Sumerians and Native Americans could be related?

you forget one thing
cheddar man , dravidians and australians originate from africa where peoples are brown skinned and they are brown skinned too so we can guess they inherit brown/black skin genes from black africans ( i dont say subsaharans cause toubous and nubians live in plain sahara and bejas live in eastern egypt so they are not subsaharan people )
so even if they got different genes they share some continuous genes with africans so knowing their haplogroup Mis son of african wide haplogroup L3 they are sons of black africans so they are black too what noticed greeks and greeks were not saying bullshits , they say blacks, curly or long haired ones come from ethiopia and yves coppens show this true , so dravidians , veddoids , aboriginals and cheddar men are africans that's the truth

y







Stop spreading misinformation. You display poor scholarship and you seem to be scientifically not very literate. Western European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), such as the Cheddar Man and La Brana were descended from the earlier, genetically homogeneous Cro-Magnon population. That said, the WHGs diverged from the Cro-Magnons during the Last Glacial Maximum in the refugia of Europe. All Eurasians alive today who don't have recent African ancestry are descendants of a migration out of Africa that happened between 100,000 and 70- 65,000 years ago. The ancestors of WHGs exited Africa into Eurasia which means that the WHGs are "descend" from an early population from Eurasia, who developed outside of Africa. Besides, according to one genetic study, the divergence time estimates among the major population groups suggest that Eurasian populations diverged from Africans during the same time frame (approximately 90 to 110 thousand years ago). The divergence among different Eurasian populations occurred more than 40,000 years after their divergence with Africans. So, after a small group of people left the African continent around 70.000 years ago, all humans spread throughout the globe - creating new populations wherever they went. These populations were often separated from each other, and they encountered different environments that could drive evolutionary processes, mutations. Nevertheless, the fact that if you go far back in times all humans came ultimately from Africa doesn't translate into all humans directly descending from indigenous Africans.

Furthermore, although is likely that the Cheddar Man was dark-skinned that doesn't indicate kinship with Africans. On the contrary, WHGs like the Cheddar Man and La Brana are genetically one of the most distinct populations from indigenous Africans. Furthermore, their closest living relatives are the very pale Baltic, Scandinavians, Finnish people.
 
you forget one thing
cheddar man , dravidians and australians originate from africa where peoples are brown skinned and they are brown skinned too so we can guess they inherit brown/black skin genes from black africans ( i dont say subsaharans cause toubous and nubians live in plain sahara and bejas live in eastern egypt so they are not subsaharan people )
so even if they got different genes they share some continuous genes with africans so knowing their haplogroup Mis son of african wide haplogroup L3 they are sons of black africans so they are black too what noticed greeks and greeks were not saying bullshits , they say blacks, curly or long haired ones come from ethiopia and yves coppens show this true , so dravidians , veddoids , aboriginals and cheddar men are africans that's the truth

y


I fear you shall never understand some things!
We are all of us (based on current knowledge) 'black africans' since our ancestors came seemingly from Africa!
In fact we don't know all, and you even lesser: We don't know HOW "black" was Cheddar man because we have not studied every potential pigmentation SNP. We can suppose his pigmentation genetic making was for a part the same (so called, arbitraty, "ancestral" genes), but he had certainly some unkown variants not proper to first African ancestors. Even in "black" SSA Africa, the allover composition of the DNA linked to pigmentation is not the same in every individual and pop', and it seems that in SSA the mutated DNA doesn't concern only DEpigmentation but also OVERpigmentation. POp's are evolving, and the external traits (often selected by prejudice) are not always the best ones to establish more or less global proximity of pop's and people.
But you can and may stick on to your believings if they are good to your feelings.
 



