quote:The second study concerns physical examination of Sumerian skulls. Buxton and Rice have found that of 26 Sumerian crania they examined 22 were Australoid or Austrics. Further According to Penniman who studied skulls from other Sumerian sites, the Australoid Eurafrican, Austric and Armenoid were the "racial" types associated with the Sumerians. Here is Penniman's description of the Austric type found at Sumer:
"These people are of medium stature, with complexion and hair like those of the Eurafrican, to which race they are allied with dark eyes, and oval faces, broad noses, rather feeble jaws, and slight sinewy bodies."
Australoids
I wonder where these Australoids went. Did they mix with more stereotypically "Middle Eastern" people or were they wiped out?
BTW, what do northern Indians look like? Some have described them as looking like Southern Europeans, but I've heard of dark-skinned northerners too. Some Roman authors thought they resembled Egyptians.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Paul
quote: According to many experts, the Al-Ubaid people were ancestral to the Sumerians, or at least, to their culture. The Al-Ubaid skulls show a chaemaerrhine index with a mean value of 49.2. In other words, they had very broad noses. The skulls had both subnasal and alveolar prognathism, or fullness of the lower and upper lips. The average linear projection was 8 mm. for the skulls. Their heads were long and narrow.
Buxton and Rice found that of 26 Sumerian crania 17 were Australoid, five Austrics and four Armenoid. According to Penniman who studied skulls from Kish and other Sumerian sites, these three: the Australoid (Eurafrican), Austric and Armenoid were the "racial" types associated with the Sumerians. Here is Penniman's description of the Austric type found at Sumer:
"These people are of medium stature, with complexion and hair like those of the Eurafrican, to which race they are allied, dark eyes, and oval faces. They have small ill-filled dolichocephalic skulls, with browridges poorly developed or absent, bulging occiputs, orbits usually horizontal ellipses, broad noses, rather feeble jaws, and slight sinewy bodies."
Both the Australoid and Austric type are found in India, where the former is known as Dravidian in its less extreme variety. Like all the different populations of India, both Dravidian and Austric are long-headed like most of the skulls at Sumer.
The Sumerians were negroes , just like Africans.
Sumerian King Gudea
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannosaurus: Sumerians, oldest civilization in the world
These pictures are not pictures of Sumerians. The people in this picture are Gutians from Lagash, not Sumerians.
.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
I've always been curious about Austrics.. Since it's apparent that this group of people are extremely wide spread, stretching from Ancient Sumer to Australia, what was their original habitat of origin, meaning where did they develop most of their trade mark attributes (dark skin, hair, and features) before splitting up geographically? Another thing, seeing as how Sumer isn't that far from Africa, is it possible that dark skinned Sumerians traced their direct descent back to Africa? The genetic aspects of this is confusing to me, I know Africans and "Austrics" are reported to be distinct but how did this come to be in concern to their features and Sumeria's position close to Africa? Were they that isolated in the deserts of the middle east? Bare with me, this is somewhat confusing to me and I'm not too familiar with the specific genetic differences between Africans and Austrics.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:know Africans and "Austrics" are reported to be distinct but how did this come to be in concern to their features
What features would Australian Aborigines need to have in order to be descendant from paleolithic Africans, just like everyone else on earth?
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:know Africans and "Austrics" are reported to be distinct but how did this come to be in concern to their features
What features would Australian Aborigines need to have in order to be descendant from paleolithic Africans, just like everyone else on earth?
I don't know, I admit that quote was a bit naive, only was begging the question based on the fact that they have certain features that are falsely designated as "African", and given their actual proximity to the continent while in Sumer, I only wonder where they came from directly preceding that time period. I guess genetics would say that it couldn't of been Africa though, so never mind..
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
The Sumerians spoke a language closely related to African and Dravidian languages.
Australians probably represent the first migrants from Africa to Australianl.
The Austro-Asiatic speakers on the otherhand were probably part of the Anu empire which existed before the great flood. The Anu people probably had different hair textures some straight, while others had kinky hair. They were all dark skinned .
The Austro-Asiatic people were probably the original inhabitants of India. Kumar et al have presented convincing Y-chromosome evidence that Austro-Asiatic people of India and Southeast Asia belonging to the haplogroup O-M95 originated in India, particularly among the Mundari. They probably migrated to Southeast Asia 40,000ybp.
Reference:
Kumar V, Reddy, A N S, Babu, J P, et al .(2007). Y-chromosome evidence suggets a common paternal heritage of Austro-Asiatic populations. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 7:47.
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: I've always been curious about Austrics.. Since it's apparent that this group of people are extremely wide spread, stretching from Ancient Sumer to Australia, what was their original habitat of origin, meaning where did they develop most of their trade mark attributes (dark skin, hair, and features) before splitting up geographically? Another thing, seeing as how Sumer isn't that far from Africa, is it possible that dark skinned Sumerians traced their direct descent back to Africa? The genetic aspects of this is confusing to me, I know Africans and "Austrics" are reported to be distinct but how did this come to be in concern to their features and Sumeria's position close to Africa? Were they that isolated in the deserts of the middle east? Bare with me, this is somewhat confusing to me and I'm not too familiar with the specific genetic differences between Africans and Austrics.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Sumerians spoke a language closely related to African and Dravidian languages.
Australians probably represent the first migrants from Africa to Australianl.
The Austro-Asiatic speakers on the otherhand were probably part of the Anu empire which existed before the great flood. The Anu people probably had different hair textures some straight, while others had kinky hair. They were all dark skinned .
The Austro-Asiatic people were probably the original inhabitants of India. Kumar et al have presented convincing Y-chromosome evidence that Austro-Asiatic people of India and Southeast Asia belonging to the haplogroup O-M95 originated in India, particularly among the Mundari. They probably migrated to Southeast Asia 40,000ybp.
Reference:
Kumar V, Reddy, A N S, Babu, J P, et al .(2007). Y-chromosome evidence suggets a common paternal heritage of Austro-Asiatic populations. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 7:47.
Hmm, interesting, thanx for the info! Though I am confused about one or two things.. Why would they be referred to as "Eurafrican", and if Austric people left Africa 40,000 years ago, how is it possible that Austric Sumerians had a language related to more contemporary African languages?
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannosaurus: [B]Sumerians, oldest civilization in the world
Evergreen Writes:
What makes Sumerian civilization the oldest in the world? How are you defining a 'civilization'?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I can understand Rasol's exasperation. It wasn't a month ago since he last explained that OoA humans never leaving the tropics or sub-tropics must retain certain physical characteristics of the parent exode{s}.
I'm hoping all the OTs here will chime in and make this thread (or a new one) a magnus opus on OoA migration and current thought on how humanity came to have so variant phenotypes.
Remember, once none of us knew the things we now take for granted common knowledge. We too had to learn and hopefully our teachers were patient as well as tuff. Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
^^I didn't sense any annoyed or "exasperated" tone in Rasol's question? Maybe I just don't know him that well.. But I see, Australoids simply retained archaic features, doesn't indicate any relationship, which I assumed anyways and don't even know why I entertained any alternative.. So obviously they must of migrated from the tropics of India before they made their way into Sumer.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
'Scuse the hell out of me! Lemme leave it ta yall. Never should a been inni tat all.
Just one hint, wouldn't they have had to hit the Arabian Peninsula, the Persian Gulf shores, the Indian subcontinent, the Bay of Bengal and Andaman Sea shores, as well as Indonesia before reaching Australia?
I.e., Australoid/Austric doesn't equal Australian.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: 'Scuse the hell out of me! Lemme leave it ta yall. Never should a been inni tat all.
Huh??? Naw, I hope you didn't take that as being rude or sarcastic.. It wasn't my intention, I'm not even sure what I said? I admitted that my question was naive and just didn't percieve any frustration on the part of Rasol, that's all. We'd all appreciate your input, it's worth more than my million questions..
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
No way man. I think u a straight up stand up fella and u cool wi me G.
Much love, raw spect, peace, and alla dat 2 u!
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: No way man. I think u a straight up stand up fella and u cool wi me G.
Much love, raw spect, peace, and alla dat 2 u!
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Sumerians spoke a language closely related to African and Dravidian languages.
Australians probably represent the first migrants from Africa to Australianl.
The Austro-Asiatic speakers on the otherhand were probably part of the Anu empire which existed before the great flood. The Anu people probably had different hair textures some straight, while others had kinky hair. They were all dark skinned .
The Austro-Asiatic people were probably the original inhabitants of India. Kumar et al have presented convincing Y-chromosome evidence that Austro-Asiatic people of India and Southeast Asia belonging to the haplogroup O-M95 originated in India, particularly among the Mundari. They probably migrated to Southeast Asia 40,000ybp.
Reference:
Kumar V, Reddy, A N S, Babu, J P, et al .(2007). Y-chromosome evidence suggets a common paternal heritage of Austro-Asiatic populations. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 7:47.
Hmm, interesting, thanx for the info! Though I am confused about one or two things.. Why would they be referred to as "Eurafrican", and if Austric people left Africa 40,000 years ago, how is it possible that Austric Sumerians had a language related to more contemporary African languages?
If you read the quote relating to the theory that the Sumerians were Austric people you will see that the researcher had detected several different groups among the skeletal remains of the Sumerians, i.e., Eurafricans, Austrics etc.
Eurafrican was an old term that referred to the old mediterranean type which is euphamism for Negro, just like the term Armenoid.
You asked an important question. The answers to this questions are not simple but I will try and explain. The Sumerians, Tamil and Mande speakers formerly lived in the Sahara. In ancient times these people were called Kushites, and were related to the C-Group people.
When we compare lexical items from these languages we can see the similarities. These languages also share many cognate terms.
ENGLISH SUMERIAN MANDING TAMIL chief kal,kala keletigi gasa(n) field gan ga kalan eye(l) igi akki eye(2) ini,en nya kan arrow kak kala kakam granary kur k'urk'ur kutir road sila sila caalai father pap pa appan lord manus mansa mannan male mu moko maakkal to recite sid siti to buy sa sa cel grain se se seed gen ge 'to sprout'
═════════════════════════λ 2;═════════════════════════ 552;═════════════ English Dravidian Manding top, summit kona kun one ondu do two pattu ta four naal nani person uki moko fish(filet) bale bake skin uri wuru,guru house lon lu head kuku ku tongue na ne blacksmith inumu numu foot karal koro liver karal kura mud burada boro, buru give idu di stone kaly kulu cloud kaar ka, kaba fire ti ta mountain kunru kuru elder,grandfather maama maamaa ═════════════════════════λ 2;═════════════════════════ 552;═════════════ ELAMITE ENGLISH MANDING ak and ka turna know, awaken kuna, fori sahri death sa murta to erect kura mar from a place ma li give di tela to go tara Nap God Nala tus habitation du husu illomened dyugu kuta lance keru lan,lani silver dala ki one killi ta place ta kik sky,heaven ka sari sculpter se ufat steel tuufa tela to go ta khali great ka dau help deema ko king,lord ka na say na para to watch fereke
As you can see Mande shares many terms with both Sumerian and Tamil. Although they share lexical items we can also see differences between the three languages. These differences probably are the result of the migration patterns of these groups into Asia. The historical research make it clear that the Sumerians left Africa first. They would have interacted with the Ubaid people who were the rulers of Mesopotamia when the Sumerians arrived. Naturally these two different people would have exchanged lexical items.
The Tamil speakers settled the Indus Valley. Another group of Tamil speakers along with Mande speaking people landed in Iran founded the Elamite civilization and migrated from there across Central Asia into China and beyond in search of metals. The Tamil speaking Tamil used a syllabic script.
When we compare monosyllabic Tamil and Sumerian terms we see great similarities, that prove the genetic relations between these two languages which Loga refers to as Sumero-Tamil. After the fall of the Harappan civilization the Tamil speaking people began to migrate into South India.
In China the Tamil founded the Shang civilization. They were defeated by the Shang-Anyang people who spoke Austro-Asiatic languages.
The Tamil migrated into Yunnan Province and from there into Southeast Asia which was probably sparsely occupied at this time by Austro-Asiatic speaking people. As the Hua or Han people forced the Austro-Asiatic people from North China, some Austro-Asiatic people began to push the Tamil speakers across Southeast Asia into India.
Many of the Austro-Asiatic people were still living in India .During the interactions between the Austro-Asiatic and Tamil speakers there was probably an exchange of lexical items as a result of bilingualism in Southeast Asia and later India.
The Austro-Asiatic speakers mainly remained in the North, while the Tamil from Southeast Asia probably continued southward to join the Tamil speakers of the Indus Valley who were by then living in South India.Other Dravidian speaking people probably entered India from the land mass that formerly connected India and Africa.
As a result of these migrations we can explain the differences in lexical items between Sumerian and Tamil by possible periods of bilingualism among Austro-Asiatic and Tamil speakers, and Sumerian and Ubaid speakers.
There is also a close relationship between the Austronesian /Polynesian, Manding and Tamil languages:
English Austronesian Tamil Manding
house,building *balay gibu,pura fa, ba
write *surat carru sewe
iron,metal *bari irumpu bara 'tongs of the blacksmith'
cultivate,arable land *babaw bey,benni be
yam *qubi kiranku,kuni ku
garden *qumah kalli ka
dog *wasu ori wuru
canoe,boat *qaban kalam kulu
holy man *datu,tu'i tuyan tu
deity ku ko ku
high chief mana mannan mansa
unit of land mo'o man ma
fallow land *talun natu dugu
pondfield lo'i pulam
stone chisel ko'i kere
The cognition of these languages is not surprising given the affinity between the Dravidian languages in spoken Southeast Asia and the Pacific.
Posted by Tyrannosaurus (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Paul
quote: According to many experts, the Al-Ubaid people were ancestral to the Sumerians, or at least, to their culture. The Al-Ubaid skulls show a chaemaerrhine index with a mean value of 49.2. In other words, they had very broad noses. The skulls had both subnasal and alveolar prognathism, or fullness of the lower and upper lips. The average linear projection was 8 mm. for the skulls. Their heads were long and narrow.
