Sumerians and Native Americans could be related?

Not only linguistic but... Here under a compilation of diverses opinions of diverse times, showing the question is not as clear as source water:
A. Wierciñski, contrarywise to the earlier authors, found a far more complicated anthropological structure in the Mesopotamian population, which made the previous search for “Sumerian race” pointless. In his opinion the area of Tibet (or generally Central Asia) may be considered as the Sumerians’ place of origin. The discussion about the “Sumerian race” has been curtailed by the sober Georges Roux’s remark that the iconographical representations were conventionalised and thus their comparison with the osteological data gives no valuable information (Roux 1969:136). However, some remnants of the racial argument continued to be in use also in later discussions. Fifteen years ago H. Crawford referred to the old speculation that the Sumerians were round-headed and the Semites were long-headed and noticed after C.S. Coon (1949) the great tooth size of early inhabitants of Mesopotamia, which used to be taken as the evidence of their affinities with the Indians (Crawford 1991:9). * * * Frankfort’s first theory, placing the coming of the Sumerians in the beginning of Uruk period, was supported in 1930s by the German scholars, chie‚y E. Speiser (1930) and A. Ungnad (1936:10). In Speiser’s opinion the names of many most ancient cities of Sumer were Elamite in origin and the Elamites, related by him to the mountain peoples of Lullubeans and Kassites, inhabited the Mesopotamia
Physical anthropology and the “Sumerian problem” 149
before the Sumerians (1930:40,46). The Sumerians were thought to invade Mesopotamia from the south, coming through the Persian Gulf from the east. Speiser suggested that they may have been related to the Dravidians (1930:83). In later publications (1951; 1969) Speiser has maintained his theory and added some new arguments. He has argued that the diversity of cultural tradition in Late Neolithic Mesopotamia was a re‚ection of ethnical differences and all archaeological cultures defined by modern scholars – Hassuna, Halaf, Ubaid, Uruk – were developed by different ethnic groups (1969:99). In his opinion the Sumerians came to Mesopotamia relatively late, in the last phase of the Ubaid period, and initially settled only in the head of the Persian Gulf. During the Uruk period they moved northward and eventually lost their racial distinctiveness. Such a vision was accepted also by Anton Moortgat and Beno Landsberger (cf. Speiser 1951:345–353; 1969:99–103; Potts 1997:46). Speiser’s theory has been further developed by Jan Braun who has gathered many similarities between Sumerian and Tibetan languages and argued on that base that the Sumerians came to Mesopotamia on ships from northern India and in spite of their small number dominated the local population due to their much more sophisticated culture...]
 
12862_2011_Article_1910_Fig2_HTML.jpg

Figure 2
Phylogeny of Y-chromosome haplogroups and their frequencies (%) in Marsh Arab and Iraqi populations.

Al Zahery et al. (2011) investigated the issue of the origin of Marsh Arabs, who are presumed to be the descendants of the ancient Sumerians. Their mtDNA and Y chromosome haplogroups showed that Marsh Arabs are predominantly of Middle Eastern origin, thus refuting the theory that Marsh Arabs are recent migrants from the Indian sub-continent. Haplogroup Q was found at minor frequencies from 0.7% to 2.1% among Marsh Arabs (Figure 2) and haplogroup Q-M25 (0.7%) and haplogroup Q-M378 (2.1%) are descendant haplogroups of Q-M242, which is a very common Y-DNA haplogroup among Native Americans (92.3% in Navajo.)

Two hypotheses have been proposed for the origin of Marsh Arabs: (i) they could be aboriginal inhabitants of Mesopotamia, correlated to the old Sumerians; (ii) they could be foreign people of unknown origin. Although the origin of Sumerians has yet to be clarified [5], the two main scenarios, autochthonous vs foreign ancestry, may have produced different genetic outcomes with Marsh Arabs being genetically closer to Middle Eastern groups or other populations, for instance those of the Indian sub-continent. Thus, in order to shed some light on this question Marsh Arab population was investigated for mtDNA and Y chromosome markers. Due to their characteristics (uniparental transmission and absence of recombination) and their wide datasets, they are, at present, among the best genetic systems for detecting signs of ancient migration events and to evaluate socio-cultural behaviours [35, 36].

