Postby gurey25 » Tue Sep 09, 2008 7:48 pm
Grant i always have an open mind but the author of this work is clearly a afrocentrist.
and is confused.. skin tone and race are entirely different things.
A somali and a Tamil are so far away genetically that a the average scandinavian shares more haplotypes
with a somali than any south indian, yet you will find many somalis who look tamil and vice versa.
Phenotype or apearance does not usually go with genotype....
Kushites probably did inhabit all the way to the caucusus but the Elamites were more likely to be the ancesters of the Dravidians(tamils etc).
The Sumerians were probably Dravidians as dravidian languages are the only ones to have even a small similiarity to Sumerian..
Anthropologists tended to look at the nieghbouring peoples but found no links between Sumerians and Caucasian langauges, and none between indo-iranian or even Afro-asiatic.
If there were any Dark skinned people in Mesopotamia they were probably Dark skinned Indians
as they have been proven to have lived all the way to the Oxus river and dravidian people still survive in Pakistan, and there were stories of dark skinned indians tribes surviving in tiny settelments in the ferghana valley but died out during the Russian rule.
an example of the links a simple one is the signifigance of Elam in the tamil/telugu/malayalam languages
Elam is a mountainous land of the ancesters and Malay Elam means from the west of Elam mountain or something like that, this is the translation i was given.
The city state of Elam figures frequently in sumerian works and Mythology as well..