Buxton and Rice found that of 26 Sumerian crania 17 were Australoid, five Austrics and four Armenoid. According to Penniman who studied skulls from Kish and other Sumerian sites, these three: the Australoid (Eurafrican), Austric and Armenoid were the "racial" types associated with the Sumerians. Here is Penniman's description of the Austric type found at Sumer:
"These people are of medium stature, with complexion and hair like those of the Eurafrican, to which race they are allied, dark eyes, and oval faces. They have small ill-filled dolichocephalic skulls, with browridges poorly developed or absent, bulging occiputs, orbits usually horizontal ellipses, broad noses, rather feeble jaws, and slight sinewy bodies."
Both the Australoid and Austric type are found in India, where the former is known as Dravidian in its less extreme variety. Like all the different populations of India, both Dravidian and Austric are long-headed like most of the skulls at Sumer.
The Sumerians were negroes , just like Africans.
Sumerian King Gudea
.
Sorry, but contrary to Afrocentrist fallacy, while Saharo-tropical Africans and Australoids are both dark-skinned and may be called "black", they are NOT close genetic cousins. In fact, Australoids and Africans probably have the greatest genetic distance of all!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^Winters' far flung far-fetched linguistics aside, I am very well aware of the study on Sumerian remains. In fact this comes at no surprise considering that black skinned peoples were aboriginal to the Mesopotamian area just as they are to every other tropical to sub-tropical region of the world. We all know the Elamites were black and there are many painted depictions of them, but what many people do not know is that there also survives some painted depictions and portraits in which the also Sumerians depicted themselves as black. In fact I have read from a few sources that speak of an early Sumerian king's tomb in which the king and many of his people are painted in very dark color (black). One of these sources was from Diop's Origins book and the others from not so well known books whose titles I've long forgotten.
Keep in mind that the first advanced cultures in Mesopotamia was not founded by the Sumerians or people speaking Sumerians languages but by predecessors living in the river valley *before* the Sumerians settled there. These indigenous people were named Ubadians after the discovery of their first site al-Ubaid. It does not take much to realize that these Ubaidians were the original black peoples of Mesopotamia who were soon assimilated by lighter-skinned "Armenoid" (light-skinned Middle-Eastern) types you see today.
The second study concerns physical examination of Sumerian skulls. Buxton and Rice have found that of 26 Sumerian crania they examined 22 were Australoid or Austrics. Further According to Penniman who studied skulls from other Sumerian sites, the Australoid Eurafrican, Austric and Armenoid were the "racial" types associated with the Sumerians. Here is Penniman's description of the Austric type found at Sumer:
"These people are of medium stature, with complexion and hair like those of the Eurafrican, to which race they are allied with dark eyes, and oval faces, broad noses, rather feeble jaws, and slight sinewy bodies."
As always we must try to dissect what these 'racial' discriptions mean. We know "Armenoid" refers to the fair-skinned Middle-Eastern types common in that region today, so what of the other terms? "Australoid" refers to features akin to those of Australian aborignals but what does "Austric" mean?? Last time I checked, Austric was a hypothetical mother language that gave rise to Austro-asian and Austronesian languages. To why phenotype does Austric describe?
LOL As seen (not surprisingly), Clyde has automatically equates the Australoid and Austric terms with "negroid", even though the anthropologists themselves did not even use the term! Which comes to show the speciousness of racial terms altogether or just Clyde's wishful thinking.
Oh, just an interesting thought but there is a certain enclave of Dravidian speaking tribes living in the Nilgiri Hills of southern India. Several of these tribes in particular, such as the Toda and Kota peoples, have cultural peculiarities about them that differ from other Dravidian speakers and are strikingly reminiscent of Mesopotamia. The Toda are a pastoral people who live in thatched barrel shaped homes and the men and women wear embroidered shawls similar to Bronze Age Sumerians. In fact there is a popular theory that these peoples are the descendants of Sumerians.
Toda
Posted by Tyrannosaurus (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: As always we must try to dissect what these 'racial' discriptions mean. We know "Armenoid" refers to the fair-skinned Middle-Eastern types common in that region today, so what of the other terms? "Australoid" refers to features akin to those of Australian aborignals but what does "Austric" mean?? Last time I checked, Austric was a hypothetical mother language that gave rise to Austro-asian and Austronesian languages. To why phenotype does Austric describe?
Actually, "Austrics" are a heterogeneous blend of various peoples, primarily East Asians, "Australoids" (people who look like Australian aborigines), and "Oceanic Negroids" (I think this term refers to Andamanese). They generally have brown skin, wide noses, full lips, and thick hair. Polynesians and Filipinos probably have some Austric ancestry as well.
PS1: you said that "[black-skinned people] are [aboriginal] to every other tropical to sub-tropical region of the world.", but what about tropical Amerindians? I have seen one Mayan mural depicting darker-skinned people (link, though the features aren't much different from typical Amerindians), but I have seen no evidence that people that dark were present elsewhere in the New World.
PS2: I wonder, is it possible that the Indo-European migrations may be responsible for the gradual "de-blackening" of southwest Asia? Although the predominant language phylum in the region is Afro-Asiatic, I would think it possible that Indo-European migrants from Central Asia had a genetic impact on the native inhabitants. The only problem is that while I can see Mesopotamian and Levantine populations affected by such movements, I have a more difficult time imagining such effect on Arabians like Yemenis or Omanis---unless those populations are descended from backward-migrating Semites after this hypothetical mixture.
Posted by neokem (Member # 13211) on :
What the heck is "eurafrican"?
Posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh* (Member # 13372) on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^Winters' far flung far-fetched linguistics aside, I am very well aware of the study on Sumerian remains. In fact this comes at no surprise considering that black skinned peoples were aboriginal to the Mesopotamian area just as they are to every other tropical to sub-tropical region of the world. We all know the Elamites were black and there are many painted depictions of them, but what many people do not know is that there also survives some painted depictions and portraits in which the also Sumerians depicted themselves as black. In fact I have read from a few sources that speak of an early Sumerian king's tomb in which the king and many of his people are painted in very dark color (black). One of these sources was from Diop's Origins book and the others from not so well known books whose titles I've long forgotten.
Keep in mind that the first advanced cultures in Mesopotamia was not founded by the Sumerians or people speaking Sumerians languages but by predecessors living in the river valley *before* the Sumerians settled there. These indigenous people were named Ubadians after the discovery of their first site al-Ubaid. It does not take much to realize that these Ubaidians were the original black peoples of Mesopotamia who were soon assimilated by lighter-skinned "Armenoid" (light-skinned Middle-Eastern) types you see today.
The second study concerns physical examination of Sumerian skulls. Buxton and Rice have found that of 26 Sumerian crania they examined 22 were Australoid or Austrics. Further According to Penniman who studied skulls from other Sumerian sites, the Australoid Eurafrican, Austric and Armenoid were the "racial" types associated with the Sumerians. Here is Penniman's description of the Austric type found at Sumer:
"These people are of medium stature, with complexion and hair like those of the Eurafrican, to which race they are allied with dark eyes, and oval faces, broad noses, rather feeble jaws, and slight sinewy bodies."
