Ur of the Chaldeans or the Sumerians?

Ur of the Chaldeans or the Sumerians?

 

Between False Misconceptions and Decisive Historical Facts

 

An Academic Study

By

Dr. Amer Hanna Fatuhi

 

 

INTRODUCTION

The Bible affirms that we should not rely merely on intentions and motives, but rather on undeniable actions. As it states: "By their fruit you will recognize them" (Matthew 7:16). Just as righteous deeds indicate good and virtuous people, evil deeds reveal the wicked; and just as knowledge reflects the learned, ignorance exposes the ignorant. 

Unfortunately, some individuals occasionally raise questions that appear innocent on the surface, yet in reality have nothing to do with the subject at hand, nor with scientific logic or academic direction. Their sole aim is to undermine the legitimacy and credibility of the Chaldeans (the indigenous Iraqis) and remove them from the equation of the nation’s components. They do this by confusing the public with terms and expressions unfamiliar to most readers—terms which, despite being in use for decades, represent only temporary constructs still debated among specialists and subject to change.

A clear example of the limitations of many academic terms is "Assyriology," which was opposed from the outset by the scholar Fritz Hommel. Despite its widespread use, alternative terms exist—though less common—such as "Sumerology" (Kramer, 1944) and "Mesopotamianology" (Amer Hanna Fatuhi, 1988), along with other alternatives discussed in the following referenced documentary: The truth about the term Assyriology

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkP1VMMiBpc

 

Unfortunately, some who fail to grasp the extent of their ignorance of Mesopotamian history—especially those unfamiliar with archaeology—dare, whether out of ignorance or disregard, to attack Chaldeans for reasons beyond the scope of this discussion.

One such individual, deluded about the legitimacy and antiquity of his Arab origins, recently attempted to diminish Chaldean history and authenticity. I responded by correcting his misconceptions and exposing his lack of knowledge.

https://kaldaya.me/2026/02/04/29358

 

Since Schlozer popularized the term "Semites" in 1781 and Oppert coined the term "Sumerians" in 1869, educational institutions, publishing markets, and media have been flooded with millions of studies, articles, and films attributing all Mesopotamian achievements—without justification—to the Sumerians, despite these accomplishments having been achieved by the early Chaldeans (Proto-Kaldi) since the sixth millennium BC.¹

Even more troubling is that some, under the pretext of academic integrity, deliberately challenge or cast doubt on certain details of the Bible. One such recent claim asserts that Ur was not Chaldean but Sumerian.

This claim is not new. It dates back to the 1930s when Cyrus H. Gordon, a member of Sir Leonard Woolley’s excavation team, proposed that Urfa (near Harran) might be the biblical Ur of the Chaldeans. His argument was based on the assumption that the only language used in Ur was Sumerian and that the Sumerians were its earliest inhabitants—thus disqualifying it as the biblical Ur. However, later archaeological discoveries refuted this claim, as well as his simplistic reliance on linguistic similarity alone.

Given these misconceptions, I will focus on a crucial academic question: Who were the Sumerians, and was Ur of the Chaldeans a Chaldean or a Sumerian center?

Before examining this topic, we must first develop a clear understanding of both Ur and the Chaldeans to ensure a fair and comprehensive discussion.

 

Ur: Archaeologically and Historically

It is known that the city of Ur was founded during the Ubaid period, with some archaeologists dating its establishment to between 3800 and 3500 BC. However, historical discoveries confirm that Ur, like all cities in southern and Central Mesopotamia commonly described as "Sumerian," was in fact founded by a non-Sumerian people (I use the term "Sumerian" here in accordance with the excerpts, though it does not reflect my personal conviction).

The name "Ur" consists of components meaning "brother/sister" and "sea/blue," along with the suffix "ki," indicating a city. This suffix is of Proto-Kaldi origin, dating back to the classical Ubaid period.

Archaeological and historical evidence clearly confirms the presence of the Proto-Kaldi (referred to as "Semites" by Schlozer) since around 5300 BC. These populations inhabited cities such as Ur, Uruk, and Eridu long before the rise of what is commonly called Sumerian civilization, by as much as 2,500 years.

Burial sites discovered in Ur, culturally similar to those found in Kish, date back to the Jemdet Nasr period and the Early Dynastic period, including the era of King Mesalim of Kish (c. 2650–2600 BC). ²

Regarding the precedence of the Semites (Proto-Kaldi), the renowned archaeologist Seton Lloyd, who worked for many years at the Iraqi Museum, also affirms that the Semites existed in ancient Iraq before the Sumerians. He states this in his well-known book The Archaeology of Mesopotamia. This is likewise the conclusion reached by Henri Frankfort in his famous work The Birth of Civilization in the Near East. Delaporte agrees with them as well, confirming that the Semites (coined by Schlozer) are older than the Sumerians (coined by Oppert). ³ 

Interestingly, the names of the kings of the dynasties of Ur included a mixture of Akkadian and Sumerian names, and often purely Akkadian (Proto-Kaldi). Examples include the name of the first king, Mes-kalam-dug "Hero of the Land", and the name Pu-Abi "Word/Wisdom of My Father", as well as the last three kings of the Third Dynasty of Ur (2112–2004 BC).

The earliest urban development in Ur dates back to the Proto-Kaldi period preceding the so-called Sumerian culture. Meanwhile, the latest architectural developments in Ur were carried out by Babylonian (Chaldean) kings such as Nebuchadnezzar II and Nabonidus.

Also, many ancient buildings date back to the Akkadian (Proto-Kaldi) period, such as the Gig Parku (or Gi Paru) temple, which was designated as the residence of the high priestess and her assistants. It was restored by King Amar-Sin, and later King Nabonidus turned it into a convent for his daughter Bel-Shalti-Nannar (a Chaldean with a Sumerian name). 

There are also buildings from the period of the Second Babylonian Dynasty (the Chaldean Sealand Dynasty), which is historically close to the time of our forefather Abraham the Chaldean. Among the most important of these Chaldean structures is the temple of Ningal (the Great Lady), the wife of the moon god Nannar/Sin, the god of wisdom. This temple was rebuilt during the reign of the Chaldean king Nabonidus. Additionally, there is the harbor temple from the time of King Nebuchadnezzar II. 

Perhaps one of the most significant discoveries in Ur is the "Alphabet Tablet," discovered by Sir Leonard Woolley in the E-nun-maḫ (the “Exalted Lady”) temple. This tablet contains the Chaldean alphabet from the time of King Nebuchadnezzar II and is considered the origin of the Estrangelo, Madnhāyā, and Ma‘rāwā scripts that we use today.

Regarding these Chaldean letters, see page 340 of the book The Chaldean Legacy. Also refer to the study by William F. Albright. ⁴

This confirms the continuity of the Proto-Kaldi in Ur from the Middle Ubaid period until the disappearance of Ur from the Mesopotamian scene around the 5th century BC due to the change in the course of the Euphrates River, as affirmed by Professor Taha Baqir. This is also confirmed by the American researcher Albrecht Goetze, who states: "There was a large Semitic city-state (Proto-Kaldi) whose center was in Lagash during the Early Dynastic II period 2800–2600 BC." ⁵

Anton Moortgat also confirms the cultural twinship between the cities of Ur and Lagash as follows: "It is evident that there is a similarity in artistic and civilizational aspects between the Second Dynasty of Lagash in the time of Gudea and the Third Dynasty of Ur in the time of Ur-Nammu, particularly in sculpture and clothing. There are also similarities in certain details of the Stele of Ur-Nammu compared with the statues of Gudea, as the deities in both monuments appear as if they were made by the same sculptor, including similarities in hairstyles and the folds of garments. This similarity in sculptural style between the two monuments indicates a close chronological proximity between the two dynasties. Additionally, fragments of statues of Shulgi and his father Ur-Nammu have been discovered by excavation missions; these statues appear similar to the statue of (Ur-Ningirsu), the son of Gudea, especially in the details of the exposed parts of the body." ⁶

Finally, the archaeologist Ephraim Speiser explains in his well-known book Mesopotamian Origins: "The Sumerians cannot represent the earliest inhabitants of Iraq, because there are cities that date back to earlier periods bearing non-Sumerian names." This is also supported by Benno Landsberger, who, having learned from Kramer’s experience, avoided assigning these early people an ethnic designation such as "Proto-Kaldi," and instead referred to them with a topographical term, “the early Euphrateans. ⁷

Regarding Ur specifically, Sir Leonard Woolley states: "The presence of the Semites preceded the migration of the Sumerians into this region—Ur." This is also affirmed by Professor Taha Baqir in more than one place in his well-known book Introduction to the History of Ancient Civilizations, particularly in a passage quoted from Kramer and published in the American Journal of Archaeology in 1948. ⁸

From the dozens, indeed hundreds, of testimonies presented by archaeologists and historians, it becomes clear that the city of Ur was founded during the Ubaid period by local non-Sumerian inhabitants, whom Schlötzer, Kramer, Speiser, Goetze, Handcock, Jacobsen, and dozens of prominent archaeologists identify as Semites. Landsberger refers to them as the early Euphrateans, while I have referred to them—since my 1988 book Ur of the Chaldeans: An Iraqi Perspective—as Proto-Kaldi, a term that has been in circulation since the 1990s.