When the two J1-M267 sub-clades, J1-M267* and J1-Page08 are considered (Figure 6), differential frequency trends emerge. The less represented J1-M267* primarily diffuses towards North East Mesopotamia and shows its highest incidence in the Assyrians of northern Iraq, and Turkey. By contrast, J1-Page08 accounts for the great majority of the J1 distribution in South Western Mesopotamia, reaching its highest value (74.1%) in the marsh area. By considering the STR haplotypes associated with the two branches, the highest values of variance are localized in northern Mesopotamia (North Iraq/South East Turkey) (Figure 6, Additional files 7, 8 and 9). For the J1-Page08 lineage, high variance values were also observed in Ethiopia, Oman and South Eastern Italy (Table 2). Although present data are not adequate to define the homeland of the J1-Page08 sub-clade, some useful information can be obtained from the haplotype network analysis (Figure 4). Thus, the pheripheric position of the Ethiopian and South Eastern Italian (European) haplotypes suggests that the high values of variance registered in these regions likely reflect the stratification of different migratory events, some of which occurred before the expansion and diffusion of the lineage outside the Middle Eastern area. As previously reported [31, 41], also the value of variance in the Omani is affected by the concomitant presence of both pheripheric and centrally expanded haplotypes. In this context, the low variance (0.118) observed in the Marsh Arabs underlines a recent expansion involving few haplotypes, all of which occupying a central position in the J1-Page08 network (Figure 4). In the less frequent J1-M267* clade, only marginally affected by events of expansion, Marsh Arabs shared haplotypes with other Iraqi and Assyrian samples, supporting a common local background (Figure 4).

In conclusion, our data show that the modern Marsh Arabs of Iraq harbour mtDNAs and Y chromosomes that are predominantly of Middle Eastern origin. Therefore, certain cultural features of the area such as water buffalo breeding and rice farming, which were most likely introduced from the Indian sub-continent, only marginally affected the gene pool of the autochthonous people of the region. Moreover, a Middle Eastern ancestral origin of the modern population of the marshes of southern Iraq implies that, if the Marsh Arabs are descendants of the ancient Sumerians, also Sumerians were not of Indian or Southern Asian ancestry.
Click to expand...
 
MOESAN said:
Speiser’s theory has been further developed by Jan Braun who has gathered many similarities between Sumerian and Tibetan languages and argued on that base that the Sumerians came to Mesopotamia on ships from northern India and in spite of their small number dominated the local population due to their much more sophisticated culture...]
Click to expand...

That is interesting, but in my opinion has one major drawback: if they dominated the local Mesopotamian population (which was in fact already developing gradually into pre-urban Neolithic societies well before the Sumerians proper) because they had a much more sophisticated culture, then where are the signs of those much more sophisticated cultures (that is, a level of social and economic complexity arguably much higher than that of the Fertile Crescent) in Tibet or anywhere in Central Asia or even Northern India from the time before the expansion of Sumerian culture in the Uruk period in Mesopotamia?

If they came from that distant region already carrying a much more refined and complex culture, then we should at least see in the archaeological records that Mesopotamia was well behind South Asia, Tibet or Central Asia around 5,000-4,500 BC.

But that is not what we see, actually most of the evidences point exactly to the contrary. Would Sumerians have not only migrated to Mesopotamia, but taken every refinement and cultural/technological superiority with them and away from their homelands? Would everybody who reproduced those more sophisticated cultures just left their homeland and transplanted entirely to Mesopotamia? Very unlikely.
 
Ygorcs said:
That is interesting, but in my opinion has one major drawback: if they dominated the local Mesopotamian population (which was in fact already developing gradually into pre-urban Neolithic societies well before the Sumerians proper) because they had a much more sophisticated culture, then where are the signs of those much more sophisticated cultures (that is, a level of social and economic complexity arguably much higher than that of the Fertile Crescent) in Tibet or anywhere in Central Asia or even Northern India from the time before the expansion of Sumerian culture in the Uruk period in Mesopotamia?

If they came from that distant region already carrying a much more refined and complex culture, then we should at least see in the archaeological records that Mesopotamia was well behind South Asia, Tibet or Central Asia around 5,000-4,500 BC.