Stop spreading misinformation. You display poor scholarship and you seem to be scientifically not very literate. Western European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), such as the Cheddar Man and La Brana were descended from the earlier, genetically homogeneous Cro-Magnon population. That said, the WHGs diverged from the Cro-Magnons during the Last Glacial Maximum in the refugia of Europe. All Eurasians alive today who don't have recent African ancestry are descendants of a migration out of Africa that happened between 100,000 and 70- 65,000 years ago. The ancestors of WHGs exited Africa into Eurasia which means that the WHGs are "descend" from an early population from Eurasia, who developed outside of Africa. Besides, according to one genetic study, the divergence time estimates among the major population groups suggest that Eurasian populations diverged from Africans during the same time frame (approximately 90 to 110 thousand years ago). The divergence among different Eurasian populations occurred more than 40,000 years after their divergence with Africans. So, after a small group of people left the African continent around 70.000 years ago, all humans spread throughout the globe - creating new populations wherever they went. These populations were often separated from each other, and they encountered different environments that could drive evolutionary processes, mutations. Nevertheless, the fact that if you go far back in times all humans came ultimately from Africa doesn't translate into all humans directly descending from indigenous Africans.

Furthermore, although is likely that the Cheddar Man was dark-skinned that doesn't indicate kinship with Africans. On the contrary, WHGs like the Cheddar Man and La Brana are genetically one of the most distinct populations from indigenous Africans. Furthermore, their closest living relatives are the very pale Baltic, Scandinavians, Finnish people.

i don' t spread any misinformation
african L3 is mother of black veddoids and dravidians and aborigines M haplogroup and of modern europeans fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroupe_M_(ADNmt)#/media/Fichier:peopling_of_eurasia.jpg
and you said yourself cheddar man come from africa and we know europeans became white from 8000 BC when they oit africa 50000 years ago AS SAID HERE lenouvelliste.ch/sante/cela-ne-fait-que-8000-ans-que-les-europeens-ont-la-peau-blanche-375234...
 
I don't agree with your take on what the extant Greek writers wrote. They did compare populations in India with those of Africa south of Egypt (i.e. Ethiopians below the first Cataract of the Nile). Greeks (Herodotus, Alexander the Great) did indicate or describe Indians from South of Ganges River were similar in tone to Ethiopians or were dark or black but not all of them to the extent of Ethiopians; i.e. Africans from regions South of the First Cataract of the Nile. However, the Greeks were very clear to point out that the Indians from the South of the Ganges while being similar in skin tone to African Ethiopians, they had straight hair and different nose phenotypes than Ethiopians from Africa. Those same Greek writers noted that populations in North India resembled Egyptians in terms of phenotypes. So descriptions are sometimes vague as to who is being referred but by the time of Xenophanes (570 BC to 478 BC), Greeks had encountered enough different peoples to provide phenotype descriptions of peoples they encountered other than skin tone (e.g., hair, nose, etc).

With that said, the ancient Greek and Roman writers are great to read but they got some things wrong and some right. Herodotus, for example, was wrong about his theory regarding the Estruscans. So always good to read as many different sources and cross-check them (e.g. Herodotus had his detractors in his own time). On the other hand, the ancient writer Philostratus (circa 170 to 250AD) noted that once you got past the Egyptian border just pass the first cataract, there were peoples darker than Egyptians but lighter than Ethiopians say from the regions near the ancient city of Meroe.

With the explosion of ancient DNA in the last 12 years, DNA research is now clearly clearing up much of what people argue about regarding who was who in antiquity, etc. Such people try fit modern ideologies about racial/ethnic differences and thus their identifies back into ancient peoples for their own political ideologies. The Posth et al 2021 paper "The origin and legacy ofthe Etruscans through a 2000-year archeogenomic time transect" analyzes some 48 Estruscan samples, 40 are local origin (from Central to North Italy) similar to the Latins from the Antonio et al 2019 paper on ancient Rome, 8 were outliers, a few clustering with Central Europeans and some with Punics/North Africans. So Herodotus's Anatolian or Trojan origin theory of the Etruscans was not true.

