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.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
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..
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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?
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
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'?
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^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.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
'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.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
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..
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
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!
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^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
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
[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?
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^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.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ 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
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
-------------------- "Oh the sons of Ethiopia; observe with care; the country called Ethiopia is, first, your mother; second, your throne; third, your wife; fourth, your child; fifth, your grave." - Ras Alula Aba Nega. Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
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
^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.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 169 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 3 | From: Tamil Nadu, Indian Union | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^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. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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.
Posts: 3 | From: Tamil Nadu, Indian Union | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
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 Posts: 169 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
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! Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.Posts: 169 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3 | From: Tamil Nadu, Indian Union | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
[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. Posts: 169 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^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.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
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..
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
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"?
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I don't know, but Yonis made a similar thread here concerning East Africans from the Horn.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I also suggest you look up info on the neolithic culture of Mesopotamia known as Ubadian.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
^ 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.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic