Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Advances in Anthropology
2012. Vol.2, No.4, 221-223
Published Online November 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/aa) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/aa.2012.24024
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 221
The Origin of Sumerians
——Re-Evaluation Following Remarkable Excavations at Turkmenistan Gonur Tepe and Other Sites
Metin Gündüz
Retired Physician, Diplomate ABEM (American Board of Emergency Medicine), Izmir, Turkey
Email: metingunduz@sprintmail.com
Received July 6th, 2012; revised August 22nd, 2012; accepted September 4th, 2012
Who were the Sumerians? Where did they originate? For those who are not familiar with this remarkable,
resourceful and intelligent people, who not only invented writing but also established the true
mythological foundations of all main religions of the world, simply put, they taught us almost everything.
Four different points regarding the current known archeological evidence are evaluated separately, and
the Sumerians’ unique and strongly sacred mythological beliefs related to the lapis lazuli stone and the
myth’s origin are analyzed. The uniqueness of the lapis mine location in the Hindu Kush Mountains and
the unique (fingerprint) trace element and other physical characteristics of this metamorphic sacred blue
stone of the Sumerians are the primary points of focus. The only possible and provable location of their
original homeland, “based on the analysis” is; between the Caspian Sea and the Hindu Kush and Kopet
Mountains, which is in Turkmenistan. This analysis and conclusion are based on “multiple independent
factors”: current archeological excavations, the uniqueness of metamorphic lapis lazuli as a stone and
over 6000 years of lapis lazuli mining at a fixed location (absolutely necessary requirements for the origin
of strong lapis mythology) and current credible biogeographic DNA evidence and the distribution of R1b
haplogroup of “Arbins”, as recently described by Dr. Anatole A. Klyosov. The Sumerians initial
migration presumably began with a persistent drought in their original homeland, that eventually forced
them to abandon their home migrate and resettle in the southern fertile lands of the Middle East between
the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and eventually further south near the banks of Nile River in north east
Africa.
Keywords: Sumerian Origins; Lapis Lazuli; Location-Location-Location
Introduction
The recent remarkable excavations at the ancient river settle-
ments north of the Kopet Mountains in Turkmenistan and the
so-called Margiana not only revealed an advanced civilization
in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages (Harris et al., 1996; Sarianidi,
1994, 1995), but also helped to answer the question of who
these Sumerians were? The first ever agricultural Neolithic
settlements in the Murgab River delta of Türkmenistan ap-
peared as early as the 7th millennium BC.
For those, who are not very familiar with this remarkable,
resourceful and intelligent people known as the Sumerians
throughout human history, who not only invented writing but
also established the true mythological foundations of all main
religions of the world today, simply put they taught us almost
everything (Kramer, 1963).
Linguistic scholars from around the world have attempted to
associate the Sumerians with the ancient cuneiform language,
but have agreed on nothing. These scholars all accept that it is
an extinct agglutinative language (Michalowski, 2006) and that
it is not an Indo-European or Semitic language; and arguments
regarding this subject continue today. Everybody wants to
claim the affiliation in one way or another, or at least they want
to prevent others from claiming the affiliation if they cannot
claim it themselves.
The more recent distribution and rapid diffusion of the last
20 - 30 years of archeological excavations and publication
(especially the color pictures of the findings) over the Internet
has made this privileged and closely guarded information
available to all. The judgment and biases of the original
excavators have been exposed and criticized very quickly by
whomever is interested with the subject matter.