In the same context, followed by the kings of the southern Mesopotamian city-states since the Pre-Great-Flood era, kings from around the flourishing of Sumerian culture (circa 2900 BC) adopted mixed naming conventions. Even members of the same family bore names that combined both Semitic and Sumerian elements. Ur was not the only city whose kings carried such dual (Semitic and Sumerian) names; rather, this was a widespread practice.

Evidence of this can be seen in Uruk, the second-largest city in Mesopotamia and the city of the famous hero Gilgamesh. Uruk consisted of two parts: E-anna, from which the second Post-Great-Flood dynasty emerged—whose kings bore names that were a mixture of Semitic and Sumerian—and Kulaba (or Kullaba), the birthplace of Gilgamesh. Kulaba later united with E-anna during the rule of the Second Dynasty of Uruk and likewise became known for its dual naming traditions.

This characteristic also marked the Third Dynasty of Uruk, whose kings bore mixed names. Even the name of the father of the dynasty’s founder, the hero Lugal-Zage-Si, was Proto-Kaldi (Semitic): Bubu. This blending of names continued until Uruk disappeared from the Mesopotamian scene after the Islamic conquest in the 7th century AD. 

It is worth noting that King Nebuchadnezzar II, the "sun king," was born in the city of Uruk. His grandfather, who bore the same name, was a well-known noble in Uruk, while King Nabopolassar was among the most famous princes of the city and its unrivaled hero. ⁹

Conclusion: The founders of Ur and its neighboring city, Lagash, would at times unite and at other times contend with one another for dominance. Not to mention the famous twin of Ur, Kish, which served as the seat of the first Proto-CKaldi (Semitic) dynasty to rule after the Great-Flood. Likewise, Uruk, Isin, and other cities of central and southern Mesopotamia—such as Dilmun / Tilmun (“Tilma – the water jar”) and Qatra (“the altar of offerings” or “the great rock”) in the Chaldean language—confirm beyond any doubt that Ur and its neighboring southern city-states were not Sumerian, as claimed by those who adopt the term "Sumerians" following Oppert.

This fact—the non-Sumerian nature of the southern cities—forms the cornerstone of this study.

 

Ur According to the Bible

After I have demonstrated that Ur, according to archaeological discoveries and historical records, was a city with a Proto-Kaldi (Semitic) core and a thin outer layer of a dual Sumerian–Semitic culture—especially during the first flourishing of Sumerian culture (2900–2650 BC), and later during the second renaissance (2112–2004 BC)—it is also worth noting that Mesopotamia is the land of the first paradise (the Garden of Eden), as indicated in the Bible:

“A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. The name of the first is Pishon… the second river is Gihon… the third river is Hiddekel (Idigna, meaning the Tigris)… and the fourth river is the Euphrates” (Genesis 2:10–14).

If we examine the term “Garden of Eden,” we find its Proto-Kaldi roots clearly. The word “garden” derives from the Proto-Kaldi word gonna, which is still used in the Chaldean language today. The word "Eden" consists of two parts: (id), meaning rivers (since fields flourish where rivers exist), and (en), meaning "the Lord." Thus, "Garden of Eden” translates to "the green garden of the Lord."

For more, see The Jews of Babylon – Past & Present, pp. 12–15. www.JewsofBabylon-book.com

 

What Does the Bible Say About Ur and Its People?

The Bible clearly affirms, especially in the Book of Genesis, the existence and antiquity of the Chaldeans in Mesopotamia through many explicit verses, including:

From Genesis 10:8–12:

8 Cush was the father of Nimrod, who became a mighty warrior on the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; that is why it is said, “Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord.” 10 The first centers of his kingdom were Babylon, Uruk, Akkad, and Kalneh, in[b] Shinar.[c] 11 From that land he went to Assyria, where he built Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir,[d] Calah 12 and Resen, which is between Nineveh and Calah—which is the great city.

Also Genesis 11:28–31 and 15:7:

28 While his father Terah was still alive, Haran died in Ur of the Chaldeans, in the land of his birth. 29 Abram and Nahor both married. The name of Abram’s wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor’s wife was Milkah; she was the daughter of Haran, the father of both Milkah and Iskah. 30 Now Sarai was childless because she was not able to conceive.

31 Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot, son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of his son Abram, and together they set out from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to Canaan. But when they came to Harran, they settled there. 

7 He also said to him, “I am the Lord, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take possession of it.”

Isaiah 13:19: “Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldeans’ pride…” 

Jeremiah 5:15: “I will bring a nation against you from afar… an ancient and enduring nation.”

Acts 7:4: “Then he left the land of the Chaldeans and settled in Haran…”

From Stephen’s speech (Acts):

“Abraham lived in old age in the land of the Chaldeans and went to dwell in Haran.”

According to Mesopotamian linguistic heritage and the prophecies of Jeremiah, the Chaldeans were an ancient and powerful nation—”a mighty and enduring nation” (Jeremiah 5:15), and an unconquerable one. 

In Habakkuk 1:6–8: “I am raising up the Chaldeans… a bitter and hasty nation… Their horses are swifter than leopards… their horsemen come from afar…”

These biblical testimonies are supported archaeologically. Mesopotamian records show that what is now called the Persian/Arabian Gulf (Basra Gulf) derived from the Chaldean word Basryatha (reed huts). The Gulf was known over a thousand years before the Neo-Babylonian Empire as Tam-ti-sha-mat Kaldi, meaning “Sea of the Chaldeans” (in modern Chaldean: Yam d-Kaldaie). 

Another scientific proof is that the first human civilization before the Great Flood arose in the city of Eridu (twin of Babylon), founded by the early Proto-Kaldi Euphratean ancestors, according to the king lists "NAM-LOGAL".

Meanwhile, Babylon’s origin is described by Berossus in his Babyloniaca. This duality may be because both cities shared the same name, "NUN-kI", meaning "the dwelling of life", and the sacred quarter in Babylon was also called Eridu. 

Historical records also confirm that Proto-Kaldi spread northward to Nineveh and southward to the far reaches of the “Sea of the Chaldeans” since the Ubaid period. Even the name Nineveh derives from the southern city of Nina, which flourished close to Lagash during the Early Dynastic period.

The first dynasty after the Great Flood was the Proto-Kaldi dynasty of Kish, closely connected culturally with Ur and Lagash. King Mesilim of Kish was the first to bear the title "King of Kish," meaning “King of the World,” a title later adopted by all dynasties.

 

Ur and the Status of the Chaldean Language 

According to Merriam-Webster and Webster’s 1828 dictionary, the Chaldean language is defined as an ancient Semitic language. Some historical traditions—even reflected in early dictionaries—suggest that “Chaldean” (Proto-Kaldi) was the mother language of humanity. 

In this regard, some theories prevailed in the 19th century (perhaps influenced by the Book of Genesis), claiming that the Chaldean language was the language spoken by humans in the Garden of Eden. This is also affirmed by Dr. A. Susa on pages 37 and 565 of his encyclopedic work The History of the Mesopotamian Civilization, explaining that pictographic writing (considered Semitic according to Schlözer) was discovered in Semitic Kish since the fifth millennium BC, and that it is the origin of cuneiform writing, which was later attributed to the Sumerians. This proves that the dynasties of Ur, from their earliest beginnings, were Proto-Kaldi, and that the names of their kings, queens, and princesses varied between Sumerian and Akkadian—both being regional designations derived from the suburb of šumer in Nippur and Akkad, the capital of Sargon. Ethnically, however, they belong to the Proto-Kaldi (the early Chaldeans).

This is what I have explained in detail in many of my books and published studies since 1988, emphasizing that the Semites of the Ubaid period were Proto-Kaldi, based on linguistic evidence and archaeological discoveries. This led me to present the results of my extensive research in my study titled How the Chaldeans Calculate Their National Calendar (5300 – Present), where I demonstrated beyond doubt the presence of the Chaldeans (Proto-Kaldi) in their twin historical capitals, Eridu and Babylon, since the sixth millennium BC, i.e., the Ubaid period. For an in-depth reading and to review the eight material proofs included in the study, see the link below:

https://chaldeannation.com/blog/2023/03/29/chaldean-calendar-2/

 

Mesopotamian Writing: From Pictographic to Cuneiform

Many archaeologists, such as Woolley, Baqir, Lloyd, Spencer, Landsberger, Moortgat, Roux, Oates, Hommel, and even Kramer, confirm that cuneiform writing is the offspring of pictographic writing that dates back to very ancient times. This leads many proponents of the idea that writing is a purely Sumerian invention to reconsider attributing it to a people who only existed between roughly 3500 and 2900 BC (according to the Oppert school).