As always we must try to dissect what these 'racial' discriptions mean. We know "Armenoid" refers to the fair-skinned Middle-Eastern types common in that region today, so what of the other terms? "Australoid" refers to features akin to those of Australian aborignals but what does "Austric" mean?? Last time I checked, Austric was a hypothetical mother language that gave rise to Austro-asian and Austronesian languages. To why phenotype does Austric describe?
LOL As seen (not surprisingly), Clyde has automatically equates the Australoid and Austric terms with "negroid", even though the anthropologists themselves did not even use the term! Which comes to show the speciousness of racial terms altogether or just Clyde's wishful thinking.
Oh, just an interesting thought but there is a certain enclave of Dravidian speaking tribes living in the Nilgiri Hills of southern India. Several of these tribes in particular, such as the Toda and Kota peoples, have cultural peculiarities about them that differ from other Dravidian speakers and are strikingly reminiscent of Mesopotamia. The Toda are a pastoral people who live in thatched barrel shaped homes and the men and women wear embroidered shawls similar to Bronze Age Sumerians. In fact there is a popular theory that these peoples are the descendants of Sumerians.
I have never seen this where are these black pictures of Sumerians?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^I have only seen one picture from a book, the rest I have not seen at all but only read from other books. I seriously doubt you'll find that kind of stuff easily in the information stream.
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannosaurus: Actually, "Austrics" are a heterogeneous blend of various peoples, primarily East Asians, "Australoids" (people who look like Australian aborigines), and "Oceanic Negroids" (I think this term refers to Andamanese). They generally have brown skin, wide noses, full lips, and thick hair. Polynesians and Filipinos probably have some Austric ancestry as well.
So term is suppose to describe 'admixture'. What's funny is that the features you describe are found among countless populations from Africa all the way to the Pacific. Filipinos and other Southeast Asians share lineages with other East Asians although some do have mixed ancestry with aboriginal groups but not so much as Polynesians who have greater number of lineages which they share with aboriginal groups.
quote:PS1: you said that "[black-skinned people] are [aboriginal] to every other tropical to sub-tropical region of the world.", but what about tropical Amerindians? I have seen one Mayan mural depicting darker-skinned people (link, though the features aren't much different from typical Amerindians), but I have seen no evidence that people that dark were present elsewhere in the New World.
Because Native Americans (I prefer this term over Amerindians-- 'Indians') for the most part were recent immigrants to the tropics of the Americas which is why most are relatively light-skinned in comparison to 'black' groups. However, we do have evidence that there existed older populations in the Americas that may very well have travelled through the Pacific. And I myself have seen in a few occasions Mexicans whose complexions are that dark in approach to the Mayan tomb paintings!
quote:PS2: I wonder, is it possible that the Indo-European migrations may be responsible for the gradual "de-blackening" of southwest Asia? Although the predominant language phylum in the region is Afro-Asiatic, I would think it possible that Indo-European migrants from Central Asia had a genetic impact on the native inhabitants. The only problem is that while I can see Mesopotamian and Levantine populations affected by such movements, I have a more difficult time imagining such effect on Arabians like Yemenis or Omanis---unless those populations are descended from backward-migrating Semites after this hypothetical mixture.
Indo-Europeans could hardly be blamed for anything in Southwest Asia except for Iran where Indo-European languages exist. However, there has been no evidence of Indo-European speakers being present in the rest of the area except for the Mitanni elite of Assyria who spoke Indo-Aryan languages but then vanished. All in all, the major languages of Southwest Asia are Semitic which originated in Africa yet most of the speakers don't look African. Further more, the language of the Sumerians who displaced the original Ubadians was not Indo-European either, and there is no association between the lighter-skinned "Armenoid" type and Indo-European. In fact we have little in anthropology to associate with Indo-Europeans at all other than language and culture, not even in Europe.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: What makes Sumerian civilization the oldest in the world? How are you defining a 'civilization'?
Same thing that makes it a part of western civilization, same thing that makes km.t mean black soil.
Some people are just passive minded, proned to repeating what they are told, averse to stopping and asking: Does this make sense?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ For the Sumerian region "intelligible written records begin at about 3000 BC. From these, and from archaeological research, it is evident that even at this early period there were large cities with splendid temples and elaborately-planned houses.
Stone-carving was well-developed, also metal-working and the fashioning of jewelry.
Extensive foreign trade contributed lapis-lazuli from Afghanistan, shells from the Persian Gulf and rare stones such as calcite, obsidian and diorite, none of which are found in southern Mesopotamia.
But in the early Dynastic Period there was no unified state of Sumer, unlike Egypt which had become unified by 3200 BC. - Leonard Cottrell, The Quest for Sumer
Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
The study defines "Eurafrican" to mean dolichocephalic. I'm a little weary of the analysis, though, since only some 26 skulls were analyzed, and it hasn't been taken up by other researchers. Of the skulls 17 were Eurafrican, 5 Austric, and 4 Armenoid. They therefore reclassified the Eurafrican ones as Australoid. Remember that this study you guys are talking about is from the 1920s.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yom: The study defines "Eurafrican" to mean dolichocephalic. I'm a little weary of the analysis, though, since only some 26 skulls were analyzed, and it hasn't been taken up by other researchers. Of the skulls 17 were Eurafrican, 5 Austric, and 4 Armenoid. They therefore reclassified the Eurafrican ones as Australoid. Remember that this study you guys are talking about is from the 1920s.
The terms: Eurafrican, Old Mediterranean, Anatolian and Armenoid are euphemisms for the so-called "Brown Race" "Dynastic Race", "Hamitic Race",and etc., which racist Europeans claimed were the founders of civilization in Africa. Poe (1997), Keita (1993,1996), Carlson and Gerven (1979)and MacGaffey (1970) have made it clear that these people were Africans or Negroes with so-called 'caucasian features' resulting from genetic drift and microevolution (Keita, 1996; Poe, 1997).
These terms along with Armenoid-Bushman were used to describe blacks that just so happen to be "caucasians/whites" according to many anthropologist back-in-the-day, and therefore not Black African/Sub-Saharan Blacks and etc.
.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^Yes, but unfortunately you fail to realize that even this study of Sumerian remains alone is valid enough to show that such dolicephalic features are not found soley among Africans but various other populations around the world who have no close or recent relation to Africans at all, let alone broad noses and lips etc.
Posted by maa'-kherew (Member # 13358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^Winters' far flung far-fetched linguistics aside, I am very well aware of the study on Sumerian remains. In fact this comes at no surprise considering that black skinned peoples were aboriginal to the Mesopotamian area just as they are to every other tropical to sub-tropical region of the world. We all know the Elamites were black and there are many painted depictions of them, but what many people do not know is that there also survives some painted depictions and portraits in which the also Sumerians depicted themselves as black. In fact I have read from a few sources that speak of an early Sumerian king's tomb in which the king and many of his people are painted in very dark color (black). One of these sources was from Diop's Origins book and the others from not so well known books whose titles I've long forgotten.