But that is not what we see, actually most of the evidences point exactly to the contrary. Would Sumerians have not only migrated to Mesopotamia, but taken every refinement and cultural/technological superiority with them and away from their homelands? Would everybody who reproduced those more sophisticated cultures just left their homeland and transplanted entirely to Mesopotamia? Very unlikely.
Click to expand...

I posted this stuff (of diverse opinions in fact) just to show how the question is badly settled yet - I cannot have any opinion to date! -
the dental traits of someones were supposed to point to India or something North to India, but nothing to confirm it - I red somewhere a legend tells Sumerians were come by sea from South but it was a report, not the scientific source so... the physically foreign persons could have been found among the elites, this does not prove anything concerning the supposed cultural/linguistic imput of this "foreigners" because, as I see it, elites tend to mate with other elites (alliances) withoit it proves the elements come from these other elites took the strong side in the resulting new elite (here Y-haplo's could help) - these new elements could be female mediated as elsewhere - for language, I have seen a lot of linguists play with words of diverse languages and create new theories of surprising common origins based in fact upon a relatively small number of cases; that said, grammar left aside, some common words (or supposed so) can point to trade exchanges over large spaces.
As you (I suppose) we could imagine the most of innovations ran West to East there and not the opposite, but who knows exactly? Agriculture has surely played a big role , a founding role, in the spreading/improvement of culture.
 
Just a visual observation. Sumerians are often depicted as been very Hairy with elaborate long Beards (Annunaki).
I know that the Native Americans not having facial hairs is a myth, but they are not as Hairy at all if compared to the Sumerians.
 
Salento said:
Just a visual observation. Sumerians are often depicted as been very Hairy with elaborate long Beards (Annunaki).
I know that the Native Americans not having facial hairs is a myth, but they are not as Hairy at all if compared to the Sumerians.
Click to expand...
i think they are not sumerians. these pictures get from akkadians. and sumerian civilization so long time years. they are get mixed other native peoples of messopotamia. (think about turkey turks, our origin ancestors are hairless bu we are so hairy now)
and i can find two group pictures on the internet similar with akkadians and hairless bald head peoples with donkeys.
i dont know which is real sumerian pictures but i agree native american and asians are hairless (except for ainus) also these statues dont connected with turkic peoples. only language.
i think we must be focused about language for who are they and where come from. language clearly says they are come from asia. but which area of asia. central asia? south asia? who have more connected with language? tibetans, turkic, uralic, japanese or korean there is no more choice. i think high possibility is turkic or tibetans.
maybe they are lost form of altaic people ancestors language. i have a theory about japanese,korean,uralic peoples effected by tibets and turkic peoples effected by mongolians for languages. (this is a reason why we cant create clear altaic language family today. for me) they are earlier peoples of asia.
i think maybe sumerian peoples speaking isolated proto altaic language.(ancestor of chinese,korean,japanese,uralic,turkic)
because we can see similarities with that all languages.
 
Last edited:
Salento said:
Just a visual observation. Sumerians are often depicted as been very Hairy with elaborate long Beards (Annunaki).
I know that the Native Americans not having facial hairs is a myth, but they are not as Hairy at all if compared to the Sumerians.
Click to expand...

you cant say today turkey turks are not hairy. but their ancestors and original turks are come from central asians and they are hairless.

also sumerians and akkadians have so much mixed in 3000 years. and turkey peoples only in 1000 years mixed with anatolian and arab peoples.

but today we know our languages come from central asia like a sumerians.

and that anunnaki pictures looking like akkadians.

edit : i again answer it sorry lol
 
ThirdTerm said:
12862_2011_Article_1910_Fig2_HTML.jpg

Figure 2
Phylogeny of Y-chromosome haplogroups and their frequencies (%) in Marsh Arab and Iraqi populations.

Al Zahery et al. (2011) investigated the issue of the origin of Marsh Arabs, who are presumed to be the descendants of the ancient Sumerians. Their mtDNA and Y chromosome haplogroups showed that Marsh Arabs are predominantly of Middle Eastern origin, thus refuting the theory that Marsh Arabs are recent migrants from the Indian sub-continent. Haplogroup Q was found at minor frequencies from 0.7% to 2.1% among Marsh Arabs (Figure 2) and haplogroup Q-M25 (0.7%) and haplogroup Q-M378 (2.1%) are descendant haplogroups of Q-M242, which is a very common Y-DNA haplogroup among Native Americans (92.3% in Navajo.)
Click to expand...

i think sumerians are q mixed r hablogroups. later they mixed native peoples. that map show to me.

and their language more close to turkic/native american languages.
 