Monopolies on and secrecy regarding information no longer
exist in the 21st century. When I read the wonderful 100 page
PhD thesis by Allessandro Re (2011) titled; “Ion and Electron
Microscopy for the Characterization of Materials of Archa-
eological, Historical and Artistic Interest: DETERMINA-
TION OF THE PROVENANCE OF LAPIS LAZULI USED
FOR GLYPTIC ART”, my long interest in finding a thoroughly
scientific answer to the question of who the Sumerians were
was satisfied, because I knew then that my early assumptions
were finally supported by the proof. The bio-geographical
mDNA or autosomal or Y-DNA population-tracking methods
that had been used successfully with human mDNA (Achilli et
al., 2007) and the cow genome (Bos Taurus) (Pellecchia et al.,
2007) in order to prove the Anatolian origin of Etruscans can
not be used as easily for the Sumerians because of the more
distant time frame, genetic dilution, wide distribution of
original mutations, migration of subclades and the lack of
“relative isolation” over a significantly long time period make
genetic tracking difficult. Therefore it is not easy precisely
identify a certain geographic location for the origin of
Sumearian civilization’s early beginnings using only a bio-
geographic approach. Dr. Anatole A. Klyosov has published
many excellent fundamental biogeographic studies one after
another (Anatole, 2012) which are no doubt destined to be the
M. GÜNDÜZ
Copyright © 2012 SciRes.
222
guiding foundation for further revelations regarding our com-
mon ancient human history in the coming years. His primary
finding is the origin of the Y-Haplogroup R1b mutation that
arose 16,000 ybp (year before present). He called the offspring
of the ancestor that originated this mutation “Arbins” bearers of
the R1b Dr. Anatole A. Klyosov calls as “Arbins” bearers of
R1b haplogroup. R1b is presumed to originate in south Siberia/
Central Asia. Therefore there were approximately 8000 -
10,000 years of migration and shuffling and regrouping since
the original mutation of the R1b haplogroup of “Arbins” and
their sub clades. Sumerians obviously belonged to R1b
haplogroup. Following the emergence of Neolithic agricultural
societies resulting in permanent settlements and prolonged
interactions and specializations throughout central Asia “Origi-
nal Sumerian Homeland” became one of the Arbins regroup-
ings throughout this long 8000 - 10,000 years of history, before
climate change forced them to make the maiden migration and
resettle in the fertile lands of the Middle East between the
Tigris and Euphrates Rivers around 4000 BC (Paleoclimato-
logy, 2012; Houghton, et al., 1990), and eventually further
south on the banks of Nile River in north east Africa.
We must use the most logical and scientific approach
possible to solve the question of where is the original homeland
of the Sumerian civilization was located prior to their migra-
tion. The answer to this question requires the use of multiple
independent factor analysis (multivariate analysis). A justifica-
tion for this method of analysis comes from its use at CERN.
Where over 5000 PhDs have used this method in their disco-
very of “a” new Higgs Boson. In their analysis, they found a
“combined standard deviation” of different variables of 4.9
sigma (less than the required 5.9 sigma for absolute certainty)
indicating with 99.99997% certainty that they found “a” new
Higgs Boson.
Using the “combined approach”. The Sumerians had four
unique, independent characteristics that I have noted addition to
the obviously unsolvable linguistic cuneiform puzzle of 5000
years of history.
First, the Sumerians were obsessed with their sacred blue
metamorphic stone the “lapis lazuli”. To understand the scienti-
fic concepts behind the answer to the question of; where the
Sumerians originated, the 100 pages of excellent research by
(Allessandro, 2011) available at
www.infn.it/thesis/PDF/getfile.php?filename=6327-Re-dottorato.pdf
are required reading.
To understand where the Sumerians originated it is essential
to know where this blue metamorphic stone is mined and where
the Sumerians obtained it. Additionally it is essential to
understand that this blue metamorphic stone has a UNIQUE
FINGERPRINT of trace elements that reflects its location of
creation on our planet; that is every mine has a different
fingerprint of trace element ratios. In other words if one argues
that the lapis lazuli of Sumerians originated somewhere other
than the Sar-e-Sangh mines of the Hindu Kush Mountains east
of Turkmenistan, where Gonur Tepe and other Neolithic and
Bronze age settlements were located, it can easily be proved
that the famous UR standard of the Sumerians found at the
British Museum’s LAPIS LAZULI collection is actually mined
from the Hindu Kush Mountains at the Sar-e-Sang lapis mines
in Badakhshan, Afghanistan, but nowhere else, (Moorey, 1999).
That metamorphic blue stone has a UNIQUE FINGERPRINT
(Allessandro, 2011), that is “analogous” mDNA or Y-DNA in
the human genome.
The second unique characteristic of the Sumerians is their
mythological beliefs which are related to lapis lazuli the well
known Gilgamesh Epic that they believed that their mytholo-
gical gods lived in lapis lazuli palaces, the sun, the moon and
venus rise from the palaces every day to travel the sky and
return to the palaces at night. We can easily see in all of the
Sumerians’ archeological remains the dominance of lapis
mythology (i.e. lapis heaven = sky) but no other stronger
symbols. (Kramer, 1998) When the mineralogical characteris-
tics of lapis lazuli are studied it is clear why the Sumerians
thought that the color of this blue stone resembled not only the
sky but also the stars in the sky, due to traces of yellow pyrite
(FeS2; fool’s gold), and the clouds in the sky, due to the
presence of white marble lines.
The third and the final answer to the puzzle of who the
Sumerians were requires a knowledge of mythological origina-
tion history, i.e. how mythologies are created and what
“factors” are required to create a powerful belief (myth) that
will endure for generations after it is created. (Campbell, 1988).
Specifically, why did the Sumerians adopt the lapis lazuli
stone as sacred and associate it with their original shamanistic
beliefs regarding the celestial objects of the sky gods (the sun,
the moon and venus) of central Asia’s original nomads, “the
wanderers of steps” who established agriculture and domes-
ticated animals. There is no question that the godly celestial
objects they believed in for thousands of years came to be
associated with lapis lazuli rather than lapis lazuli coming to
represent the celestial objects. In other words, “the people must
see with their own eyes the miracle” that their sacred celestial
objects are “rising from” the top of the mountains where the
lapis lazuli mines were located. (The blue metamorphic stone
looks like the sky with yellow pyrite and white marble lines
representing clouds).
When people saw the celestial objects rising each morning
and night “from the east” these sacred objects were presumed to
have human like life and to have their own house (palace) to
rest and sleep after traveling. The concept of gods and godly
figures having human forms and humanly needs was a
dominant. The original Sumerians associated the lapis mines of
the Hindu Kush mountains with the celestial objects of the sun,
the moon and venus, simply because they saw them rising
behind the mountain tops (i.e. lapis lazuli palaces) (Campbell,
1988).
This conclusion is obvious; because the location of the lapis
mines is unique the “people should be unique” as well, and
only the people who created and believed the mythology
associated with lapis lazuli would live generations to the west
of the lapis lazuli mines. (They should see the lapis mines at the
eastern side!) So the sacred celestial objects will rise from their
palaces in the east. Therefore the original homeland of the
Sumerians was Gönür Tepe, Anau and similar Neolithic and
Bronze Age settlements in Turkmenistan before they migrated
to Mesopotamia due to its better climate and standard of living.
The archeological artifacts of a very similar culture,the
traditions of these people, geological and climatological evi-
dence of the already well documented climate change around
4000 BC (Holocene Maximum) in this region (Paleocli-
matology, 2012; Houghton, et al., 1990) and ultimately the
mass migration from their settlements around Gonur Tepe,
Anau Türkmenistan further support this very logical proof of
the origin of the Sumerians. (Hiebert, 2003; Raphael, 1908).
The fourth piece of evidence is the icing on the cake. The
M. GÜNDÜZ
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 223
cultural similarities between the Sumerians and the so-called
Margiana people of Turkmenistan, is striking. As stated by
(Guisepi & Willis, 1980) “The Sumerian civilization was estab-
lished before 4000 BC and reached a high level of culture be-
tween 2700 and 2350 BC. In early times both sexes wore
sheepskin skirts with the skin turned inside and the wool
combed into decorative tufts. These wraparound skirts were
pinned in place and extended from the waist to the knees or, for
more important persons, to the ankles.
The upper part of the torso was bare or clothed by another
sheepskin cloaking the shoulders. From about 2500 BC a
woven woolen fabric replaced the sheepskin, but the tufted
effect was retained, either by sewing tufts onto the garment or
by weaving loops into the fabric. “Named ‘kaunakes’ by the
Greeks, this tufted fabric is represented in all of the sculptures
and mosaics of the period, as seen in the art from the
excavations of Ur displayed in the British Museum in London.
Additionally at that time, long cloaks were worn, and materials
for garments and head coverings included felt wool and leather.
Men were generally clean-shaven. Both sexes seem to have
often worn large wigs, as in ancient Egypt.”
Supportive Visual Evidence
The Power Point MP4 video presentation; THE ORIGIN OF
SUMERIANS-ARCHEOLOGICAL AND MYTHOLOGICAL
EVIDENCES at the link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgZbHX955ng&feature=y
outu.be
REFERENCES
Achilli, A., Olivieri, A., Pala, M. et al. (2007). Mitochondrial DNA
variation of modern Tuscans supports the near eastern origin of
Etruscans. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 80, 759-768.
doi:10.1086/512822
Allessandro, R. (2011). Ion and electron microscopy for the charac-
terization of materials of archaeological, historical and artistic
ınterest: Determınatıon of the provenance of lapıs lazuli used for
glyptıc art. Ph.D. Thesis, Università Degli Studi di Torino, Torino.
www.infn.it/thesis/PDF/getfile.php?filename=6327-Re-dottorato.pdf
Anatole, A. K. (2012). Ancient history of arbins, bearers of Haplogroup
R1b, from CENTRAL Asia to Europe, 16,000 to 1500 years before
Present. Advances in Anthropology, 2, 49-56.
doi:10.4236/aa.2012.22010
Campbell, J. (1949). The hero with a thousand faces. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Campbell, J. (1988). Joseph campbell and the power of myth. Inter-
views by Bill Moyers. New York: Doubleday & Co.
Guisepi, R. A., & Willis, F. R. (1980). Ancient sumeria, The University
of California, 1980-2003. URL (last checked 12 November 2012).
http://history-world.org/sumeria%20dress.htm
Harris, D. R., Gosden, C., & Charles, M. P. (1996). Jeitun: Recent
excavations at an early Neolithic site in Southern Türkmenistan.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 62, 423-442.
Hiebert, F. T. (2003). Central Asian village at the dawn of civilization,
excavation at anau, Türkmenistan.
Houghton, J. T. et al. (1990). Climate change: IPCC assessment.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kramer, S. N. (1963). The sumerians: Their history, culture and
character. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Kramer, S. N. (1998). Sumerian mythology: A study of spiritual and
literary achievement in the third millennium BC. Philadelphia, PA:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Michalowski, P. (2006). The lives of the sumerian language. In S. L.
Sanders (Ed.), Margins of writing, origins of cultures (pp. 159-184).
Chicago, IL: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Moorey, P. R. (1999). Ancient mesopotamian materials and industries:
The archaeological evidence. Warsaw, IA: Eisenbrauns.
Paleoclimatology (2012). Study of ancient climates. URL (last checked
12 November 2012).
http://www.lakepowell.net/sciencecenter/paleoclimate.htm
Pellecchia, M., Negrini, R., Colli, L. et al. (2007). The mystery of
etruscan origins: Novel clues from bos taurus mitochondrial DNA.
Proceedings of Biological Science, 274, 1175-1179.
doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.0258
Raphael, P. (1908). Explorations in Turkestan expedıtıon of 1904
prehistoric civilizations of anau. URL (last checked 12 November
2012).
http://gwdspace.wrlc.org:8180/xmlui/handle/38989/c01gr167k59p
Sarianidi, V. I. (1994). Preface. In: F. T. Hiebert, Origins of the bronze
age oasis civilization of central Asia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Sarianidi, V. I. (1995). Soviet excavations in bactria: The bronze age.
In G. Ligabue, & S. B. Salvatori (Eds.), An ancient oasis civilization
from the sands of Afghanistan. Venice: Erizzo.