Keep in mind that the first advanced cultures in Mesopotamia was not founded by the Sumerians or people speaking Sumerians languages but by predecessors living in the river valley *before* the Sumerians settled there. These indigenous people were named Ubadians after the discovery of their first site al-Ubaid. It does not take much to realize that these Ubaidians were the original black peoples of Mesopotamia who were soon assimilated by lighter-skinned "Armenoid" (light-skinned Middle-Eastern) types you see today.
The second study concerns physical examination of Sumerian skulls. Buxton and Rice have found that of 26 Sumerian crania they examined 22 were Australoid or Austrics. Further According to Penniman who studied skulls from other Sumerian sites, the Australoid Eurafrican, Austric and Armenoid were the "racial" types associated with the Sumerians. Here is Penniman's description of the Austric type found at Sumer:
"These people are of medium stature, with complexion and hair like those of the Eurafrican, to which race they are allied with dark eyes, and oval faces, broad noses, rather feeble jaws, and slight sinewy bodies."
As always we must try to dissect what these 'racial' discriptions mean. We know "Armenoid" refers to the fair-skinned Middle-Eastern types common in that region today, so what of the other terms? "Australoid" refers to features akin to those of Australian aborignals but what does "Austric" mean?? Last time I checked, Austric was a hypothetical mother language that gave rise to Austro-asian and Austronesian languages. To why phenotype does Austric describe?
LOL As seen (not surprisingly), Clyde has automatically equates the Australoid and Austric terms with "negroid", even though the anthropologists themselves did not even use the term! Which comes to show the speciousness of racial terms altogether or just Clyde's wishful thinking.
Oh, just an interesting thought but there is a certain enclave of Dravidian speaking tribes living in the Nilgiri Hills of southern India. Several of these tribes in particular, such as the Toda and Kota peoples, have cultural peculiarities about them that differ from other Dravidian speakers and are strikingly reminiscent of Mesopotamia. The Toda are a pastoral people who live in thatched barrel shaped homes and the men and women wear embroidered shawls similar to Bronze Age Sumerians. In fact there is a popular theory that these peoples are the descendants of Sumerians.
Toda
And those people are supposed to be Black? GTFOH
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by maa'-kherew:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^Winters' far flung far-fetched linguistics aside, I am very well aware of the study on Sumerian remains. In fact this comes at no surprise considering that black skinned peoples were aboriginal to the Mesopotamian area just as they are to every other tropical to sub-tropical region of the world. We all know the Elamites were black and there are many painted depictions of them, but what many people do not know is that there also survives some painted depictions and portraits in which the also Sumerians depicted themselves as black. In fact I have read from a few sources that speak of an early Sumerian king's tomb in which the king and many of his people are painted in very dark color (black). One of these sources was from Diop's Origins book and the others from not so well known books whose titles I've long forgotten.
Keep in mind that the first advanced cultures in Mesopotamia was not founded by the Sumerians or people speaking Sumerians languages but by predecessors living in the river valley *before* the Sumerians settled there. These indigenous people were named Ubadians after the discovery of their first site al-Ubaid. It does not take much to realize that these Ubaidians were the original black peoples of Mesopotamia who were soon assimilated by lighter-skinned "Armenoid" (light-skinned Middle-Eastern) types you see today.
The second study concerns physical examination of Sumerian skulls. Buxton and Rice have found that of 26 Sumerian crania they examined 22 were Australoid or Austrics. Further According to Penniman who studied skulls from other Sumerian sites, the Australoid Eurafrican, Austric and Armenoid were the "racial" types associated with the Sumerians. Here is Penniman's description of the Austric type found at Sumer:
"These people are of medium stature, with complexion and hair like those of the Eurafrican, to which race they are allied with dark eyes, and oval faces, broad noses, rather feeble jaws, and slight sinewy bodies."
As always we must try to dissect what these 'racial' discriptions mean. We know "Armenoid" refers to the fair-skinned Middle-Eastern types common in that region today, so what of the other terms? "Australoid" refers to features akin to those of Australian aborignals but what does "Austric" mean?? Last time I checked, Austric was a hypothetical mother language that gave rise to Austro-asian and Austronesian languages. To why phenotype does Austric describe?
LOL As seen (not surprisingly), Clyde has automatically equates the Australoid and Austric terms with "negroid", even though the anthropologists themselves did not even use the term! Which comes to show the speciousness of racial terms altogether or just Clyde's wishful thinking.
Oh, just an interesting thought but there is a certain enclave of Dravidian speaking tribes living in the Nilgiri Hills of southern India. Several of these tribes in particular, such as the Toda and Kota peoples, have cultural peculiarities about them that differ from other Dravidian speakers and are strikingly reminiscent of Mesopotamia. The Toda are a pastoral people who live in thatched barrel shaped homes and the men and women wear embroidered shawls similar to Bronze Age Sumerians. In fact there is a popular theory that these peoples are the descendants of Sumerians.
Toda
And those people are supposed to be Black? GTFOH
Yes
Posted by Jothi Pragasam (Member # 13420) on :
Sumeriams were Thiravidians, that is, Dravidians. Thiravidians were the people who implanted their well-developed New Stone Age Civililization in Sumeria.
Thiravidian Civilization is the most ancient civilization of the world. History of the Ancient Civiliztions has to be studied anew starting from Tamil Nadu in the Indian Union.
anpudan, Jothi Pragasam.
Posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh* (Member # 13372) on :
What the hell is a Thiravidian?!?!?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^I have no idea (what Thiravidians are)! But sounds like a pseudo-scientific theory based on Indian nationalism.
And to Jaime: the Toda people are for the most part 'black' however some have mixed with lighter-skinned peoples like the Badanga people who live in the same area. Unless you deny the man in the first old black-and-white photo to be 'black'(?) Unfortunately there aren't a lot of pictures of Toda people in the net.
Interestingly enough, like many black aboriginal people (and even some Africans like 'Horners'), admixture with lighter peoples usually yield very light skin progeny who are very different in complexion from their black parents or ancestors.
Which reminds me that in another thread you presented a couple of pics of relatively light-skinned Vedda people of Sri-Lanka in attempt to show that these people were not black.
You failed to show these other pics:
Nice job lying, I mean denying that the indigenous people of this region were black also. Posted by Tyrannosaurus (Member # 3735) on :
Where do most Indians come from? I think they are descended from a hyrbidization of "Australoids" and Indo-European-speaking Central Asians.
I also have a theory that "Australoids" represent the phenotype of the first of our species. You'll notice that many of them have prominent brow-ridges, a characteristic not commonly found in other Homo sapiens[/b] groups but very common in other human species (e.g. Neanderthals). Are they the last remnants of primitive [i]Homo sapiens?