Sumerians , elamites were blacks

The sumerians were not so hairy as we think , it is a scientific superstition linked to the fact some scientist don' t accept sumerians were blacks
hair in sumerian is kezer, kes similar to dravidian kes as in Keshava the name of Krishna ( the long haired ones)
sumerians rather said they are sag gig ga where sag means person , head and is translated by qaqqadu whichmeans person , head , self in akkadian, ga means people as people to pasture, calf as in sipa sag gig ga the name of the god of the sky An : the shepherd of the sag gig ga so sumerians were comparing themselves to calfs of the supreme god An but black calfs as sag means both head and person and ga calf

remember they say they are sag gig ga black heads which means zalmat qaqqadu in akkadian the same translation the adamu race the first and the black race in sumerian tales: black people
also the bible said the first mesopotamians were blacks: Nimrod is black and his people and him founded the first cities of Mesopotamia Knowing sumerians were the first people to mesopotamia and they call themselves sag gig ga which means zalmat qaqqadu black people who is the same sense the adamu race the blkack race in sumerian tales
Also greeks divide blacks in two categories the african ethiopians and the asian ones which have long hairs and it is said by Hellanicus that these ones inhabit euphrate’s valey where lies Sumer: we can deduce sumerians were blacks what is corroborated by the map of AASI gene(dravidians and veddoids genes both map) that show irak was peopled by AASI who are famed to be black see qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8a1e2300d2869577d4ed9ae64e0898d3
 
Last edited:
Historically, as a timeline, there is absolutely no likelihood of such a direct link, especially a genetic one. Turkish has a huge number of Arabic and Persian borrowings, as well as some Indo-European ones (because I noticed some) from where the indirect connection comes from. So the similarities are due to the ethnic groups that inhabited the Mesopotamian region during the Sumerian period.
In simple terms, the Sumerians and the Turks are separated by thousands of years of difference / discrepancy in the formation of ethnicity and language.
 
There is no Sumerian sample available today but early Neolithic samples from the eastern Fertile Crescent in the Zagros Mountains:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27417496/

It is likely that those people where a part of the Sumerian ancestry.

They had a broad and also long face, flat, narrow forehead. A slim, long, hooked nose. They had broad lips, a large mouth. Brown eyes, brown skin, wavy to curly hair.

Comparing their genetically determined physical traits to mentioned populations and some others:

Northern South Asian 73%
All African Populations 70% European 70% Neanderthal 70%
Middle East 69% Andaman 69%
Bantu 66%
Papuan 65%
Aboriginal Australian 62%
Native American 61%
Turkish 58%
Malawi Mesolithic 52%

They looked somehow African but also large part Northern South Asian, which includes Afghans, Pakistani and Northern Indians. I think the African component is of archaic origin, because Neanderthal is also high but not Bantu and Malawi Mesolithic.
There is no connection to Native Americans in optical traits or Turkish people.

And we should not forget that Sumerian Empire was established 2000-3000 years after this population lived in the region. Much genetic replacement could have taken place, perhaps from the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean.
 
Doggerland said:
There is no Sumerian sample available today but early Neolithic samples from the eastern Fertile Crescent in the Zagros Mountains:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27417496/

It is likely that those people where a part of the Sumerian ancestry.

They had a broad and also long face, flat, narrow forehead. A slim, long, hooked nose. They had broad lips, a large mouth. Brown eyes, brown skin, wavy to curly hair.

Comparing their genetically determined physical traits to mentioned populations and some others:

Northern South Asian 73%
All African Populations 70% European 70% Neanderthal 70%
Middle East 69% Andaman 69%
Bantu 66%
Papuan 65%
Aboriginal Australian 62%
Native American 61%
Turkish 58%
Malawi Mesolithic 52%

They looked somehow African but also large part Northern South Asian, which includes Afghans, Pakistani and Northern Indians. I think the African component is of archaic origin, because Neanderthal is also high but not Bantu and Malawi Mesolithic.
There is no connection to Native Americans in optical traits or Turkish people.

