September 21, 2014

The Myth that Elamite and Sumerian are isolated languages

The Elamo-Dravidian language family is a language family that links Dravidian languages of India to the extinct Elamite language of ancient Elam (present-day southwestern Iran). Linguist David McAlpin has been a chief proponent of the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis. Recent collaborative work with American Indologist Franklin C Southworth further establishes this. It is possible that the extinct languages of the Indus Valley Civilization may also be part of this family, or more likely one of the two languages of Indus Valley. The Indus Valley may have been a bilingual culture just like that of Sumer noting the ancient Vedic culture in Indo-Aryan from the same region.

Recent studies have revealed that even Sumerian is not an isolated language but is also a Dravidian language and therefore belongs to the same group of languages, that is a branch of the larger Austric group of languages some still prevalent in parts of South and South East Asia.  The Tamil language from amongst these appears to come closest to this Elamo- Dravidian language family. It has been the most evolved branch of the Austric langages of the Australoid people with its own ancient literary tradition of the Sangams. 

Therefore the obvious conclusion is that neither Sumerian nor Elamite, were isolated languages. 

In fact so close is the relationship of Sumerian to Tamil that some phrases can be understood even by modern speakers of Tamil. Further there is clear evidence that both people were dark people. The question that arises is why and how this myth began that these languages are isolated languages. The answer lies in the willful distortion of history and intellectual dishonesty due to political and racial reasons and the source is the Sumerian-Akkadian scholar Julius Opert born of German Jewish parents. To quote Dr. Clyde Winters,
Oppert began the myth that the Sumerian languages were isolated from other languages spoken in the world
He also manufactured the idea that the Semites of Mesopotamia and Iran, the Assyrians and Akkadians were whites like himself.  To make the Sumerians white in textbooks he used print pictures of artifacts dating to the Gutian rule --- to pass them off as the true originators of Sumerian civilization. No Gutian rulers of Lagash are recognized in the Sumerian Kings List.
The Gutians, a barbaric warrior tribe,  likely a fair people had conquered and ruled over Sumer for around a hundred years only. Some whiteness amongst the Sumerians as also perhaps the Elamites would have come from an intermarriage with Armenoid Or Ara people referred to as the bright headed people by Sumerians, a small percentage of whom had begun to migrate southwards and eastwards from central Asia and Armenia since prehistoric times. However this mixing was insufficient to change the fact that the Sumerians were black and referred to themselves as dark people. The artifacts of the time and anthropological examinations from both Sumeria and Elam support this. Although Dr. Clyde Winters has correctly concluded that the Sumerians were black persons he appears to have incorrectly concluded that they came out of Sahara or Africa and that they were Negros identical to those in Africa. Anthropological examinations indicated that they were the Australoid type. They were the Austric people who had come out of Africa tens of thousands of years before that and spread through South and South-east Asia undergoing a further change and evolution different from those in Africa, and these are the people who speak the Austric group of languages of which Elamo- Darvidian or Archaic Tamil is the most advanced.Modern tamil is closest to the original Dravid language as compared to other Dravid languages today. For example the language in the province of Kerala, another Dravid language has adopted heavily from Sanskrit. While rightly dispelling one myth, Dr. Clyde Winters appears to be creating another new one.

This is what Wikpedia records about the Australoid race (full references are in the original record)

The Australoid race is a broad racial classification. The concept originated with a typological method of racial classification. They were described as having dark skin with wavy hair, in the case of the Veddoid race of South Asia (including the eponymous Vedda people autochthonous to Sri Lanka) and Aboriginal Australians, or hair ranging from straight to kinky in the case of the Melanesian and Negrito groups. According to this model of classification, Australoid peoples ranged throughout Indonesia, Malaysia, Australia, New Guinea, Melanesia, the Andaman Islands, the Indian subcontinent, as well as parts of the Middle East. In the Out of Africa theory, the ancestors of the Australoids, the Proto-Australoids, are thought to have been the first branch off from the Proto-Capoids to migrate from Africa about 60,000 BCE, migrating along the now submerged continental shelf of the northern shore of the Indian Ocean and reaching Australia about 50,000 BCE. 

A Tribal Australoid, just as dark and broad nosed as the Sumerians but not a Negro
Although some regard the Dravidian languages as separate from the Austric languages, this author has used the term Austric group of  languages as those spoken by the people of Australoid origin of which the Dravidians are a part, albeit perhaps the most evolved and developed part of this race. Why some groups of a race remain undeveloped while others develop highly has been explained by this author elsewhere. Often a small genetic change that may be brought about by a slight racial mixing with another race or other factors is sufficient to cause huge changes.
What has been defined as the Elamo-Dravidian group of languages is more precisely termed as the Archaic Tamil group of languages because it is Archaic Tamil that these languages were closest to. In the past when certain tribes of Sumer and nearby regions  were defined as with isolated languages, Archaic Tamil had not been taken into consideration and what the scholars should have more correctly said is an unknown language group rather than isolated language. Scholars must not make the mistake of assuming that what is not known cannot exist and be discovered by further investigation. It misleads others and delays progress.

The Gutians were a barbaric tribe from northern and central ranges of the Zagros Mountains that overran southern Mesopotamia when the Akkadian empire collapsed in approximately 2154 BC. According to the historian Henry Hoyle Howorth (1901), Assyriologist Theophilus Pinches (1908), renowned archaeologist Leonard Woolley (1929) and Assyriologist Ignace Gelb (1944) the Gutians were pale skinned perhaps also blonde haired. This identification of the Gutians as fair haired first came to light when Julius Oppert (1877) published a set of tablets he had discovered which described Gutian  slaves as namrum, meaning "light colored" or "fair-skinned". Little is known about the language and history of the Gutians but seeing their light skin, they were perhaps an ancient people of a European or Armenian origin. They were a people clearly distinct from the Sumerians but turned out to be convenient for Oppert to build his thesis of lies, that has inadvertently continued to influence the thinking of later generations of scholars.

Although this requires further research there are some indications that the Gutis were a branch of the Indo-European people, a warring and more barbaric branch. The Hittites, Mitanii, Guti. Lullubi, Maruts and even the later Kassites all of whom appear to come from the same region north of Iraq and all of whom appear to be branches the ancient Indo-European Aryans or Elamo-Dravidians, but seeing the fair complexion of the Gutis they were more likely to be Indo-European speakers rather than Dravian speakers Some have even held that the Maruts and Gutis were the same people but this is unlikely because the Maruts revered the Aryan Gods and served them while the Gutians appeared to have been  a law unto themselves and disrespected of gods.Is the word Kurdi a modern version of Guti (g/k, t/d, Guti, Kudi, Kurdi) since they appear to have inhabited the same region? If so they were definitely an Indo-European people as the Kurdis are (The pronunciation Kurd is a western invention). Incidentally Kudi is used as an abusive word in Tamil that the Sumerians may have used for this tribe that looted and ransacked them.

All this needs further research. As some of the historical myths put up by older scholars because of vested interests and racial stupidity are dispelled one by one, mankind would come closer to discovering its fascinating ancient past.

Limited References quoted here only that are useful for further reading:
David McAlpin, "Proto-Elamo-Dravidian: The Evidence and its Implications", Transactions of the American Philosophical Society vol. 71 pt. 3, (1981)

No comments: