Man, Past and PresentKeane, A. H. (Augustus Henry)
History
Man, Past and Present
Keane, A. H. (Augustus Henry)
Anthropology; Ethnology
E. Meyer[590] claims for the Sumerians not only linguistic but also
physical isolation. The Sumerian type as represented on the monuments
shows a narrow pointed nose, with straight bridge and small nostrils,
cheeks and lips not fleshy, like the Semites, with prominent
cheek-bones, small mouth, narrow lips finely curved, the lower jaw very
short, with angular sharply projecting chin, oblique Mongolian eyes, low
forehead, usually sloping away directly from the root of the nose. In
fact the nose has almost the appearance of a bird's beak, projecting far
in advance of mouth and chin, while the forehead almost disappears. The
hair and beard are closely shaven. The Sumerians were undoubtedly a
warlike people, fighting not like the Semites in loosely extended battle
array, but in close phalanx, their large shields protecting their bodies
from neck to feet, forming a rampart beyond which projected the inclined
spears of the foremost rank. Battle axe and javelin were also used.
Helmets protected head and neck. Besides lance or spear the royal
leaders carried a curved throwing weapon, formed of three strands bound
together at intervals with thongs of leather or bands of metal; this
seems to have developed later into a sign of authority and hence into a
sceptre. The bow, the typical weapon of the Semites and the mountainous
people to the east, was unrepresented. The gods carried clubs with stone
heads. It is important to notice that, in direct contrast to the
Sumerians themselves, their gods had abundant hair on their heads,
carefully curled and dressed, and a long curly beard on the chin, though
cheeks and lips were closely shaven; these fashions recall those of the
Semites. Thus, although the general view is to regard the Sumerians as
the autochthones and the Semites as the later intruders in Babylonia,
the Semitic character of the Sumerian gods points to an opposite
conclusion. But the time has not yet come for any definite conclusion to
be reached. All that can be said is that according to our present
knowledge the assumption that the earliest population was Sumerian and
that the Semites were the conquering intruders is only slightly more
probable than the reverse[591].
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account