In other words, there is a vast time gap of nearly five thousand years between the historical presence of the Proto-Kaldi—whose culture flourished between Samarra (šumra) and Kish—and those whom Oppert labeled as Sumerians based on cuneiform tablets discovered in Ur from the Third Dynasty of Ur (2112–2004 BC).

Cuneiform writing developed from a pictographic system in the fourth millennium BC. It was initially used to record economic transactions and trade exchanges, such as the buying and selling of livestock and grain, and gradually evolved into a more abstract and simplified system over a long period extending from the late fourth millennium BC until the first century AD. At first, images were drawn on stone (Kish) and clay (Uruk) using a pointed tool. Later, they evolved into wedge-shaped marks made with a reed stylus, which allowed for faster and simpler writing. 

The symbolic system from the "ninth to the fourth millennium BC," began with notched beads and evolved into the use of small three-dimensional objects made of stone or clay marked with signs indicating quantities of goods or numbers of animals. These objects, known as clay tokens, were used to regulate trade and goods. They were often enclosed in clay envelopes (dried or baked), which sometimes bore brief inscriptions describing their contents, and sometimes none at all.

When Mesopotamians began transitioning from three-dimensional objects to drawing clear and detailed images (pictographic writing) of items such as grain or sheep on stone and clay tablets—between the mid-fifth and mid-fourth millennium BC (4500–3500 BC)—the purpose was primarily economic record-keeping: property, livestock, stored goods, and some simple calculations. These pictographic signs were written vertically from top to bottom and from left to right. Anyone familiar with the symbols could understand them regardless of language, since images function as a universal language not tied to a specific people. For example, images of a fish, bird, bull, or tree could be understood by a Babylonian, a Greek, or a Native American alike.

Around 3000 BC, during the transitional phase from Semitic Mesopotamian culture to the early flourishing of Sumerian culture (according to Oppert), scribes began rotating pictographic signs by 90 degrees and simplifying them into straight, abstract lines while maintaining left-to-right writing. At this stage, writing still retained some pictographic elements, making it a hybrid of pictographic and cuneiform systems.

The cuneiform stylus, which became established since the time of Meshallim, king of Kish, relied on straight lines instead of curved ones. Scribes used a triangular-tipped reed stylus to press wedge-shaped marks into clay, giving rise to the name “cuneiform” (from the Latin cuneus, meaning “wedge”). During the period of city-state unification, scribes also reduced the number of signs from nearly 2,000 to between 600 and 400 signs by the late Babylonian period and after the final Achaemenid colonization in 482 BC, making the system more practical and easier to understand.

Another major developmental stage of cuneiform was the transition from pictographic symbols (logograms) to phonetic symbols. Signs evolved from representing objects visually to representing sounds (syllables), allowing for the expression of abstract concepts and emotions. This transformation enabled scribes across Mesopotamia to move beyond recording temple inventories and economic data to composing literature, laws, and historical texts.

The key point here is that writing began before the period attributed to the Sumerians and continued to be used in both Akkadian and Sumerian scripts long after the supposed disappearance of the Sumerians by more than two thousand years. 

Once again, the Pictograph and Cuneiform writing systems began as Semitic Mesopotamian (Proto-Kaldi) and ended as Semitic Mesopotamian (Proto-Kaldi). 

To better understand the subject, you can review the table showing the development of Mesopotamian script from pictographic to syllabic to alphabetic writing, by referring to the table published on page 340 of the book Chaldean Legacy. www.ChaldeanLegacy.com

It is worth noting that since the discovery of the Behistun Rock (or the Behistun Inscription) by the British officer Henry Rawlinson—whose inscription dates back historically to around 520 BC—and its accurate scientific decipherment between 1835 and 1847, specialists faced the challenge of decoding the cuneiform symbols carried on the rock in three languages: Old Persian, Elamite, and Babylonian (which was the diplomatic language of the ancient Near East at the time). Mesopotamian scholars were able to translate them. It is also worth mentioning that in 1621, the traveler Pietro della Valle copied five excerpts from the inscriptions of Persepolis from the Neo-Babylonian phases, which helped us gain a better understanding of Mesopotamian cuneiform writing.

In 1877, unknown cuneiform texts were discovered in Tello/Lagash, a city whose history was largely dominated by a Proto-Chaldean dynasty. In this regard, the American researcher Albrecht Goetze confirms that "there was a large city-state of Semites centered in Lagash during the Early Dynastic II period (2800–2600 BC)." ¹⁰ 

What helped us understand this mysterious cuneiform writing was a set of bilingual dictionaries written—according to the concepts of that time—in Babylonian alongside this unknown script.

Two teams made efforts to find an appropriate name for this new writing: one led by Joseph Halévy and the other by Julius Oppert. At first, Rawlinson and Hincks called it the Akkadian language because the discovered tablets in Assyria were of Babylonian origin. Later, Hincks called it the Scythian language, but after it became clear that it was unrelated to the Scythians, Julius Oppert proposed in 1869 to name it the Sumerian language, in a lecture he delivered at the Royal Numismatic Society. He explained that since the Babylonian language and its Assyrian branch were similar to Akkadian (the first language discovered in the bilingual dictionaries), it was acceptable to consider the new language Sumerian. This was based on a phrase found on a cuneiform tablet that includes the title "King of Sumer and Akkad."

Nevertheless, Dr. Nail Hanoon asserts that it would have been more accurate to use the term "Sumerian writing" rather than “Sumerian language."¹¹

It is worth noting that those bilingual (Babylonian) dictionaries discovered in Nineveh were mostly plundered from Babylon during the reigns of Sennacherib and his grandson Ashurbanipal. Because these writings were discovered in northern Mesopotamia, historians were prompted to propose various alternative names for this script, ranging from "Scythian" and "Turanian/ upper Tigris/Euphrates basins " to "Akkadian," until it was ultimately settled that this unknown writing would be called "Sumerian." ¹²

What led Oppert to propose the name "Sumerian" for this unknown script—and to generalize this designation as a label for the ancient people who supposedly invented it—was his assumption that since there was agreement on calling the script "Sumerian," there must also be a "Sumerian" language belonging to its creators. Consequently, if there was a Sumerian script and language, then there must also have been a "Sumerian" people who spoke it.

Thus, Oppert applied the term "Sumerians" to that language and to these hypothetical people, based solely on his own abstract analysis. He presented this view in a lecture in 1869 at the French Numismatic and Archaeological Society, where he explained his choice of the name "Sumerian" for the script, based on the existence of an Akkadian tablet bearing the title “King of Sumer and Akkad.” ¹³

This closely resembles what Schlözer did in 1781 when he popularized the terms "Semites" and "Semitic languages," despite the many shortcomings in his proposal, which nevertheless gained support and eventually became an accepted reality.

The next step in reinforcing the historical misconception of "Sumer" came through the efforts of Samuel Noah Kramer in the 1940s. He authored numerous books attributing all the achievements of the ancient Mesopotamians (the Proto-Kaldi), from the Ubaid period to the Old Babylonian era, to the mythical "Sumerian" people invented by Julius Oppert and his team in 1869.

Naturally, Oppert’s proposal faced strong opposition until the late nineteenth century, led by the group of Joseph Halévy, who objected to the terms "Sumerian language" and “Sumerians.” Halévy’s group argued that Oppert’s designation relied solely on the existence of a cuneiform text containing the phrase "King of Sumer and Akkad," which could be metaphorical—linking the material aspect (the king’s actual land, Akkad) with the spiritual aspect, as "sumer" referred to the suburb of Nippur symbolizing sanctity and eternity.

Halévy’s group also rejected the term "Sumer" as evidence for the existence of a distinct language or people. Among the prominent critics of attempts—such as Kramer’s—to attribute Mesopotamian civilization to the alleged Sumerians were the Polish-American archaeologist Ignace J. Gelb and the Hungarian scholar Antal Deimel, in his 1945 article published in the journal Oriental Studies in Budapest. These scholars argued that no such mythical people as the "Sumerians" are ever mentioned in the records of the language itself.

Another objection was that the existence of a script does not necessarily prove the existence of a corresponding language or people. This reasoning is supported by scientific evidence, as there are many symbolic or sign-based systems that were not used by any particular people as a daily spoken language. A clear example is Morse code, which is written and understood through dots and dashes (or through tapping or light signals). Similarly, the global digital coding system based on binary (0 and 1) is used in computer programming.

It is also worth noting that specialists have long recognized the possibility of functional writing systems existing without a corresponding ethnic group speaking them. Examples include sign language, the use of smoke and fire signals, and pebbles among primitive societies. 

