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

Maybe I'm just an airhead and haven't noticed, but it seems like a a while since you posted around here Essan.

Good to see you, in either case.

Harte

EDIT: Don't know what happened in my last post - my link came out bad. I'm having trouble with the editor today on this old computer at work.

Anyway, the site I quoted from is:

http://www.afrol.com/articles/23093

H

Edited by Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I am a bit sporadic with posting here these days .... :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that the 'out of Africa' group of only about 150 people? That is what I read and if true I find it pretty impressive that such a small group could go on to populate much of Eurasia in 20,000 years and the whole world (approximately) in another 20,000. Then again I can imagine successful chieftans could have massive families and if they kept moving in different directions there may be less of a chance of cross breeding.

What are the chances of Sumer benefiting from extensive breeding between the many bordering areas that gave them a big advantage? Sure they would be getting advantages from trade and shared technology but I wonder if genetics at this level could have been a factor that sped up the process.

We know there were mongoloids in the region so chances are they made up an element of the sumerians. Some of the first proto writing occurs in the Vinca culture but also the jiahu script. Maybe an eastern relationship is not so unlikely but I am unsure about the level of the influence. Seems more likely that cultures in the region exerted a greater influence but the modern mindset does not lend itself well to understanding the ancient interactions of people. Science does not like speculation and with the evidence we have the findings are not immediately conclusive.

This is another example of how Wiki isn't always up to speed. Per the following:

Currently available genetic and archaeological evidence is generally interpreted as supportive of a recent single origin

of modern humans in East Africa. However, this is where the near consensus on human settlement history ends, and

considerable uncertainty clouds any more detailed aspect of human colonization history. Here, we present a dynamic

genetic model of human settlement history coupled with explicit geographical distances from East Africa, the likely

origin of modern humans.We search for the best-supported parameter space by fitting our analytical prediction to genetic

data that are based on 52 human populations analyzed at 783 autosomal microsatellite markers. This framework allows

us to jointly estimate the key parameters of the expansion of modern humans. Our best estimates suggest an initial

expansion of modern humans ~56,000 years ago from a small founding population of ~1,000 effective individuals. Our

model further points to high growth rates in newly colonized habitats. The general fit of the model with the data is

excellent. This suggests that coupling analytical genetic models with explicit demography and geography provides a

powerful tool for making inferences on human-settlement history.

A Geographically Explicit Genetic Model of Worldwide

This is actually one of the lower breeding population estimates, others being as much as 10,000 breeding individuals. It is estimated that world population of modern humans didn't reach over 1,000,000 at most until AFTER the end of the last glacial period. Well within our capability.

What are the chances of Sumer benefiting from extensive breeding between the many bordering areas that gave them a big advantage?

Not any better of a benefit for them than anyone else. Particularly as farming, which allowed people to live a more sedentary lifestyle, existed well before Sumer was ever a civilization.

We know there were mongoloids in the region so chances are they made up an element of the sumerians.

And your evidence for Mongoloids, specifically, in southern Mesopotamia (Sumer) between c.3500 BC and 2500 BC would be what? Particularly as that is the region we're discussing. At best I see it as making a mountain out of a mole-hill.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm just an airhead and haven't noticed, but it seems like a a while since you posted around here Essan.

Good to see you, in either case.

Harte

EDIT: Don't know what happened in my last post - my link came out bad. I'm having trouble with the editor today on this old computer at work.

Anyway, the site I quoted from is:

http://www.afrol.com/articles/23093

H

I second that. It's good to see you again, Essan.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhhh,

What does 70,000 years ago mean to you?

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read a cornucopia of information regarding the sumerians. Yet, one glaring question remains for me. "Where did they come from? They literally had their own language that didn't seem to relate to any know speech from the area. It seemed like cuneiform was an already established form of writing for them. While most of their advances with farming and such simply came with time and the first "civilization" grew from what they had started I ask you, how were they so individualized and advanced at that time?

Haven't you seen that famous documentry... Battlestar Galactica? The final episode shows where all the advanced technology in the world came from... space colonists. :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whist trading with the Vinca culture (or with others who in turn traded with others who in turn traded with the Vinca cuture) is possible and may have led to a sharing of ideas, I see no reason to suppose peoples from Europe would have migrated to the Middle East just as the Middle East was turning into a desert ..... If anything the opposite is more likely. Maybe the Vinca culture emerged from Ubaidians migrating north to more temperate climes?

Makes sense. I think the most densely populated area of Sumer were further south and the rivers and sea would have been of prime importance as evidenced at Eridu. Europe was populated by farmers in the main so I think we can assume that Sumer imported a lot of grain and such things.

http://www.rastko.rs/arheologija/vinca/vinca_eng.html

The presence of the Vinca culture shows some of the most advanced ceramics I have seen. You add the early script from post Black sea flood and it may give some basis for the Enuma Elish originating there and surviving through oral traditions or on other tablets of Vinca script that got destroyed.

As has been pointed out to me previously Sumer was not a unified culture as such but had city states that occasionally warred with one another. The need of weapons could have led to trade being extended outwards great distances and this could have added to the mixtures of cultures and cults.

Eridu was the city state of Enki and capital during the Ubaid period and is on the south coast. It is feasable that there were migrants coming from south east Asia and even Australasia and this is why Enki's symbol was the serpent. Not to mention Botswanaa the home of the serpent or Enki cult, geesh that guy has been around along time. Interesting that the snake cult never made much ground in the north. The question is whether the Vinca and other European cultures were serpent cults to. I don't think so because they seem to be more connected to bee godesses or basic fertility godesses.