And we should not forget that Sumerian Empire was established 2000-3000 years after this population lived in the region. Much genetic replacement could have taken place, perhaps from the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, they did not have hooked noses. So anthropologist really don't know where sumerian nose like armenian nose came from.
 
That's not my opinion, that's what genetics of the samples say:

rs4787778 AA Hooked nose
rs2058742 GG Downturned nose tip
rs17640804 TT Slim nostrils
rs3751074 GG Long nose bridge

The Sumerians liked to portray themselves with those noses:

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/323735
https://www.discovermagazine.com/pl...ancient-sumerians-and-what-are-they-known-for

So in this case art and genetics are matching, as far that those early neolithic samples are a main part of the Sumerian ancestry.
 
Sumerians , elamites were blacks

earlier scientists of 19 th century can' t accept sumerians were blacks and said they were eurafrican people with a nose intermediary between those of africans and those of europeans, they also think sumerians were from australoid families but racism bias make them say sumerians were black red turanians
somesay they are ancestorsof ugrian langages with proof
but the truth show sumerians were australoid peoples:
the analysis of sumerian bones show thay are australoids
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. As one goes further East, Austrics become mostly round-headed due possibly to the greater proportion of Mongoloid blood, and the Austronesians of the South Seas are primarily round-headed. Formerly, it was popular to ascribe the Australoid and Austric types to "dark Caucasoid" origin in the Mediterranean area

from a nationalist iranian pro shah site azargoshnasp.net seek recent_history/pan_turkist_philosophy/sumd/austricsumerian

BUT when we blacks say this people qualify us afrocentricists !!!!
for example this wikipedia wikipedia.org seek K 3364 which forget scientists have discovered bones and skulls closed to australoids proving sumerians were blacks but australoids and say sumerians are not negroid
i use this stage also to say negroid is a racist term coming from negre/ nigger the way blacks were called from 15th to 20 th centuries and it keeps on producing bias: like blacks have big nose stuff
i notice ASI/AASI and melanesians and australian aborigines who according to experts come from africa ( M haplogroups from african horn L3) are considered as blacks but not called like this
i think both them and africans are blacks and are brothers and should be both called melanoid instead of african blacks called negroid
 
Also noticed close similarities between tamil and sumerians
THE SUMERIAN AND THE TAMOUL ur = city, town, village in Tamil, ur = town, town in Sumerian as = one, alone in Sumerian, as = prime / one, alone in Tamil kur = mountain in Sumerian, kur = name of hill tribes in Tamil and Dravidian, kori / koeum = mountain in Altaic language. tamil arukan arhus Sumerian "benevolent person". Tamil Sumerian avvai. the abbot "speaks". Tamil aakkiNai, aaNai, Sumerian aknja agga, aga "command". Sumerian eye akki igi. Tamil Ukkiram Sumerian ug-gu "furious". Tamil Uruttiran 'Copper' Sumerian Urudu. Ukrainian Sumerian Ulaku, Ukrainian "people". Sumerian Katai ka-ta-a-a "desired self-expression". Tamil Karumam Sumerian gar-u "to set up". Sumerian Tamil Carvam sar-ra "all". Tamil cakkaram sukur Sumerian 'weapon, javelin'. Tamil Sumerian cakalam 'all' sugil. Tamil cettu, Sumerian cittam sid, sed, think, count, recite etc. Tamil ceesu ciidan, Sumerian ses Tamil sisya his "brother, child". Sumerian damhara Tamil tamharam 'battle, war' Tamil ticai Sumerian. te 'direction, Sumerian woman manuci tamil manusi'. Tamil ciivan Sumerian zi 'life' Tamil caalai Sumerian sila 'road' Tamil kaNi, kaNitam Sumerian kin 'to reckon'.
and between tamil and turkish:Affinity between DRAVIDIAN and TURKISH
1. Dravidian (Dr.): AN upper part;

Turkish (Tr.) "AN" meaning "sky" as in "TANRI" meaning "GOD" from
"aTa + AN + ERI" (ATA AN ERI) meaning "Father Man of Sky".

2. Dr. ANNAL greatness, exaltation, superiority, great man, king, god;

Tr. "HAN AN AL" meaning "Lord Sky Red" referring to sun god. Tr. HAN king.

