesopotamia beyond Sumerian and Semitic? Roux notes that both Sumerian and Akkadian texts record personal names of an altogether different ethnic group which would otherwise be unknown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was always taught you judge how man made figures in stone relates to another cultures, because you can`t date the stone.

Then what you were taught was incomplete, if not outright wrong. The first thing one needs to do is determine how a stone figure (your example) relates to the culture in which it was found. Attempting to relate it to other cultures right off the bat is jumping the gun, needless to say. And even then one needs to determine what other items can be shown to relate one culture to another. You've not done so simply jumping from "this looks like that so they must be related". This is not how cultural connections are made.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An addendum to my previous post and a confession to a rookie mistake.

I should clarify that the first linguistic evidence for the Sumerians dates to late prehistory in Mesopotamia, and specifically the late Uruk period: when writing first appears on the scene. Therefore it's possible Sumerian peoples were already there, before their cuneiform writing emerged. One of the things that makes the Sumerians so mysterious—and perhaps something that contributes to fringies' wild speculations about them—is that the Sumerian language is an isolate. It can be connected to no other known language. That is indeed mysterious, although it needn't lead us far afield from reality.

For example, the Sumerian language was agglutinative in structure. So is Hungarian. This has led fringies to suggest Sumerians and Hungarians might be related, which is ridiculous on the face of it. Yes, both share an agglutinative language, but that connects them only as a linguistic category, not as a shared culture. In point of fact, Sumerian shares no resemblance to any known language.

I just perused some relevant sections of Georges Roux's venerable work Iraq, which arguably is still the best book on ancient Mesopotamia. Of Sumerian graves that have been excavated and the contents examined, the skulls of Sumerians appear to be a mix of Armenoid (Caucasian race native to Mesopotamia) and Mediterranean, the latter being predominant (Roux 1992 ed: 81). Roux emphasizes the two leading theories on the origin of the Sumerians: one being that they migrated in from elsewhere, the other being that they were already there. Many historians favor the latter, and in fact it's altogether possible that they were there all along.

The nature of the isolate language needn't throw us. As any linguist will say, far more languages are dead and lost to history than those which exist today. Who knows how many different tongues were spoken in prehistoric Mesopotamia beyond Sumerian and Semitic? Roux notes that both Sumerian and Akkadian texts record personal names of an altogether different ethnic group which would otherwise be unknown.

Ever see the movie Nell how to two different languages can make up a whole new language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue with Native Americans is an interesting question and probably not something I am fully equipped to answer. However, to hazard a guess (help me out here, cormac) I'd have to say it's due more to their own genetic mixture. Native Americans journeying across the Bering Straight thousands of years ago were a different race from Europeans, having come from ancient Asian populations. And to this day most Asians have brownish-colored skin. The first Europeans, on the other hand, came from a more "Middle Eastern" ethnicity, and to this day many Middle Easterners can be rather light skinned.

But the idea of living in caves is no longer accepted, docy. Extensive acrhcaeological excavations in Europe have found sites of Paleolithic inhabitations largely in river valleys and other sheltered locations (including alongside large rock overhangs), but to this day there is no demonstrable evidence that Paleolithic peoples of Europe lived in caves.

I seem to remember something about caves being regarded as having ceremonial use more than actual living spaces.

Ever see the movie Nell how to two different languages can make up a whole new language.

That's a movie, and in movies sometimes they do fiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever see the movie Nell how to two different languages can make up a whole new language.

Yes, good movie. Jodie Foster nailed it. What does that have to do with this discussion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, good movie. Jodie Foster nailed it. What does that have to do with this discussion?

Well, y'know, movies are truth. I mean, you've seen the documentary Stargate and Godzilla, right?

I mean, Godzilla is the reason insurance is so high in Japan, yeah?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, y'know, movies are truth. I mean, you've seen the documentary Stargate and Godzilla, right?

I mean, Godzilla is the reason insurance is so high in Japan, yeah?

:w00t:

That explains insurance. But watch your step, mister. Don't you dare suggest that Stargate isn't real!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.