Moreover, many modern institutions have deliberately created “languages without a people” for various purposes. I recall that during my middle school years, I devised a primitive communication system using special symbols based on geometric shapes (triangle, square, circle) to serve as a secret language for communication within my school scout team.

Beyond that youthful attempt, there are many mature modern examples demonstrating the possibility of a “language without a people.” Notably, filmmakers and science fiction series creators often collaborate with linguists to invent languages for imagined extraterrestrial civilizations or fictional societies. Examples include the Klingon language, created in 1979 for Star Trek, and the Dothraki language, devised by author George R. R. Martin and later developed by linguist David J. Peterson into a fully structured language with its own grammar and dictionary by 2011. Likewise, the Na’vi language was created for the film Avatar—initially conceived in 1994 and later fully developed by around 2009—by director James Cameron in collaboration with linguist Dr. Paul Frommer. ¹⁴

This confirms the legitimacy of Halevy’s objection to Oppert’s proposal and refutes his theory of a mythical people whose language resembles no other on Earth. In fact, the fantastical logic of Oppert even led Zecharia Sitchin to adopt the idea that these so-called Sumerians were extraterrestrial beings (the Anunnaki), coming from a planet named Nibiru that completes an orbit around the sun every 3,600 years!

Setting aside mythology, the Anunnaki, and Oppert’s proposal—which has always stood on shaky ground (the title "King of Sumer and Akkad")—let us address, in a scientific and evidence-based manner, the question of whether Ur, in the time of our father Abraham, was Chaldean or Sumerian. Accordingly, was Ur truly the birthplace of Abraham (the father of the prophets) before his divinely guided departure to the Promised Land?

We will also examine other false claims spread by those who envy the Chaldeans—individuals who tirelessly promote misleading information to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the Chaldeans as the indigenous people of Iraq. This is done either out of ignorance or deliberate disregard for the confirmation provided by historical records, biblical texts, and archaeological discoveries, all of which affirm that the Chaldeans have existed since the time of the first king who ruled the city known as the "cradle of life" (NUN-KI), whether that was Eridu or Babylon.

Furthermore, the Chaldeans, as the indigenous Iraqis, have maintained an unbroken presence to this day—and will continue to exist, God willing.

However, since our discussion today aims to replace skepticism with certainty and illogical questions with decisive evidence, it is necessary first to clearly understand the history and origin of the term "Sumerians," and to distinguish between what is real and supported by archaeological and material evidence, and what are merely terms proposed by historians to facilitate understanding of a particular historical period.

In most cases, such terminology is useful and close to reality, but at times these proposals miss the mark. Among the most prominent of such flawed constructs is "Assyriology," a field imposed by the Royal Asiatic Society (British), along with many other terms that are beyond the scope of this discussion. 

I am certain that only a few thousand people might read this study for the time being, and that it will not overturn 157 years of repeated and misleading information about the "Sumerians"—a term coined by Oppert in 1869 to solve a technical problem, but which unintentionally created a larger issue by attributing the achievements of the native Chaldeans of Mesopotamia to an imaginary people. This was further reinforced when Kramer, through his exceptional skill in translating cuneiform texts, projected onto them his unwarranted preference for the term "Sumerians."

I also know that most of you, due to a lack of specialization, are only familiar with what is propagated in Western books, translations, and Wikipedia websites, which themselves recycle the same information they are fed, suggesting that the Sumerians were the origin of civilization, discoverers of the stars, inventors of writing, and the source of all Mesopotamian knowledge. You are not to blame for this, for how could you not believe it when hundreds of thousands of books and films have promoted this historical misconception day and night for more than a century and a half?

This is despite the rising voices of opposition that have worked hard to correct these misleading narratives—especially since many of these critics are among the most respected foreign historians, in addition to Iraqi scholars such as Dr. Nael Hanon and Taha Baqir. ¹⁵

Here, I will not debate Oppert’s misconception in the expectation that global media, universities, and museums will correct it immediately. Rather, I will simply present one decisive fact: there is no such thing as a "Sumerian" people—it is merely a construct of Western imagination. To date, not a single cuneiform tablet has been discovered that mentions a "Sumerian" or "Sumerians" even once.

Even more striking is that prominent scholars in the fields of history and archaeology—such as Anton Moortgat, Henri Frankfort, Alexander Scharff (who demonstrated the antiquity and influence of Mesopotamia on Egypt), Benno Landsberger, Claude Hermann, Alter Jones, and D. E. Rees—have all confirmed that the Ubaid culture, including the periods of Eridu and Ur, has no direct or indirect connection to those whom Oppert labeled "Sumerians" in 1869.

Therefore, I ask you all to consider: if there were no Sumerian people to begin with, how could Ur have been Sumerian? ¹⁶

 

The Origin and Precise Meaning of the Term "Sumer" / Šumēru

Professor Taha Baqir and Dr. George Roux ¹⁷ mention that the name Sumer comes from the ancient name of the southern part of Iraq (Sumer), or more precisely Šumēru, written in Akkadian as šumēru, while in Sumerian (according to Oppert) it is written syllabically as Ki-en-gi(r). Taha Baqir further concludes, in the same source, that the literal meaning of Sumer (Ki-en-gi(r)) is "Land of the Lord of the Reeds," and that the "Lord of the Reeds" here likely refers to the god Enki/Ea.

It is also believed that the designation Šumēru may derive from the name of a religious district in the city of Nippur. This is supported by Professor Dr. Fawzi Rashid, who states that "Sumer" (Akkadian Šumēru) was originally the name of a site (a suburb) surrounding part of Nippur before 2450 BC, and only later came to refer to the entire southern region of ancient Iraq. ¹⁸

It is worth noting that during the Akkadian period, when the term "Sumer" appeared, it was always used together with Akkad as a single political entity, not two separate regions.

It never appears in royal titles in a separated form, such as "King of Sumer and Akkad" in a divided sense, but rather in the formula šar mat Šumerim u Akkadim. This indicates that Sumer was not independent from Akkad but was mentioned alongside it due to its sacred status, being associated with the great god Enlil, the supreme deity responsible for the Great Flood, as clearly stated in Tablet XI of the Babylonian version of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

On the Language, the native Mesopotamians never actually used a language called "Sumerian." Rather, what was later labeled in 1869 by Oppert as the "Sumerian language" was referred to in Mesopotamian terminology as Ku-Ki-en-gi(ra), pronounced eme-sal. This language had several dialects according to the linguistic level. ¹⁹

The most common dialect was eme-sal "women’s language", based on the idea that women tend to be more verbose. In Akkadian, it was called lišānu ṣalti. The language of skilled scribes was called eme-gal "great language", while another dialect was eme-sukud-da, meaning "elite dialect," in addition to occupational and professional dialects. All of these terms are distinguished between everyday speech, temple language, and literary language. ²⁰

In this regard, many Sumerian and Akkadian dictionaries—including René Labat’s dictionary ²¹ and Dr. Amer Suleiman’s Grammar of the Akkadian Language and the History of Its Recording—support Taha Baqir’s view that the term Šumēru does not refer to an "ethnic group" but rather to a specific region or even a type of language. Some specialists also argue that "Sumerian," in its linguistic context, may refer to the profession of scribes, and that it was used for those proficient in cuneiform writing.

Thus, the precise meaning of "Sumer" may refer specifically to the eme-sal language and also to a suburb of Nippur, which became a major religious center of southern Mesopotamia after the decline of Eridu. The name of this sacred region was later generalized more broadly. Some also suggest it may have referred to scribes and writing professionals. None of these interpretations, however, relates to race or ethnicity. 

Scholarly Critique of the Term "Sumerian"

Professor Dr. Nael Hanun explains clearly and decisively that, ²² according to the critical realist school of Halévy, the term "Sumerian" is scientifically inaccurate and does not refer to the existence of a distinct ethnic nation. Rather, based on empirical data, it is a "locational designation" and a "cultural descriptor" referring to a language—or more precisely, a writing system—not to a people or race. 

He further argues that Samuel Noah Kramer, following Oppert’s interpretive school, inserted the terms "Sumer" and "Sumerian language" into his translations despite their absence in original cuneiform texts. These terms were then adopted by historians and non-specialists, eventually becoming accepted as fact despite their scientific weakness. ²³

For example, Kramer labeled the Nam-Lugal tablet—NAM-LUGAL, meaning “kingship” or "king list"—as the "Sumerian King List." In reality, the term consists only of nam (name) and lugal (king), meaning “kingship” or “royal names.” The question is: where did "Sumerian" come from? The answer is that it was added through later interpretation, not from the original text.

 

Misinterpretation of "Dark-Headed People"

Kramer also, unjustifiably, translated the phrase SAG-GIG "dark-headed people" as "Sumerians," following Oppert’s 1869 invention of the term. However, SAG-GIG in Akkadian ṣalmat-qaqqadim simply means "people with dark hair," not an ethnic designation.