Sirak et als 2021 "Social stratification without genetic differentiationat the site of Kulubnarti in Christian Period Nubia" documents evidence supporting what Philostratus reported some 400 years earlier, that is these Christian Nubians from circa 600-800AD (in area near 2nd cataract) were in terms of admixture 57% Eurasian and 43% Nilotic (African) and that the Eurasian admixture dates back at least the the Levant Bronze Age and came down from Egypt into Nubia.

So not looking to get into an argument but citing the ancient Greek and Roman writers is always something that I personally think should be done carefully in context and not taken as "Gospel". In my view, it is always a good idea to see what other ancient writers said about something. In my experience if one writer says X, often times another says Y. Furthermore, many of the accounts written down by Historians such as Herodotus were based on folklores, sailor tales, wives tales, oral traditions of peoples, etc and thus questionable at times (think of the giant ants he wrote about, based on probably sailors tales of Greeks who went to Egypt and went into areas and reported back with exaggeration what they saw).
Regards.

Great error ! Pre roman greeks NEVER called only nubians ethiopians and say ancient egyptians was an ethiopian colony the same way they say Caucasus was occupied by ethiopian colonists too ( what is also said inthis map of Bible upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/Table_of_Nations.jpg/301px-Table_of_Nations.jpg )
Ancient egyptians themselves said they come from Pount in northern Somalia
histoire-secrete.fr/265475300 and portrayed pountites the same color ancient egyptians: brown color the typical color of Blacks :
i.pinimg.com/564x/fd/38/ed/fd38edbdd524b90f0894421d386bec4e.jpg
ancient egyptians dancing
2.bp.blogspot.com/-YqGHA0EFdiM/Wf8OtKpirPI/AAAAAAAABNA/hiT3f7qYBLs2QMlZLWgA33bF5SCGJLU3QCLcBGAs/s1600/punt.jpg
pountites shown by ancient egyptians

Notice BEJA people girls has the same color and same hairstyle ancient egyptian girls and puntites girls and puntite boys i.pinimg.com/474x/09/30/c3/0930c39ddd4b08024c069993ae526433.jpg and BEjas are historically first people of egypt since prehistory and come from horn of africa too ...
qr.ae/pGEFsq
AND GENETICALLY ancient egyptians come from HORN OF AFRICA and have same genes Bejas , somalis , afars ( who are not mixed with semites ) and darfuris according to Tillmar flickr.com/photos/anbessa2011/6284194929 and this ev32 gene is not linked to arabs or semites but to indigenous black populations of horn of africa and east of africa and northeast of africa
 
No they did not. All that stuff you are citing is not relevant. Provide the cite from any Greek writer Pre-Roman that said what you are saying they said. Furthermore, if you want to be taken serious, I suggest you find citations from legitimate scholarly research published in academic journals in the fields of archeology and history and genetics/DNA rather than the what you are presenting here when you post.
 
I don't agree with your take on what the extant Greek writers wrote. They did compare populations in India with those of Africa south of Egypt (i.e. Ethiopians below the first Cataract of the Nile). Greeks (Herodotus, Alexander the Great) did indicate or describe Indians from South of Ganges River were similar in tone to Ethiopians or were dark or black but not all of them to the extent of Ethiopians; i.e. Africans from regions South of the First Cataract of the Nile. However, the Greeks were very clear to point out that the Indians from the South of the Ganges while being similar in skin tone to African Ethiopians, they had straight hair and different nose phenotypes than Ethiopians from Africa. Those same Greek writers noted that populations in North India resembled Egyptians in terms of phenotypes. So descriptions are sometimes vague as to who is being referred but by the time of Xenophanes (570 BC to 478 BC), Greeks had encountered enough different peoples to provide phenotype descriptions of peoples they encountered other than skin tone (e.g., hair, nose, etc).

With that said, the ancient Greek and Roman writers are great to read but they got some things wrong and some right. Herodotus, for example, was wrong about his theory regarding the Estruscans. So always good to read as many different sources and cross-check them (e.g. Herodotus had his detractors in his own time). On the other hand, the ancient writer Philostratus (circa 170 to 250AD) noted that once you got past the Egyptian border just pass the first cataract, there were peoples darker than Egyptians but lighter than Ethiopians say from the regions near the ancient city of Meroe.