3. Dr. ENRU the sun;

Tr. TANRU god, sun god.

4. Dr. ADDI heat of the sun;

Tr. ODDI "it is hot", "it is fire"

5a. Dr, ACCAN father, lord; ACCA mother;

Tr. ECHE father, mother; ECHE HAN lord father, lord mother.

5b) Dr. AJJA grandfather; AJJI grandmother.

Tr. ECHE greatfather or greatmother, that is, for the elder and/or
head person of the house.; it is a duality term which can be used for
both man and women leader of the family. For example, Tr. TANRIÇE
(goddess) is from "TANRI ECHE" (god greatmother).

6. Dr. PULLI, PULLE, BOLLE mark, dot, speck, spot.

Tr. PULLU meaning with specks, dots,. marks.

7. Dr. (Tu.) KAR-BULE, KAR-BOLLE a fowl having white plumage with
black spots.

Tr. KARA PULLU meaning "with black spots, specks".

8. Dr. (Ta.) ARAM moral or religious duty, virtue;

Tr. AR virtue, modesty, honesty, bashful, chaste.

9. Dr. (Ta.) KATA cut through ridge of paddy-field to let surplus
water run off;

Tr. AKIT meaning "to let the water run off".

10. Dr. (Ta.) KATA inferior, worse than;

Tr. KÖTÜ bad, inferior, poor in quality.

11a. Dr. (Ta.) IRAI anyone who is great (as one's father or guru or
any renowned and illustrious person), master, chief, elder brother,
husband, king, supreme god, height, head, eminence;

Tr. ER man, husband, hero, warrior, soldier.
Tr. ERAY moon-man, moon-god, venerable person.

11b. Dr. IRAIMAI kingly superiority, celebrity, government,
divinity;

Tr. "ER AY MA" meaning "magnificent moon man" referring to a divinity
or a superiority.

11c. Dr. IRAIVAN god, chief, master, husband, venerable person;

Tr. "ER AY-HAN" meaning "Man Moon-Lord" (god), lord man, head man.

12. Dr. (Ta.) ARU (ARI-) state of being dried, etc.;

Tr. KURU dry, dried up.

13. Dr. ARISU to cause to go out, allay, dry (tr.);

Tr. KURUSU dried up water.

14. Dr. AR (ART-) to be dried, dry up, disappear;

Tr. ERI- to melt away, to disappear as in snow melting and
disappearing.

15. Dr. ARIKE state of growing or being dry or parched;

Tr. ARIK channel, channel cut to dry up a watery land.

16. Dr. (Ta.) KANAL (kanalv-, kananr-) sun, heat, sun's ray, light;

Tr. KUN (GÜN) sun; KUN AL (AL GÜN) red hot sun, hot sun.

17. Dr. KANI (-v-,-nt-) to be redhot, glow, get angry;

Tr. a) KUN (GÜN) sun, b) KAN blood, blood colour; c) KAN OL becoming
blood red as one gets angry ( Turkish "Yüzü KAN GIBI OLMAK" meaning
"face gettin very red when angry").

18. Dr. KANARCI heat, glow, anger;

Tr. KIZARAN glowing red hot, and also face getting red when one gets
angry.

19. Dr. (Ta.) KARU black;

Tr. KARA black.

20. Dr. KARUKKAL darkness, twilight, cloudiness;

Tr. KARA GOK dark sky; KARANLUK darkness.

21. Dr. (Ta.) KARU sunburnt paddy crop;
KARUKKU (karukki-) to darken by heat, burn, scorch, toast, fry;
KARUKU (karuki-) to be scorched, blackened by fire or sun;

Tr. KURAKLUK drought, causing burned out crop by sun. KURU dry.

22. Dr. (Ta.) APPAN, APPU father;

Tr. BABA, APA father

23. Dr. APPACCI father;

Tr. BABACIK dear father, endearnment of father.

24. Dr. APPATTAI elder sister;

Tr. APLA / ABLA elder sister.

25. Dr. (Ta.) ATTAN father, elder, person of rank or eminence;

Tr. ATA father, ATA HAN lord father, elder person of rank or eminence;

26. Dr. ATTISU to cause to evaporate by boiling;

Tr. ATTI SU (SU ATTI) threw away its water, evaporated.