Posted by Jothi Pragasam (Member # 13420) on :
Thiravidians, or dravidians were the first human beings on earth. They were a black race and are at present inhabiting the Sothern part of the Indian Subcontinent. It is from here that human beings spread all over the earth. The Noah (NV)of the Bible was none but a Thiravidian.
The Euro-centred theory of the Aryan, or the Indo-European race is absolutely false.
anpudan, Jothi Pragasam.
Posted by maa'-kherew (Member # 13358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^I have no idea (what Thiravidians are)! But sounds like a pseudo-scientific theory based on Indian nationalism.
And to Jaime: the Toda people are for the most part 'black' however some have mixed with lighter-skinned peoples like the Badanga people who live in the same area. Unless you deny the man in the first old black-and-white photo to be 'black'(?) Unfortunately there aren't a lot of pictures of Toda people in the net.
Interestingly enough, like many black aboriginal people (and even some Africans like 'Horners'), admixture with lighter peoples usually yield very light skin progeny who are very different in complexion from their black parents or ancestors.
Which reminds me that in another thread you presented a couple of pics of relatively light-skinned Vedda people of Sri-Lanka in attempt to show that these people were not black.
You failed to show these other pics:
Nice job lying, I mean denying that the indigenous people of this region were black also.
Wishful thinking will not help you. I never stated that there weren't dark skinned populations in India. I showed that in the Vedda there is variation. And none of them are Black. None of them identify as such, and their color is brown, nice try. And as for lying, I have posted dark skinned people of India before. So the only liar here is you. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005011
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannosaurus: Where do most Indians come from? I think they are descended from a hyrbidization of "Australoids" and Indo-European-speaking Central Asians.
The populations of the Indian subcontinent are diverse with multiple lineages, some recent but most ancient. lineages from Central Asia are quite limited in India and are largely present in the northwest as expected, but there is no evidence that the R1 present there has anything to do with Indo-Euorpean speakers.
quote:I also have a theory that "Australoids" represent the phenotype of the first of our species. You'll notice that many of them have prominent brow-ridges, a characteristic not commonly found in other Homo sapiens groups but very common in other human species (e.g. Neanderthals). Are they the last remnants of primitive Homo sapiens?
Actually prominent brow-ridges are just another trait of robusticity which is also present among some peoples in Africa and indeed was found among the earliest homo-sapien remains of Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Jothi Pragasam: Thiravidians, or dravidians were the first human beings on earth. They were a black race and are at present inhabiting the Sothern part of the Indian Subcontinent. It is from here that human beings spread all over the earth. The Noah (NV)of the Bible was none but a Thiravidian.
The Euro-centred theory of the Aryan, or the Indo-European race is absolutely false.
anpudan, Jothi Pragasam.
^Of course the Indo-European race theory is false, but your Thiravidian claims are just as false and just as I suspected a knee-jerk reaction to the former theory. It has been proven that humans originated from Africa via anthropological remains as well as genetics.
quote:posted by mixed-up troll: Wishful thinking will not help you. I never stated that there weren't dark skinned populations in India. I showed that in the Vedda there is variation. And none of them are Black. None of them identify as such, and their color is brown, nice try. And as for lying, I have posted dark skinned people of India before. So the only liar here is you. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005011
LMAO The only wishful thinking is done by YOU. Of course there is variation in the Vedda especially due to recent migrations from the mainland. And their "brown" color is lighter than some West Africans who are called 'black'. So the only liar around here is YOU. You lie to others and you even lie to yourself. So keep it up! Posted by maa'-kherew (Member # 13358) on :
quote:Confused Duhoohoo states LMAO The only wishful thinking is done by YOU. Of course there is variation in the Vedda especially due to recent migrations from the mainland. And their "brown" color is lighter than some West Africans who are called 'black'. So the only liar around here is YOU. You lie to others and you even lie to yourself. So keep it up!
Wrong again. It's called clinal variation and admixture is not the reason for all variation. It is funny how you will claim that for Egypt clinal variation explains everything but for India you try to claim the opposite. Their brown color varies in the same range as that of Africa, from light brown like the KhoiSan to dark brown. In fact, the lighter skin in India is as autoctonous as that of Egypt, even though Egypt and India have had migration from outside as well. Sorry bub, that some Africans choose to adopt the European label of Black, doesn't mean Indians did. Even if your supposed theory that African people always identified as Black were true, which it isn't, again that does not apply to the Indian experience. So dream on. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:It's called clinal variation and admixture is not the reason for all variation
Another strawman argument. The only one who associates variation always with 'mixture' is you.
quote:In fact, the lighter skin in India is as autoctonous as that of Egypt.
This is another false statement by banned troll.
Modern Egypt is not ancient Egypt and many of its peoples are of Turkish, Roman, Greek, Jewish, Syrian and Arab ancestry.
In physical appearance, many of these resemble Aamu [Asiatics] and do not much resemble native Nile Valley Africans.
As for India, there are sex chromosome studies that that suggest that India's populations are largely indigenous, but no skin color studies to show whether it's lightest skin populations may have the same mutations for skin color as European or not.
However there have been studies correlating darker skin in 'southern Europeans' with high levels of African ancestry.
So whether admixture is at play depends upon the context.
Posted by Jothi Pragasam (Member # 13420) on :
Have you ever cared to consider the theory of Lumuria - a huge continent that existed long ago cosisting of Asia, Australia, South America and Africa? The climatic conditions suitable for the development of human species and civlization existed only in the ancient South India.
I am sure that you never cared to acqaint youself with the archaeological findings related to the Thiravidian civilization.
Tamil is the most ancient language in the world but you would never care to know about it because you are rooted in the European colonial attitude!
History is not a subject for those who are slavish in their spirit.
anpudan, Jothi Pragasam.
Posted by maa'-kherew (Member # 13358) on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rasol: Another strawman argument. The only one who associates variation always with 'mixture' is you. Nice try. Any one who reads and actually isn't biased like you would have noticed i mention clinal variation as well as admixture. You guys are selective when you mention it only when convenient to you Afrocentric arguments.
Modern Egypt is not ancient Egypt and many of its peoples are of Turkish, Roman, Greek, Jewish, Syrian and Arab ancestry.
Many foreigners in many places. But that doesn't mean it accounts for their color variation. Most studies show that there wasn't any vast replacement of population
and do not much resemble native Nile Valley Africans.
So you claim. But many just resemble lighter Native Africans.
As for India, there are sex chromosome studies that that suggest that India's populations are largely indigenous, but no skin color studies to show whether it's lightest skin populations may have the same mutations for skin color as European or not.
So you have lack of proof for a mutation, and Djehuti has lack of proof for admixture. Tweedly dumb and Tweedly Dumber strike out again.
However there have been studies correlating darker skin in 'southern Europeans' with high levels of African ancestry.
Hardly. Just lack of the mutation for light skin, as all of them have African ancestry. All Europeans didn't lighten in the same amounts. SOme admixture may account for some populations being darker but not all. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^LOL I never said that the lighter-skin appearance was due to peoples from outside of India. Rather its moreso due to peoples from the northern most areas of the subcontinent whose phenotype is predominant in those areas.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by maa'-kherew:
Many foreigners in many places. But that doesn't mean it accounts for their color variation. Most studies show that there wasn't any vast replacement of population
Concerning DNA testing on Modern Egyptians:
" The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years." - Prof. Keita http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=318&mforum=africa
quote:Originally posted by maa'-kherew:
Hardly. Just lack of the mutation for light skin, as all of them have African ancestry. All Europeans didn't lighten in the same amounts. SOme admixture may account for some populations being darker but not all.
^Maybe not all(and we're speculating here), but probably most...
Using common sense from observation, Greeks are darker (on average) than Scandinavians. Given this common knowledge is it only a coincidence that Greeks have more recent African ancestry, suggesting that there's no correlation between their skin color and recent ancestry? Highly improbable since non-Africans are no where near as variable as Africans..
Conclusion: Rasol is right, you're wrong..
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Interestingly enough, like many black aboriginal people (and even some Africans like 'Horners'), admixture with lighter peoples usually yield very light skin progeny who are very different in complexion from their black parents or ancestors.
Hmm ... interesting.
Is there any reason why that is? Does anyone know if there's any means of telling whether certain genes are less dominant, besides observation/"plug and chug"?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I don't know, but Yonis made a similar thread here concerning East Africans from the Horn.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
Bumping this...
I wonder if there have been more recent bio-anthropological studies on ancient Sumerians. Maybe I'll ask SOY Keita that if I find his e-mail address again.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I also suggest you look up info on the neolithic culture of Mesopotamia known as Ubadian.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
Another thing I am curious about is that if the early Mesopotamians were black, then when did lighter-skinned people enter the region? I'm guessing it started with the Gutians, who came from the Zagros Mountains.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ That topic was discussed before here. But I doubt they came from the Zagros which is only a few hundred miles away. The theory is that they originated further north either in the Caucasus, or Anatolia, or Central Asia, or some combination of these regions.
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
zarahan
Thanks for this Study.
What I gather from what is studied is that there is no direct way of learning about the Ethnicity of the Sumerians. They were a coming together of Peoples from diverse backgrounds.
So since the people doing the study could not come to a conclusion, I suspect that they found many of the bones to be linked with Blacks of India or Africa and they just want to make people more comfortable about these TRUTHS before they come out and admit it. Really should not be a shock, look how long they have been covering up Ancient Egypts ethnicity.
They are really nervous about putting out anything that posits Blacks as anything else then slaves. Sad
Peace
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
Means little; according to the Oxford mainstream crowd the AEs are still a "contested race".
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
anguishofbeing
Thats the sad thing about breaking barriers. It takes time for change to be acknoweledged and we see alot of people jumping through hoops to twist and turn the TRUTH to serve their purpose.
It's not an easy road to trod, but we can make a difference by pressing the mainstream with right and to the point questions that forces the TRUTH out of them.
Peace
Posted by EverybodyHatesTooti (Member # 17690) on :
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: Means little; according to the Oxford mainstream crowd the AEs are still a "contested race".
DO YOU EVER SHUT UP? SLEEP? SO ANYTHING NORMAL? RACIST
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Eurafrican was an old term that referred to the old mediterranean type which is euphamism for Negro, just like the term Armenoid.
You asked an important question. The answers to this questions are not simple but I will try and explain. The Elamites, Sumerians, Tamil and Mande speakers formerly lived in the Sahara. In ancient times these people were called Kushites, and were related to the C-Group people.
When we compare lexical items from these languages we can see the similarities. These languages also share many cognate terms.
ENGLISH SUMERIAN MANDING TAMIL chief kal,kala keletigi gasa(n) field gan ga kalan eye(l) igi akki eye(2) ini,en nya kan arrow kak kala kakam granary kur k'urk'ur kutir road sila sila caalai father pap pa appan lord manus mansa mannan male mu moko maakkal to recite sid siti to buy sa sa cel grain se se seed gen ge 'to sprout'
═════════════════════════λ 2;═════════════════════════ 552;═════════════ English Dravidian Manding top, summit kona kun one ondu do two pattu ta four naal nani person uki moko fish(filet) bale bake skin uri wuru,guru house lon lu head kuku ku tongue na ne blacksmith inumu numu foot karal koro liver karal kura mud burada boro, buru give idu di stone kaly kulu cloud kaar ka, kaba fire ti ta mountain kunru kuru elder,grandfather maama maamaa ═════════════════════════λ 2;═════════════════════════ 552;═════════════ ELAMITE ENGLISH MANDING ak and ka turna know, awaken kuna, fori sahri death sa murta to erect kura mar from a place ma li give di tela to go tara Nap God Nala tus habitation du husu illomened dyugu kuta lance keru lan,lani silver dala ki one killi ta place ta kik sky,heaven ka sari sculpter se ufat steel tuufa tela to go ta khali great ka dau help deema ko king,lord ka na say na para to watch fereke
As you can see Mande shares many terms with both Sumerian and Tamil. Although they share lexical items we can also see differences between the three languages. These differences probably are the result of the migration patterns of these groups into Asia. The historical research make it clear that the Sumerians left Africa first. They would have interacted with the Ubaid people who were the rulers of Mesopotamia when the Sumerians arrived. Naturally these two different people would have exchanged lexical items.
The Tamil speakers settled the Indus Valley. Another group of Tamil speakers along with Mande speaking people landed in Iran founded the Elamite civilization and migrated from there across Central Asia into China and beyond in search of metals. The Tamil speaking Tamil used a syllabic script.
When we compare monosyllabic Tamil and Sumerian terms we see great similarities, that prove the genetic relations between these two languages which Loga refers to as Sumero-Tamil. After the fall of the Harappan civilization the Tamil speaking people began to migrate into South India.
In China the Tamil founded the Shang civilization. They were defeated by the Shang-Anyang people who spoke Austro-Asiatic languages.
The Tamil migrated into Yunnan Province and from there into Southeast Asia which was probably sparsely occupied at this time by Austro-Asiatic speaking people. As the Hua or Han people forced the Austro-Asiatic people from North China, some Austro-Asiatic people began to push the Tamil speakers across Southeast Asia into India.
Many of the Austro-Asiatic people were still living in India .During the interactions between the Austro-Asiatic and Tamil speakers there was probably an exchange of lexical items as a result of bilingualism in Southeast Asia and later India.
The Austro-Asiatic speakers mainly remained in the North, while the Tamil from Southeast Asia probably continued southward to join the Tamil speakers of the Indus Valley who were by then living in South India.Other Dravidian speaking people probably entered India from the land mass that formerly connected India and Africa.
As a result of these migrations we can explain the differences in lexical items between Sumerian and Tamil by possible periods of bilingualism among Austro-Asiatic and Tamil speakers, and Sumerian and Ubaid speakers.