With the explosion of ancient DNA in the last 12 years, DNA research is now clearly clearing up much of what people argue about regarding who was who in antiquity, etc. Such people try fit modern ideologies about racial/ethnic differences and thus their identifies back into ancient peoples for their own political ideologies. The Posth et al 2021 paper "The origin and legacy ofthe Etruscans through a 2000-year archeogenomic time transect" analyzes some 48 Estruscan samples, 40 are local origin (from Central to North Italy) similar to the Latins from the Antonio et al 2019 paper on ancient Rome, 8 were outliers, a few clustering with Central Europeans and some with Punics/North Africans. So Herodotus's Anatolian or Trojan origin theory of the Etruscans was not true.

Sirak et als 2021 "Social stratification without genetic differentiationat the site of Kulubnarti in Christian Period Nubia" documents evidence supporting what Philostratus reported some 400 years earlier, that is these Christian Nubians from circa 600-800AD (in area near 2nd cataract) were in terms of admixture 57% Eurasian and 43% Nilotic (African) and that the Eurasian admixture dates back at least the the Levant Bronze Age and came down from Egypt into Nubia.

So not looking to get into an argument but citing the ancient Greek and Roman writers is always something that I personally think should be done carefully in context and not taken as "Gospel". In my view, it is always a good idea to see what other ancient writers said about something. In my experience if one writer says X, often times another says Y. Furthermore, many of the accounts written down by Historians such as Herodotus were based on folklores, sailor tales, wives tales, oral traditions of peoples, etc and thus questionable at times (think of the giant ants he wrote about, based on probably sailors tales of Greeks who went to Egypt and went into areas and reported back with exaggeration what they saw).


Now with respect to Cheddar Man, he was not genetically related to peoples of sub-saharan Africa or even Horn Africans if you want to distinguish them from Western, Central, Southern and other Eastern Africans given their unique genetic history of back migration from West Asia to the Horn. He is not exactly like any modern population today, but closest to NW Europeans (British isles and Northern Europeans (Scandinavians) due to him being a European HG. His Y DNA was I2, common among Mesolithic Western European HG and is maternal was U5, very common in Western Eurasia and also found in North Africa. His skin tone was likely darker probably due to not having the snps for lighter skin tone on SLC24A5 and SLC45A2; however someone more up to date on Cheddar might have definitive information on that one. However, in 2018 additional work was done and it was suggested his skin tone could have been more intermediate. Regardless of what his skin tone was or was not, skin tone is a "phenotype" not something that can be used to categorize Cheddar into Population A vs. B vs. C, etc.

Regards.

You commit an error about ancient greeks !!!!!!!!

GREEKS were right about etruscans too and never said they are troyns but lydians
and lydians , pelasgians , lemnos people ( who are pelasgians) were recognised to be of the same stock etruscans genetically futura-sciences.com/sciences/actualites/archeologie-fin-mystere-origine-descendance-etrusques-12132/ and linguistically ( lemnian cognate etruscans) lemnian speakers being pelasgians ( notice also pelasgians being ancestors of albanians before aryan illyrians come and coming from anatolia the same way lydians the ancestors of etruscans according to herodotus, albanians too are related etruscans ... )
 
No I am not in error. I suggest you read more. And No they were wrong about the Etruscans. A recent DNA paper refutes Herodotus's theory. I suggest you go read the paper.

Posth et al. 2021


https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi7673

Science Alert article summarizing the paper. Herodotus theory is not supported.

https://www.sciencealert.com/dna-ha...e-mysterious-origins-of-the-ancient-etruscans

Archeology magazine summary of the paper: Again Herodotus theory is not supported.


https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology...ns-dna-study-solves-origin-mystery-1.10236713

The fact that the Etruscans had significant Neolithic ancestry from Anatolia (Early European Farmer) ancestry is not surprising as that ancestral source population was in Central Italy, and all of what is modern Italy today (Sicily and Sardinia) dating back 8,000 years ago.