The term refers broadly to individuals or groups without ethnic distinction. It is important not to confuse this with "black skin," as some interpretations suggest. Here, "dark" refers specifically to hair color.

Further Criticism: Kramer, influenced by Oppert’s proposal, repeatedly inserted "Sumer" and "Sumerian" into his translations without textual justification. Even the so-called "Sumerian King List" (Nam-Lugal) is misnamed, as its correct meaning is simply "kingship" or "royal list. "

Although Kramer was highly skilled linguistically, his translations are criticized for introducing terminology that does not exist in the original texts. In early editions of his 1944 book, he even suggested that the Sumerians may not have invented cuneiform writing, but later removed such statements in the 1961 edition after academic pressure.

Final Position: The author concludes in agreement with Professor Joseph Halévy’s school and scholars such as Dr. Nael Hanun that those called "Sumerians" were in fact Proto-Akkadian (Semitic) elites. Writing itself predates what is called "Sumerian civilization" by more than 5,000 years.

What is labeled "Sumerian culture" flourished mainly between 2900–2650 BC and 2112–2004 BC within a predominantly Proto-Akkadian (Semitic) environment.

The so-called "Sumerian cuneiform script" was initially primitive and limited to economic records, later evolving into a sophisticated system under Babylonian and Assyrian development.

Thus, after the supposed disappearance of the "Sumerians"—an invention attributed to Oppert in 1869—the question remains: if there was no Sumerian people in the first place, how can Ur be called "Sumerian"?

 

The Chaldeans: The Indigenous People of Iraq and the People of God Who Cannot Be Erased!

 

Archaeological discoveries and historical records clearly and unmistakably confirm the presence of the Proto-Kaldi (Semites, according to Schlözer) since the Ubaid period, around 5300 BC, noting that the early Ubaid period extends from 6500 to 5300 BC. Historical sources affirm the existence of the Proto-Kaldi, whom Landsberger referred to as the "Early Euphrateans"—a geographical designation that took the form of a settled civilization during the Ubaid period known as the "Eridu period," nearly 1800 years before the emergence of what is called Sumerian culture. Š

Many sources adopted by specialists in Mesopotamian history confirm that the language known today as "Sumerian" was invented by an Akkadian elite. It is worth noting that the term "Akkadian" was used in Babylonian texts, but its modern usage as the language of a distinct ethnic people dates to the 19th century. In this context, the term "Akkadian" refers to all those descended from the early Chaldeans (Proto-Kaldi).

The reason for the Proto-Kaldi’s invention of "Sumerian" as an abstract symbolic writing/language was to serve the needs of elite groups in early Mesopotamian societies, particularly in economic matters, detached from emotions and sentiments. 

This language later developed during the Akkadian period, as evidenced by the poems of Enheduanna, daughter of Sargon of Akkad, as well as the hymns of Shulgi, son of Ur-Nammu, which were written in Sumerian. Additionally, the Epic of Gilgamesh, "He Who Saw the Deep," and the Creation Myth Enūma Eliš, aka ə-nū'-mă ĕ'-lĭsh "When in the Hights," were written in Akkadian. This reflects the growing need in ancient Mesopotamian society for writing in the realms of mythology and literature, before education became widespread among the general population, who relied on the commonly spoken Akkadian language from around 2310 BC. This is further evidenced by Enheduanna, daughter of the Akkadian emperor Sargon and high priestess of the god Nannar (Sin) in Ur, who composed her works in both Sumerian and Akkadian. 

More importantly, what is referred to as "Sumerian culture" flourished, as previously mentioned, in only two relatively brief periods in Mesopotamian history, totaling no more than about 350 years. The first was during the Early Dynastic Period (2900–2650 BC), ending around the time of the rule of King Mesalim, the Proto-Kaldi ruler who unified central and southern Mesopotamia (though some sources suggest his reign began around 2600 BC). The second phase was during the Third Dynasty of Ur (2112–2004 BC).

Notably, it was the Babylonian Chaldeans who further developed this language—expanding its vocabulary, simplifying its syllabic structure, transforming it from image-based signs into phonetic elements, and refining its grammatical system—beginning in the Old Babylonian period. Chaldeans of the Assyrian region also contributed to this development from the founding of the Assyrian kingdom in 1813 BC by the Proto-Kaldi king Shamshi-Adad I, who used only the script and language employed in Babylon.

Furthermore, the inscriptions commissioned by the famous Chaldean king Nebuchadnezzar II on the Ishtar Gate to commemorate his achievements in constructing the gate and the walls of Babylon were written in what is conventionally referred to as Sumerian cuneiform!

Finally, the last cuneiform (Babylonian–Chaldean) text known to us was an astronomical record written in the same cuneiform script from Uruk, recorded by a Chaldean priest who appears to have remained pagan, or perhaps had accepted Christianity but preferred to write astronomical texts according to the Babylonian deep and rich tradition. This dates to around 80 AD, more than two thousand years after what is termed "Sumerian culture" had vanished.

 

A Realistic Reading of Ancient Mesopotamian History Confirms

The Non-existence of a People Called the Sumerians

 

The above scientific fact, "Non-existence of Sumerian people," is based on the following:

1. Despite the existence of more than one million cuneiform tablets in our possession today—along with thousands of stelae and stone monuments, whether discovered in Mesopotamia, neighboring regions, or in the Amarna archive in Egypt—not a single one of these archaeological discoveries mentions a people called "Sumerians." Likewise, the term "Sumerians" does not appear even once in the Bible!

2. There is no material evidence documenting the occurrence of any ethnic conflict between the (supposed) Sumerians and the Akkadians over a period of 896 years of (assumed) coexistence (2900–2004 BC), despite the alleged ethnic differences (according to traditional historians).

This contradicts the typical patterns of life in ancient societies, which often resolved their disputes through violence.

3. On the contrary, recorded historical incidents document conflicts in which alliances of Akkadian cities joined with (supposed) Sumerian cities against other Akkadian and (supposed) Sumerian cities. This contradicts logic and reason.

What further confirms the absence of such ethnic conflicts is that the historical records documenting these disputes clearly show that conflicts between (supposed) Sumerian cities and between Akkadian cities were primarily over expanding agricultural lands or securing larger shares of water. 

Perhaps the most famous of these conflicts was the dispute between the cities of Lagash and Umma (ca. 2600–2350 BC), considered the earliest recorded territorial and water conflict in history. The conflict centered on the fertile and water-rich region of "Gu’edena." 

The dispute continued for generations due to competing claims over resources. Kings of Lagash, such as Eannatum, documented their victories on a monument known as the "Stele of the Vultures." Although both cities are classified by traditional historians as Sumerian, the peace between them—marked by placing a kudurru (boundary stone)—was established by Meshalim, ruler of Kish, a Proto-Kaldi, around 2550 BC. 

This demonstrates the inaccuracy of traditional historians’ claims, as Mesopotamian conflicts were centered on sovereignty over land and water resources and had no connection to any supposed cultural or ethnic differences.

This also supports the presence of Proto-Kaldi Mesopotamians since the Neolithic period (8th millennium BC to 5600 BC), as evidenced by the continuity of grooved beads, clay tokens, and their gradual development from šumera, aka šur-marrati, to the era of pictographic writing in Kish. 

4. The use of Sumerian titles by Akkadian dynastic kings and vice versa further confirms that the (supposed) Sumerians and Akkadians were one ethnic people. It is illogical that the first ruling dynasty after the Flood was Proto-Kaldi (Semitic), followed by the (supposed) Sumerian dynasty of E-ana and its legendary king Meshki-angasher (father of the hero Gilgamesh) around 3200 BCE—when writing was still pictographic—yet traditional historians still claim that the (supposed) Sumerians preceded the Proto-Kaldi. 

It is also unreasonable for a father in a lineage to be Akkadian, his son Sumerian, and his grandson Akkadian again. A clear example of this apparent ethnic mixture is the rule of the Proto-Kaldi queen Pu-abi, who ruled around 2550 BC as queen of the First Dynasty of Ur (assumed to be Sumerian) independently of a king.

Her name, meaning "Word/Wisdom of the Father," appears Akkadian/Proto-Kaldi rather than Sumerian (where it would be pronounced "Ka-ad").

Some have attempted to resolve this "ethnic dilemma" by suggesting that she was the second wife of King Meskalamdug. However, even if this modern assumption were correct, it would still indicate the presence of Proto-Kaldi and their social and cultural integration with the (supposed) Sumerians at that time.

This same (hypothetical) ethnic mixture was predominant in all Mesopotamian dynasties before the end of the third millennium BC. We find this mixture in dynasties that Western scholars consider Sumerian, even though their kings—belonging to the same family—bear a mix of Sumerian and Akkadian names. An example of this is the Third Dynasty of Ur, which begins with the kings Ur-Nammu and his son Shulgi, followed by their descendants Amar-Sin, Shu-Sin, and Ibbi-Sin. 

This also applies to the Akkadian (Chaldean) Empire, according to Berossus and classical historians such as Diodorus, Megasthenes, Abydenus, Eusebius, and the famous Roman historian Polyhistor. Nevertheless, we see that the daughter of Emperor Sargon (Šarru-kin), the princess Enheduanna, bears a Sumerian name, while his grandson, Emperor Naram-Sin "Beloved of the god Sin/Nannar", bears a Proto-Kaldi name.

We observe the same in the name of the daughter of the last Babylonian (Chaldean) emperor, Nabonidus—his daughter was named Bel-shalti-Nannar (a Sumerian name), while his son and crown prince, Belshazzar, bore a Proto-Kaldi name. This confirms that Western claims of the existence of a distinct "Sumerian race" are a product of imagination.

The culture of Mesopotamia, in the regions of Babylon (Sumer and Akkad) and Assyria, was a unified spiritual, linguistic, and ethnic entity, despite Babylon’s intellectual leadership and advancement—much like how the people of Baghdad were more advanced than those in the south until the 1990s, even though they shared the same culture and language.

The continued development of the Sumerian language by the Akkadians/Chaldeans, and the addition of new Sumerian vocabulary for daily use nearly two thousand years after the (supposed extinction) of the Sumerians—who, in fact, lack any single piece of material evidence proving their existence—further supports this view. Indeed, the last Chaldean (astronomical) text that has reached us, around 80 AD, was written according to Sumerian cuneiform conventions.

The question here is: what would motivate an Akkadian/Chaldean people—whose existence has been established since the Ubaid period—to use and develop the language of an allegedly extinct (Sumerian) people for over two thousand years? Unless both the real and the supposed peoples were in fact one and the same.

Sumerian and Akkadian kings bore titles such as "King of the Four Quarters" and "King of Sumer and Akkad," including the kings of the last Babylonian (Chaldean) dynasty that ruled Mesopotamia. Among them was one of the greatest emperors of ancient Iraq, King Nebuchadnezzar II, whose chronicles confirm that he descended from Emperor Naram-Sin, grandson of Sargon of Akkad. Nebuchadnezzar’s inscriptions show that he used titles such as King of Babylon, King of Akkad, and King of Sumer and Akkad—this after the supposed extinction of the Sumerians by nearly 1,500 years. Yet we do not find a single king presumed to be Sumerian calling himself simply "King of Sumer."

This raises the question: why would these Akkadian/Proto-Kaldi kings—who are assumed by modern traditional historians to be ethnically distinct—continue to include the name "Sumer" in their royal titles long after the supposed extinction of the Sumerians, while no "Sumerian" king ever used the title "King of Sumer" alone, instead adopting the same titles common during the Akkadian (Proto-Kaldi) Empire? 

Archaeological discoveries and historical records indicate that the term "Sumer" initially referred to the religious district in Nippur, and also implicitly to the language known as "eme-sal." There are also indications that "Sumer" may have referred to scribes proficient in cuneiform writing. It is worth noting that the general term for scribes and teachers was, in Sumerian, dub-sar (DUB-SAR), and in Akkadian ṭupšarru, as well as "mualmidu."

It is therefore logical to consider the Akkadians—who derived their regional name from their capital Akkad (i.e., the early Chaldeans/Proto-Kaldi)—and the "Sumerians" (a concept proposed in 1869 by Oppert) as one continuous ethnic people, with clear differences only in cultural levels, similar to the distinction between urban and nomadic culture, or between city and rural life.

Even today, city dwellers—especially those of Baghdad—may view southerners who struggle with lower literacy as "Shroog," despite both being one people in language, culture, blood, and history.

From historical, linguistic, and archaeological sources, it becomes clear that the term "Sumerians," which has been widely used since the 1940s to refer to a (hypothetical) people and language, is in fact a modern term coined by Oppert in 1869.

The real name of what is known today as the Sumerian language is "eme-sal," which is an Akkadian (Proto-Kaldi) innovation—fully consistent with the views of Professor Joseph Halévy and a number of trusted experts, including Iraqi scholar Dr. Nael Hannon. The terms "Sumerian" and "Sumerian language" thus refer specifically to an elite Akkadian culture, not to a distinct Sumerian race invented by Western scholars in the nineteenth century. 

It should be noted that this is not the first time Western academics have erred, as evidenced by their adoption of the incorrect term "Semites," from which "Semitic language" is derived—terms popularized by Schlözer in 1781, despite their shortcomings, which cannot be discussed here.

Furthermore, the Czech scholar Bedřich Hrozný promoted the terms "Hittite language" and "Hittites" in 1915 despite considerable opposition, and it was later established that the correct name of the language is "Nesite." In addition, a major error occurred when the British Royal Asiatic Society popularized the term "Assyriology" for the study of cuneiform writing around 1857—an issue that has been clearly and simply explained in the documentary video below. 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkP1VMMiBpc

The truth about the term Assyriology 

Evidently, there is a vast difference between scientific facts and what is mistakenly widespread in reality. Therefore, through the enormous amount of archaeological evidence and historical and linguistic documents that I relied upon in this study—presenting, discussing, and substantiating them—it becomes clear that the city of Ur was a Proto-Kaldi city.

This also aligns with the data of the Bible, in which the word "Sumer" or "Sumerians" is not mentioned even once. 

Conclusion: It becomes evident that the original term Shumeru and the modern term Sumer did not, in ancient Mesopotamian times, refer to anything other than a small (religious) district attached to the city of Nippur. Its cuneiform components literally mean "Land of the Lord of the Reed," referring to the god Enki (Ea). The term "Sumer" was used by Mesopotamian kings (Semites, according to Schlözer) to indicate a specific geographical region south of Babylon with a distinct religious character, and also to refer to the writing system known as eme-sal, which Professor Taha Baqir confirms was primarily "restricted in use among temple priests." ²⁵

The Bible affirms that the confusion of tongues occurred in Babylon, and that the Chaldeans were the inhabitants of Babylon and a nation since ancient times. Classical historians such as Diodorus also confirm that "the Chaldeans are the most ancient Babylonians." This view has been echoed by many ancient and modern archaeologists and historians—from Berossus to Brinkman, Oates, and Margaret Rutten—who devoted her book on Mesopotamian knowledge throughout history under the title The Science of the Chaldeans, in which she also clarifies that the Chaldeans are the most ancient Babylonians. It is worth noting that Father Dr. Yousif Habbi translated it under the title The Science of the Babylonians, with essentially the same meaning.

It is also noteworthy that evidence for the antiquity of Babylon lies in its symbolic name Nun-ki, meaning "the dwelling of life," as confirmed by the annals of Sargon, the first emperor in history. He boasted that he built his capital, Akkad, with its seat at Dur-Sharrukin, using the sacred soil of Babylon!

For several thousand years—before the establishment of its first royal dynasty—Babylon, like Nippur, was a sacred religious city of preserved status, not due to ruling dynasties but because of its religious significance. This is further supported by the fact that Sargon’s rebellion against Ur-Zababa, king of Kish, was caused by the latter’s lack of respect for the god Marduk, the patron god of Babylon. 

It is also worth mentioning that the modern use of the term "Sumerians" as a people or ethnicity does not appear in cuneiform texts or in the Bible; rather, it is a modern invention dating back to 1869 AD, long after the decline of the city of Ur, which occurred around 500 BC due to the shifting course of the Euphrates River. 

More precisely and simply, the modern usage of the term "Sumerians" was coined nearly 2,400 years after Ur had disappeared from the Mesopotamian scene. 

The question then arises again: how can Ur be considered Sumerian when its inhabitants had never heard of a people called "Sumerians," and did not use the word "Sumer" except to refer to a religious district within the sacred city of the god Enlil, Nippur?!

 

Why are Chaldeans— and no one else—the Indigenous Iraqis?

 If we review the precise meaning of the names that were given to the native inhabitants of ancient Iraq from the unknown era up until the end of national rule over all of Mesopotamia in 539 BC—with the fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire / the last imperial Chaldean dynasty—keeping in mind that Chaldeans had in fact lost their sovereignty practically in October 482 BC, a date commemorated by modern Chaldeans as "Chaldean Martyr Day" on October 6 each year.

As previously mentioned, every review of Mesopotamian history confronts us with a striking and compelling fact, especially if we take into account that the term "Sumerian," as we have demonstrated, is merely a linguistic-cultural designation. The essence of this undeniable fact is that, among all the ancient names—Sumer, Akkad, Babylon, Assyria, and others—ancient Iraq knew only one (ethnic/national) designation to which all the great Mesopotamian dynasties belonged: that is the name "Kaldu / Kaldim," meaning "Chaldeans." All other names—Sumer, Akkad, Babylon, Assyria, Amurru, and Aramu—derived their designations either from their geographical location, their cultural or spiritual influence, state/region, the location of their capital, i.e., the center of their sphere of influence, or from geographical/topographical affiliation.