27. Dr. ANTARISU to evaporate, as water by boiling;

Tr. SUYUNI ATAR it throws away its water, it evaporates.

28. Dr. (To.) POT mountain (esp. tit pot id.).

Tr. "TEPE hill;

29. Dr. (Ka.) BETTA, BETTU big hill, mountain;

Tr. TEPETU "it is hill, it is mountain".

30. Dr. (Te.) AMMA, AMA mother, matron; hon. title of woman;

Tr. ANA, ANNA, ANNE mother; MAMA, MEME mother, mother's breast.

31. Dr. (To.) UF IN- (ID-) to blow, blow away (e.g. ashes);

Tr. ÜFLEMEK to blow, blow away.

32. Dr. (Ka.) UPH, UPHI sound emitted when strongly blowing with the
mouth to remove impurities;

Tr. ÜFLEMEK (ISLIK) to blow whisle.

33. Dr. (Ta.) IYANKU (IYANKI-) to move, stir, go, proceed, walk about;
in.movement, act of going;

Tr. "UYANUK" being awake, moving, stirring, going. Almost identical.

34. Dr. (Ta. ) TIRAGANI, TIRAGANE, TIRUGANI, TIRUGANE, TIRUGUNI
turning, that which turns, a wheel for raising water;

Tr. TONERGAN (dönergen) that which turns, that which returns.

Note: It seems that the Dravidian suffixes -LI and -CI are very
similar to Turkish -LI and -CI.

 
also ala is land in tamil, ugrian and mayan, kerala is land of coconut in tamil, karjala is name of carelia in carelian korela , guatem ala is land of light in mayan
el is land in turkish and in ugrian; MARI EL is the name of the republic of maris in Russia,, el/eli is land in turkish, ola is city in Mari cf yoshkar ola the capital of mari el, ollam is land in Taos a native american langage, olam is land in hebrew whose scripture come from sumerian, ilim is land in sumerian, ala, alam, eelam is land in dravidian tamil, elam is land in elamite ...
THE SUMERIAN , TAMILand native american and turkish and ugrian cognate !!!!!!!
knowing the preesistence of AASI /ASI in asia and their link with sumerian and their links with turkish and native americans we can say ASI ans AASI blacks fellow influenced langage of turanians the ancestry of native americans...
 
Doggerland said:
There is no Sumerian sample available today but early Neolithic samples from the eastern Fertile Crescent in the Zagros Mountains:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27417496/

It is likely that those people where a part of the Sumerian ancestry.

They had a broad and also long face, flat, narrow forehead. A slim, long, hooked nose. They had broad lips, a large mouth. Brown eyes, brown skin, wavy to curly hair.

Comparing their genetically determined physical traits to mentioned populations and some others:

Northern South Asian 73%
All African Populations 70% European 70% Neanderthal 70%
Middle East 69% Andaman 69%
Bantu 66%
Papuan 65%
Aboriginal Australian 62%
Native American 61%
Turkish 58%
Malawi Mesolithic 52%

They looked somehow African but also large part Northern South Asian, which includes Afghans, Pakistani and Northern Indians. I think the African component is of archaic origin, because Neanderthal is also high but not Bantu and Malawi Mesolithic.
There is no connection to Native Americans in optical traits or Turkish people.

And we should not forget that Sumerian Empire was established 2000-3000 years after this population lived in the region. Much genetic replacement could have taken place, perhaps from the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean.
Click to expand...


the look you describe (above the list of percentages of common traits) doesn't evoke something typically African (SSA).
and I don't see on what they can produce these curious percentages.
 
MOESAN said:
the look you describe (above the list of percentages of common traits) doesn't evoke something typically African (SSA).
and I don't see on what they can produce these curious percentages.
Click to expand...

No, they dont look typical African. But they had many optical traits that they share with all African populations and Neanderthals. But like I said, I think its Archaic because Bantu(Samples are from West Africa) and Malawi Mesolithic is not high.
The percentages are the result of comparing the alleles of the SNPs for traits between the populations. Same alleles, match 1. Only 1 allele, half match 1/2. No allele matching, no match 0. The curious percentages are produced, because humans of different populations share many alleles. I cannot stop them from doing this ;) The Percentages are rounded up. So if two populations are 65% it could be in fact that one population is 64,7 and one 65.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top