Now where there Greek settlements in Italy and Sicily in the Iron age, yes? but those did not start till circa 8th century BC. The Etruscan civilization pre dates Greek settlements in Southern Italy and Sicily that over time could have impacted the genetic profile of peoples say in Lazio at least given Greek Settlements were in what is modern Campania who scholars based on archeological and historical records credit with the founding of the city of Naples.
 
No they did not. All that stuff you are citing is not relevant. Provide the cite from any Greek writer Pre-Roman that said what you are saying they said. Furthermore, if you want to be taken serious, I suggest you find citations from legitimate scholarly research published in academic journals in the fields of archeology and history and genetics/DNA rather than the what you are presenting here when you post.

Are you saying Beja who is attested by ancient egyptians scriptures are not indigenous of east egypt ?
Are you saying a native semite egyptian can' t say the truth about ancient egyptians if he says bejas are modern still desendants of ancient egyptian population as in this link qr.ae/pGEFsq even if he proves it with a museum inscription in Egypt qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-af18d0516fa6193040224d48feeb6825-lq ?

Are you saying Tillmar is not a scholar ? because he said ancient egyptians and nubians and bejas and oromos and darfuris and somalis have the same ev 32 haplogroup ?

Are you saying ancient egyptians didn' t say Pount is the origin of their culture , Ta netjeri in their langage , the land of god in their langage ? do you think historian Brian Brown ("La Sagesse des égyptiens" New York 1923 .) is a liar ? or Richard Pankhurst ( "Les frontières de l’Éthiopie » 1997 ) ?
Are you saying ancient depiction of pountites as being brown like ancient egyptians and common blacks is not true without having proof ?

Anout Diodore of Sicily he said this :
It is maintained that the Ethiopians are the first of all men, and that the proofs of this are evident. First of all, everyone being more or less in agreement that they did not come from abroad, and that they were born in the country itself, we can rightly call them Autochthones; then it seems obvious to everyone that the men who inhabit the South were probably the first to come out of the bosom of the earth. For the heat of the sun drying the moist earth and rendering it suitable for the generation of animals, it is probable that the region nearest to the sun was the first populated by living beings. It is also claimed that the Ethiopians were the first to teach men to venerate the gods, to offer them sacrifices, to perform pumps, sacred solemnities and other ceremonies, by which men practice divine worship. They are therefore everywhere famous for their piety; and their sacrifices appear to be the most pleasing to the divinity. In support of this we have the testimony of the almost oldest and most admired poet of the Greeks, who represents to us, in his Iliad, Jupiter and the other immortals going to Ethiopia to receive the offerings and the feasts which the Ethiopians offer them every year: "Jupiter crossed the ocean yesterday to go to the brave Ethiopians who were preparing a feast for him. All the gods followed him. We note that the Ethiopians have received, from the gods, the reward of their piety, never having suffered the yoke of any foreign despot. Indeed, they have always preserved their freedom; and, thanks to their union, they were never subjugated by the sovereigns who marched against them, and none of whom succeeded in his enterprise. I The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians descend from one of their colonies, which was led into Egypt by Osiris; and they add that this country was, at the beginning of the world, only a sea; but then the Nile, carrying in its floods the silt brought from Ethiopia, gradually formed landfills. Based on what happens at the mouths of the Nile, they clearly demonstrate that all of Egypt is the work of this river: every year the ground is raised by the contribution of silt, and the soil expands at the expense of the sea. They say, moreover, that most Egyptian customs are of Ethiopian origin, as the colonies preserve the traditions of the metropolis; that respect for kings, considered as gods, the rite of funerals and many other customs, are Ethiopian institutions; finally, that the types of sculpture and the characters of writing are also borrowed from the Ethiopians. The Egyptians have in fact two kinds of particular writings, one, called vulgar, which is learned by everyone; the other, called sacred, known to priests alone, and which is taught to them from father to son, among the secret things. Now, the Ethiopians use both scripts indiscriminately. The order of priests is, in the two nations, established on the same bases. Those who are dedicated to the worship of the gods perform the same purifications; they shave and dress alike, and they all carry a plow-like scepter.
Herodotus himself saw ancient egyptians as having black skin and woolly hair (Herodotus, 2.104)
herodotus said about Egypt this "It is certain that the natives of the country are black with the heat. ..." {endnote 1: The History of Herododus, translated by George Rawlinson. New York. Tudor, 1928, p. 88.}
To demonstrate that the Greek oracle is of Egyptian origin, Herodotus advances another argument: "Lastly, by calling the dove black, they [the Dodonaeans] indicated that the woman was Egyptian. ..." {endnote 2: Ibid., p. 101.} The doves in question symbolize two Egyptian women allegedly kidnapped from Thebes to found the oracles of Dodona and Libya.
 