In clear and explicit terms, the names of these settlers came after the settlement itself. I have confirmed this "decisive fact" by reviewing, analyzing, and examining these names in detail according to the discoveries and explanations of the most trusted archeologists, Biblical scholars,  and academic specialists in history and archaeology on pages 31–40 of the book The Untold Story of Native Iraqis, Chaldeans 5300 BC - Present, available at www.NativeIraqis-Story.com 

If the term "Kaldu/Kaldim" is indeed the only ethnic/national Mesopotamian designation, as has been demonstrated, then it is necessary to provide a clear picture of the ancient inhabitants of Mesopotamia, "Chaldeans."

It is self-evident to academic specialists, as well as to most interested readers, that many cultural and educational sources frequently mention a remarkable people called "Chaldeans," often associated with their royal capital, Babylon, and its mighty king Nimrod, according to the Old Testament. Additionally, Aloros, the first king to rule Babylon before the Great Flood according to Berossus and classical Greek and Roman historians, corresponds to "Alulim," the Proto-Chaldean king who ruled the first Mesopotamian dynasty before the Flood according to the (Nam-Lugal) King List. The name Aloros—where the Greek adds the letter "s"—is composed of two cuneiform elements indicating the meaning of the "city of the Flood" (alu) and the attribute of the hero (uru).

We should also mention the incomparable king of the Chaldeans, Nebuchadnezzar II, the brave warrior who, in his twenties, annihilated the combined Assyrian-Egyptian forces led by Pharaoh Necho II at the Battle of Carchemish in 605 BC.

The massive Egyptian army included Greek mercenaries from Ionia and Caria. Nebuchadnezzar was also renowned as a brilliant architect, having built the Ishtar Gate, the magnificent walls of Babylon, and the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, which classical historians considered one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. ²⁶

The Hanging Gardens of Babylon were in Babylon

www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW-l_NdwLEY 

Perhaps the most famous sources in which the name "Chaldeans" appears are archaeological discoveries and the verses and books of the Old and New Testaments.

Babylon is often mentioned alongside the Chaldeans, or the Chaldeans are described as the ancient Babylonians, as noted by Diodorus and Ctesias. ²⁷

The Chaldeans are also described as a civilized indigenous people inhabiting the cities of central and southern Mesopotamia in historical writings, travel accounts of ancient explorers, biographies, and genealogical works of Arab historians, as well as in European writings from the medieval chivalric era and the age of exploration and the Industrial Revolution.

They have even been depicted in paintings by great artists such as Delacroix and in the writings of major poets like Lord Byron, not to mention modern films and animations.

The truth is that the link connecting all these sources is the remarkable achievements of this ancient Mesopotamian people, whose accomplishments and legacy are discussed in detail in source number 3, in addition to the compelling book Chaldean Legacy, which is rich in historically reliable sources and supported by archaeological discoveries.

See: www.ChaldeanLegacy.com

It is also worth noting that the name "Chaldeans" frequently appears in the writings of historians of ancient civilizations, among the most famous of whom are Sir Leonard Woolley, Samuel Noah Kramer, and Georges Roux. It also appears in religious texts (the Old and New Testaments) associated with the city of Ur of the Chaldeans, from which Abraham—the father of the Twelve Tribes of Israel—departed on his spiritual journey that profoundly shaped the Middle East and the world to this day.

Despite this vast body of information, evidence, archaeological findings, and historical records, some attempt to cast doubt on the authenticity of the indigenous Iraqis (Chaldeans) for political and religious reasons, in addition to attributing the material and spiritual heritage of the Chaldeans to the "Sumerians," a hypothetical race, "invented" in 1869.

It is also worth mentioning that some people, out of ignorance of Mesopotamian history, ask why no tablet in Assyria bears the name "Chaldeans." This, frankly, is the height of absurdity, since the library of Ashurbanipal contained many cuneiform tablets in which the name "Chaldeans" appears. More importantly, the Chaldean designation is an ethnic one, and any Mesopotamian ruler would present himself as the protector of all the citizens under his rule, not of a single group. Thus, the just king Hammurabi—ethnically Chaldean and regionally Amorite—states in the prologue to his stele in Akkadian Inu-Anum-Sirum "When the exalted Anu": 

"When the exalted god Anu, king of the Anunnaki (gods of heaven), and Enlil, lord of heaven and earth, who determines the destinies of the land, granted to Marduk, the firstborn son of Ea/Enki, the supremacy of Enlil over all mankind, made him great among the Igigi (gods of earth), called Babylon by its great name, made it supreme in the world, and established within it an everlasting kingdom whose foundations are firm as heaven and earth—then Anu and Enlil called me by name, Hammurabi, the pious prince who fears the gods, to establish justice in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil, so that the strong might not oppress the weak, so that justice might rise like the sun over the dark-headed people, and to illuminate the land for the welfare of mankind." 

"I am the perfect king, not neglectful nor oppressive toward the people (the dark-headed)."

"They entrusted to me the people whom Enlil granted me, and whose governance Marduk assigned to me."

Elsewhere, he says: "I am the shepherd who does not neglect… I guard well, and my staff is straight." 

In the conclusion of the stele, he emphasizes that despite his deep piety, he did not compel anyone to worship his personal god Marduk. Rather, he ensured freedom of worship for all, supported all temples in his kingdom, and did not discriminate among his subjects based on race or language. His laws were not directed toward a specific religious or ethnic group; instead, he used the general term "citizens" or "the people", in Babylonian: "the dark-headed". All were equal in Hammurabi’s constitution, and all were equal before the king and the law. 

This is clearly evident from translations of the stele (adapted from Dr. Horst Klengel and Dr. Fawzi Rashid). Therefore, those who question why Chaldean kings did not emphasize the ethnic designation "Chaldean," despite holding power, fail to understand that doing so would contradict the ethics of a just ruler who treats all subjects equally—especially since major cities like Babylon, Uruk, and Nineveh were cosmopolitan centers attracting people from all regions for learning and trade (in Greek: metropolitan). 

However, we do find the Chaldean identity explicitly used during periods of "Chaldean revolutions," when its purpose was to mobilize Chaldean sentiment, such as during the reigns of Ea-mukin-zēri, inscribed ^mdÉ-a-mu-kin-NUMUN (5th Dynasty of Babylon, 1026–1005 BC), Marduk-apla-iddina (10th Dynasty, 721–710 and 703 BC), and during later uprisings under Nebuchadnezzar III and IV, and the reigns of Bel-shimanni and Shamash-eriba. 

Finally, it is worth noting that the misconception among some Western academics that "created" a people called the Sumerians—originating from Oppert’s theories—found acceptance among Arabized colonizers who occupied Mesopotamia from the 7th century AD onward.

Such appropriation of the heritage of the indigenous population would spare these colonizers from the obligation of apologizing for centuries of persecution and mass killings against the indigenous Iraqis, "Chaldeans".

I hope that the fair-minded reader, after this detailed review, can distinguish in Mesopotamian history between the wheat of documented scientific and historical evidence and the chaff of falsehoods and failed theories.

The Chaldeans Historically and Linguistically

The renowned archaeologist and linguist Fr. Claude Hermann Walter Johns, a professor of Semitic languages, stated that "there existed an ancient Semitic (Proto-Kaldi) language in Mesopotamia spoken by the indigenous inhabitants."

Dr. Anton Moortgat also affirms that Semitic culture (Schlözer) flourished during the era of Mesilim. Elsewhere, he notes the similarity between the finds in the Royal Cemetery of Ur and those discovered in Kish, corresponding to the time of Mesilim, despite "supposedly" ethnic differences according to modern historians' suggestions. In this regard, the American researcher Albrecht Goetze confirms that "there was a large Semitic city-state centered in Lagash during the Early Dynastic II period (2800–2600 BC)." ²⁸

Professor Taha Baqir, based on Oppert’s proposal, also affirms that the Sumerians were "one of the groups descending from some local peoples of Mesopotamia in remote prehistoric times (as proven regarding these early Chaldeans)." He adds in another passage that the Sumerians—like the Akkadians who settled in Akkad, the Babylonians named after Babylon, and the Assyrians named after Assur (God or the city)—were later known by their specific name (Sumerians) after the region in which they settled.

In other words, the name came after the settlement, derived from a geographic designation, and does not carry an ethnic meaning.