Into the Uruk period this is when I think Enlil, Marduk and Nergal of the northern tribes began to encroach upon Sumer. They had always been there but the cults now entered the ascendancy perhaps. This may have meant that Sumer's genetic population began to become more caucasoid or armanoid, more white guys came to bring the smackdown on the snake cults of the south and east.

Edited by SlimJim22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not that familiar with Beech, but as far as I can tell, that's not likely to be Elm.

Elm leaves are serrated. Or at least the Elms I've seen were.

Harte

Fair enough, my eyesight's not all that great any more and I threw in 'elm' at the last moment. Probably somebody did their dissertation on what-kind-and-where-from and it's now buried in a department library somewhere.

But the look is distinctly 'temperate forest'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are variations of leaves of even the same types of trees . Here in N. Michigan.. we have several different looking maples and oaks... which also vary in other states and countries. Anyway.. ,if we're playing name that leaf,.. my woodland raised eyeballs would say those leaves look like they might be a type of birch, because of the general shape and the little long point on the tip.

*

Edited by lightly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are variations of leaves of even the same types of trees . Here in N. Michigan.. we have several different looking maples and oaks... which also vary in other states and countries. Anyway.. ,if we're playing name that leaf,.. my woodland raised eyeballs would say those leaves look like they might be a type of birch, because of the general shape and the little long point on the tip.

*

Hi lightly - Chuckle. It would appear that you did a quick edit before I could respond. None the less, you might the following to be of interest. The family Cupressacea is actually quite widespread. Yes, only Wiki, but should suffice for the moment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoia_sempervirens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cupressaceae

As to the specific leaf depicted, tough to tell from photo. Deciduous, yes. Family Betula? Possible. Many potential problems to I.D. "Artists" depiction? Accurate detail? Geographic distribution (within time-frame of origin)?, etc.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi lightly - Chuckle. It would appear that you did a quick edit before I could respond. None the less, you might the following to be of interest. The family Cupressacea is actually quite widespread. Yes, only Wiki, but should suffice for the moment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoia_sempervirens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cupressaceae

As to the specific leaf depicted, tough to tell from photo. Deciduous, yes. Family Betula? Possible. Many potential problems to I.D. "Artists" depiction? Accurate detail? Geographic distribution (within time-frame of origin)?, etc.

.

Hiya Swede ! , lol, you caught me!* .. yup, i removed my comment about 'redwood' trees only growing in N.W. coastal U.S.A. and Japan. Something i had heard .. but was not sure of. Thanks for the info on where 'they' do grow.

As for the leaf depicted in the Artist's rendering of the Sumerian headdress ... It resembles birch leaves from this area... which is quite meaningless i'm sure . :blush: . So.. Your an expert on leaves too!*!*!*!* why am i not very surprised!? Your an amazing fellow Swede. (hope your work ,and play, is going well)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Lightly here. Swede is fantastic - no other way to put it.

Thought I had him there when he mentioned Redwoods. The leaves on the headdress certainly don't look to be from a conifer.

Then I realized it had been something Lightly edited out.

Dang. You can't beat Swede. :no:

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Lightly here. Swede is fantastic - no other way to put it.

Thought I had him there when he mentioned Redwoods. The leaves on the headdress certainly don't look to be from a conifer.

Then I realized it had been something Lightly edited out.

Dang. You can't beat Swede. :no:

Harte

Of course you could beat him...........with a dictionary over the head should do nicely ...... :P

On a more serious note, it is true that Swede is a well of information. I know I learn a lot from his posts.

And I agree with you Harte, the leaves on the headdress don't look like they are from a conifer at all. I'm still unsure as to what tree it could be though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Sumerian queen's headdress is kind of interesting, though:

post-55116-088526400 1282778928_thumb.jp

Those leaves look like beech or elm leaves; not what I'd think grew on the lower Euphrates, although I could be wrong. Maybe a clue to where they came from?

Possibly not a clue for, as this article sets out, the ancient Mesopotamians were very fond of their exotica.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought I had him there when he mentioned Redwoods. The leaves on the headdress certainly don't look to be from a conifer.

Maybe a really, really big conifer leaf? :rolleyes:

When in doubt, look it up:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/4200486

http://www.penn.museum/sites/iraq/?page_id=61

Edited by Oniomancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the general consensus was that the Sumerians came from Bahrain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the general consensus was that the Sumerians came from Bahrain.

:wacko: never heard about the Sumerians originating in Bahrain.

maybe you check up on the history of Bahrain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This pdf file i found while searching is a good one.

Physical anthropology and the Sumerian problem - by Arkadiusz So³tysiak, Department of Historical Anthropology, Institute of Archaeology, Warsaw University, Poland

While i was going through the wikipedia entry for lady puabi and did an image search for "Puabi"

Puabi's death pit & other bits

sh14.jpg

sh22.jpg

Puabi's bust looks Caucasoid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caucasoid or not, her bust looks half naked.

Nice.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caucasoid or not, her bust looks half naked.

Nice.

Harte

see where he looks???? dirty ol bugger! :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the general consensus was that the Sumerians came from Bahrain.

It's been suggested that Dilmun - referred to in some Sumerian texts - may have been Bahrain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

see where he looks???? dirty ol bugger! :w00t:

Spartan,

Check my avatar.

Still beatin', ain't it?

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caucasoid or not, her bust looks half naked.

Nice.

Harte

I only see one nipple.

You must be desparate, LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only see one nipple.

Exactly. Only half naked. Mind we can't see whether she's wearing panties! :w00t:

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.