There is also a close relationship between the Austronesian /Polynesian, Manding and Tamil languages:
English Austronesian Tamil Manding
house,building *balay gibu,pura fa, ba
write *surat carru sewe
iron,metal *bari irumpu bara 'tongs of the blacksmith'
cultivate,arable land *babaw bey,benni be
yam *qubi kiranku,kuni ku
garden *qumah kalli ka
dog *wasu ori wuru
canoe,boat *qaban kalam kulu
holy man *datu,tu'i tuyan tu
deity ku ko ku
high chief mana mannan mansa
unit of land mo'o man ma
fallow land *talun natu dugu
pondfield lo'i pulam
stone chisel ko'i kere
The cognition of these languages is not surprising given the affinity between the Dravidian languages in spoken Southeast Asia and the Pacific.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
Although they may have had the same root I believe Elam and Tamil left Africa long before the development of C-group which was one of the later expressions of the Red and Black ware culture.
From what I've read C-group people were also largely pastoralists affiliated with both bovidian Libyan culture and pastoralist Sudanic cultures.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Although they may have had the same root I believe Elam and Tamil left Africa long before the development of C-group which was one of the later expressions of the Red and Black ware culture.
From what I've read C-group people were also largely pastoralists affiliated with both bovidian Libyan culture and pastoralist Sudanic cultures.
What is your evidence for this proposition?
.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Although they may have had the same root I believe Elam and Tamil left Africa long before the development of C-group which was one of the later expressions of the Red and Black ware culture.
From what I've read C-group people were also largely pastoralists affiliated with both bovidian Libyan culture and pastoralist Sudanic cultures.
What is your evidence for this proposition?
.
The first and most important evidence is that Elam dates long before the C-group culture and thus if it is related it must have have the same source as the C group somewhere in the Sahara. I get that source from what has been discovered found about the neolithic Saharan culture and its relationship to C-group and early Nubian/Nilotic culture, i.e. A - group, Amratian, Naqqada etc.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
Bump.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
Deleted.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
I don't think the average sumerian was black in 4000b.c to 2000b.c for example,but i don't think most were white either. Now some were black and some were white. Most were brown phenotype wise.
Anyway anybody else want to post what race the average sumerian looked like?
Note- i posted 4000b.c because that's the start of sumerian civilization,so even if most were black in mesopotamia it was way back in the past or before sumerian civilization in mesopotamia.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I agree with your assessment. I think the average Sumerian was a "brown" type. The "Australoid" phenotype in discussion is mostly associated with Proto-Euphrateans who preceded the Sumerians.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I agree with your assessment. I think the average Sumerian was a "brown" type. The "Australoid" phenotype in discussion is mostly associated with Proto-Euphrateans who preceded the Sumerians.
As of 2022, I agree. And those "Australoids" in all probability were people of a phenotype similar to the early UP/LSA colonists of Arabia from Africa, not necessarily close relatives of modern Australasians.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I'm curious as to how much related to Africans they were if any. Perhaps 'Basal Eurasian'?
What is known is that the Proto-Euphrateans did have 'southern' features.
'Excavations at Kish' (1931): Buxton and Rice on Sumerian remains- "The forehead was retreating and the brow ridges were always prominent, the cheek bones were rather broad and the nose also was broad, in some case inclining to extreme platyrrhine… There can be no doubt that this type is that which has been described by Sergi, Giuffrida-Ruggeri, and Fleure, and named the Eurafican type…" T.K. Penniman- "First there is the Eurafrican.. In ancient times, this type is found in Mesopotamia and Egypt and may be compared with the Ombe Capelle skull. It is possibly identical with men who lived in the high desert west of the Nile in paleolithic times.."
Interestingly, the author of the last source above makes note of similarities to peoples of India that tend to get glossed over. This also makes me think of the Arab-Indian HBS gene that may be another clue to ancient African connections.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
A thread....
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Here's an interesting study on the Marsh Arabs of southern Iraq who are presumed to be the closest descendants of the Sumerians:
In search of the genetic footprints of Sumerians: a survey of Y-chromosome and mtDNA variation in the Marsh Arabs of Iraq Abstract Background For millennia, the southern part of the Mesopotamia has been a wetland region generated by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers before flowing into the Gulf. This area has been occupied by human communities since ancient times and the present-day inhabitants, the Marsh Arabs, are considered the population with the strongest link to ancient Sumerians. Popular tradition, however, considers the Marsh Arabs as a foreign group, of unknown origin, which arrived in the marshlands when the rearing of water buffalo was introduced to the region.
Results To shed some light on the paternal and maternal origin of this population, Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variation was surveyed in 143 Marsh Arabs and in a large sample of Iraqi controls. Analyses of the haplogroups and sub-haplogroups observed in the Marsh Arabs revealed a prevalent autochthonous Middle Eastern component for both male and female gene pools, with weak South-West Asian and African contributions, more evident in mtDNA. A higher male than female homogeneity is characteristic of the Marsh Arab gene pool, likely due to a strong male genetic drift determined by socio-cultural factors (patrilocality, polygamy, unequal male and female migration rates).
Conclusions Evidence of genetic stratification ascribable to the Sumerian development was provided by the Y-chromosome data where the J1-Page08 branch reveals a local expansion, almost contemporary with the Sumerian City State period that characterized Southern Mesopotamia. On the other hand, a more ancient background shared with Northern Mesopotamia is revealed by the less represented Y-chromosome lineage J1-M267*. Overall our results indicate that the introduction of water buffalo breeding and rice farming, most likely from the Indian sub-continent, only marginally affected the gene pool of autochthonous people of the region. Furthermore, a prevalent Middle Eastern ancestry of the modern population of the marshes of southern Iraq implies that if the Marsh Arabs are descendants of the ancient Sumerians, also the Sumerians were most likely autochthonous and not of Indian or South Asian ancestry.
Go to: Background The Near East is well known for its important role in human history, particularly as a theatre for great historical events that changed the face of the world during the Neolithic period. The temperate climate and fertile soil brought by the continuous flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, made the Mesopotamian region ideal for early revolutions in agriculture and farming. In particular, the southern part of Mesopotamia (the delta between the two rivers in the present day southern Iraq) has been historically known as the Garden of Eden (biblical name) or Sumer Land, the land of Abraham.
The Mesopotamian civilization originated around the 4th millennium BC in the low course of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. This alluvial territory, which emerged progressively by soil sedimentation, attracted different populations from the northern and eastern mountains but, whereas traces of their culture are present in the territory, as documented by the Ubaid-Eridu pottery, nothing is available for their identification. Only two groups of populations arrived later and in larger number leaved historical records: Sumerian and Semitic groups. The Sumerians, who spoke an isolated language not correlated to any linguistic family, are the most ancient group living in the region for which we have historical evidence. They occupied the delta between the two rivers in the southern part of the present Iraq, one of the oldest inhabited wetland environments. The Semitic groups were semi-nomadic people who spoke a Semitic language and lived in the northern area of the Syro-Arabian desert breeding small animals. From here, they reached Mesopotamia where they settled among the pre-existing populations. The Semitic people, more numerous in the north, and the Sumerians, more represented in the south, after having adsorbed the pre-existing populations, melted their cultures laying the basis of the western civilization. Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
Would be nice to get aDNA from Mesopotamia, both from Sumerians and their predecessors.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