Baqir further suggests that Mesilim, king of Kish (Proto-Kaldi), was likely the first to use the title "King of Kish." He also states elsewhere that "the Sumerians were not the earliest settlers in the alluvial plain of southern Iraq; rather, they lived alongside other peoples, foremost among them the Semites (i.e., the Proto-Kaldi)." Baqir also suggests that the people of the Ubaid civilization, who preceded the Sumerians, were the ones who invented cuneiform writing. ²⁹

Here, Baqir appears to take a balanced stance—avoiding direct contradiction of his colleague Samuel Noah Kramer, while also asserting that the supposed Sumerians were not the true founders of Mesopotamian civilization. This is further supported by Christopher Lucas, who states that "the first king for whom reliable inscriptions exist is Enmebaragesi, king of Kish, around 2700 BC." ³⁰

Regarding the multiple readings and variations of the name "Chaldeans," one must ask: Does this diversity not resemble that of all ancient peoples whose names evolved across centuries?

To learn more, read the article omitted for brevity: https://kaldaya.me/2024/01/18/24914.

Aside from the original name (Kaldu/Kaldim), written syllabically as kal-du using cuneiform signs 322 and 206, it should be noted that cuneiform signs evolved over time. Therefore, non-specialists should pay attention to the chronological development of these signs, as explained in illustrative charts (such as those published in relevant academic works).

There are also minor variations in sign forms between Babylonia and Assyria, comparable to differences between scripts like Arial and Times New Roman in Latin script, as well as the difference in writing the word "color and colour" in American English and UK English. Nonetheless, the standard forms are those from the Neo-Babylonian period, in addition to those adopted by the Chaldeans throughout Mesopotamia after the Achaemenid colonization.

It is noteworthy that the Akkadian term "Kaldim" and the Hebrew "Kasdim" became dominant in the centuries preceding Christ, later evolving into "Chaldea" in Greek and "Klodha" locally, especially after the Islamic conquest in the 7th century AD. This designation, referring to the indigenous Chaldean inhabitants of Iraq, continued into the early 20th century.

For example, the eastern gate area of downtown Baghdad was called "Bab Klodha," meaning "Gate of the Chaldeans" or the southern gate leading to the Chaldean ancient southern stronghold. All these names referred to the central and southern regions of Mesopotamia, known in Akkadian as "the Sealand" (Mat Tamti) or "the Land of the Chaldeans" (Mat Kaldu/Kaldim), despite the spread of the Proto-Kaldi people from the Babylonian region to Ebla in the north and Qatara/Qatar in the south.

See, How Did Chaldeans Compute Their National Calendar, 5300 BC to Present?

https://chaldeannation.com/blog/2023/03/29/chaldean-calendar-2/

 

Conclusion

The discovery of material evidence indicating the use of accounting tokens (clay tokens) or similar marked pebbles at the prehistoric site of Samarra (šumera), specifically at Tell es-Sawwan, is significant. Excavations in building layers dating to around the 6th millennium BC—particularly during periods when some temple rooms were converted into small storage facilities—demonstrate the need for administrative tools such as baskets and seals, as well as abstract recording systems (tokens). These later evolved into clay symbols used to regulate storage and trade, which in Kish (Proto-Kaldi) developed into pictographic writing, and eventually into cuneiform writing, later known as Sumerian and Akkadian.

Additionally, the similarities between Samarra (šumera) pottery and that of Eridu from the Ubaid period—in color schemes and techniques—suggest a shared cultural development.

These ceramics typically feature dark painted designs (black, brown, purple) on light-colored clay (yellow to light orange, often ochre), with intricate animal and geometric motifs, including symbols such as the cross and swastika, representing life and fertility. This reflects a unified social and artistic evolution in ancient Mesopotamia and suggests that the earliest inhabitants (Proto-Kaldi), whether in northern, central, or southern Mesopotamia, formed a single cultural entity.

Based on the cited views of prominent historians and archaeologists—both Western and Iraqi—especially those emphasizing the continuous presence of Proto-Kaldi in historical cities such as Eridu, Ur, Uruk, and Lagash since the Neolithic period, the study concludes decisively that there was no distinct "Sumerian people" throughout Mesopotamian history.

Therefore, the question arises—particularly for those promoting the idea of a "Sumerian Ur": how can Ur be Sumerian if there were no Sumerians in the first place?

~ Dr. Amer Hanna Fatuhi

 

References:

¹ The term (Proto-Kaldi) was introduced in 1988 by the historian Amer Hanna Fattouhi to define the period of culture preceding the Sumerian cultural emergence. He first used this term in his study titled “Ur of the Chaldeans – An Iraqi Perspective.”

After that, the term (Proto-Kaldi) became widespread among Iraqi historians and archaeologists starting from the 1990s, and internationally from the beginning of 2004 AD.

² Taha Baqir, The Epic of Gilgamesh, 1986, p. 209.

³ Seton Lloyd, The Archaeology of Mesopotamia from the Old Stone Age to the Persian Conquest, London, 1978, pp. 160–161; also Henri Frankfort, The Birth of Civilization in the Near East, p. 78; Anton Moortgat, The Ancient Near East, pp. 51 and 74; see also Watelin, Excavations at Kish, Vol. 4, 1934; also Sumer, No. 22, 1966.

⁴ Amer Hanna Fattouhi, Kaldin Likasi, p. 340; see also William F. Albright, Pre-Arabic Chaldean Inscriptions, 1952, p. 39.

⁵ Albrecht Goetze, Sumer, Vol. 22, 1966, p. 73.

⁶ Anton Moortgat, Art in Ancient Iraq – Sculpture, Baghdad, 1975, pp. 205–214.

⁷ E. A. Speiser, Mesopotamian Origins, London, 1930, p. 38; Samuel Noah Kramer, American Journal of Archaeology, 1948, p. 150 ff.

⁸ Samuel Noah Kramer, same source, p. 150 ff.

⁹ Hayat Ibrahim Muhammad, Nebuchadnezzar II, 1983, p. 56.

¹⁰ Albrecht Goetze, Sumer, Vol. 22, 1966, p. 73.

¹¹ Dr. Nail Hannoun, The Truth about the Sumerians and Other Studies in Archaeology and Cuneiform Texts, Damascus, 2007, p. 46.

¹² Ibid, Dr. Nail Hannoun, p. 22.

¹³ Ibid, p. 22.

¹⁴ Amer Hanna Fattouhi, Chaldeans, The Indigenous People of Iraq – Remarkable History and Contemporary Challenges, PhD dissertation, Netherlands, 2019, pp. 36–37.

¹⁵ Taha Baqir, Introduction to the History of Ancient Civilizations, p. 64; Dr. Nail Hannoun, same source.

¹⁶ Anton Moortgat, Art in Ancient Iraq, Baghdad, 1975, pp. 63–73; Henri Frankfort, The Birth of Civilization in the Near East, p. 78; also Claude Hermann Walter (University of Cambridge study published in Encyclopedia Britannica, 1910–1911, Vols. 3–4); see also Seton Lloyd, The Archaeology of Mesopotamia, London, 1978, pp. 160–161; Dr. E. Rees, The House of History from Early Humans to the Fall of Rome, 1934–1936.

¹⁷ Taha Baqir, Introduction to the History of Ancient Civilizations, p. 64.

¹⁸ Dr. Fawzi Rashid, Sumerian Grammar, p. 24.

¹⁹ Ibid, p. 31.

²⁰ Dr. Amer Suleiman, The Akkadian Language, 2nd ed., 2005, p. 36; Dr. Nail Hannoun, Cuneiform

²¹ Henri Labat, Dictionary of Cuneiform Signs, 2004, p. 395; Taha Baqir, Introduction to the History of Ancient Civilizations, p. 64; see also Dr. Ali Yasin Al-Jubouri, Akkadian–Arabic Dictionary, Abu Dhabi.

²² Dr. Nail Hannoun, The Truth about the Sumerians, p. 36.

²³ Taha Baqir, Introduction to the History of Ancient Civilizations, p. 287.

²⁴ Diane Wolkstein and Samuel Noah Kramer, Inanna: Queen of Heaven and Earth, 1983.

²⁵ Taha Baqir, Introduction to the History of Ancient Civilizations, p. 119.

²⁶ Georges Roux, Ancient Iraq, Baghdad, 1984, p. 507; Hayat Ibrahim Muhammad, Nebuchadnezzar II, 1983, p. 52; Fritz Krischen, Wonders of the World in the Architecture of Babylon, 1982.

²⁷ Hayat Ibrahim Muhammad, same source; Marguerite Rutten, Science of the Babylonians, p. 56; The Chaldeans Since the Beginning of Time, p. 37.

²⁸ Albrecht Goetze, Sumer, Vol. 22, 1966, p. 73.

²⁹ Taha Baqir, The Epic of Gilgamesh, 1986, p. 29.

³⁰ Christopher Lucas, The Civilization of Clay Tablets and Educational Policy in Ancient Iraq, translated by Yousif Abd al-Masih Tharwa, Al-Mawsu‘a al-Saghira, p. 12.