No I am not in error. I suggest you read more. And No they were wrong about the Etruscans. A recent DNA paper refutes Herodotus's theory. I suggest you go read the paper.

Posth et al. 2021


https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi7673

Science Alert article summarizing the paper. Herodotus theory is not supported.

https://www.sciencealert.com/dna-ha...e-mysterious-origins-of-the-ancient-etruscans

Archeology magazine summary of the paper: Again Herodotus theory is not supported.


https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology...ns-dna-study-solves-origin-mystery-1.10236713

The fact that the Etruscans had significant Neolithic ancestry from Anatolia (Early European Farmer) ancestry is not surprising as that ancestral source population was in Central Italy, and all of what is modern Italy today (Sicily and Sardinia) dating back 8,000 years ago.

Now where there Greek settlements in Italy and Sicily in the Iron age, yes? but those did not start till circa 8th century BC. The Etruscan civilization pre dates Greek settlements in Southern Italy and Sicily that over time could have impacted the genetic profile of peoples say in Lazio at least given Greek Settlements were in what is modern Campania who scholars based on archeological and historical records credit with the founding of the city of Naples.

you comitted errors again !
i Never told about greek settlements in central italy ( greeks settle in sicily not in central italy ) but about pelasgians which are genetically and linguistically linked to lemnians which are linked to lydians genetically and to etruscans linguistically

Futura science is a reasonable site ruled by french scientists , it is better than your sources saying etruscans are from the steppe of russia !
 
No I did not commit and error. Herodotus was incorrect. The Etruscans were not from Anatolia. Get over it. And Herodotus did not say the Egyptians were "black skin" he said darker skinned. And in addition, Greek writers never called them Aethiopes. However, they were not as dark as the peoples how lived on the border between Egypt and Nubia (first cataract) and the peoples on the border region were lighter than the peoples in Ancient Kush whose kingdom was near the ancient city of Meroe (near 4th cataract). When Herodotus is describing Ethiopians (Black Africans) he is describing peoples South of first cataract. As I noted before, the ancient Greek writers starting with Xenophanes, who actually lived before Herodotus, Greeks were describing Ethiopians with anthropological descriptions other than just skin tone. He was the first to point out the flat-noses of Black Ethiopians. Petronius, a Roman writer pointed out that a non Ethiopian could not pass for an Ethiopian by merely painting is body with black paint/color. An Ethiopian not only has black skin and flat nose, but other facial phenotypes like an Ethiopian (lips, head shape, etc). To make this point, ancient Greek and Roman writers who new of peoples in India pointed out that while Indians South of the Ganges had dark skin tones similar to African Ethiopians, there noses and hair differed.

The most complete review of all the extant Greek and Roman texts of Black Africans that the ancient Greeks and Romans encountered is a work by Professor Frank Snowden Jr.. A black American scholar who studied ancient Greek and Latin and was a Dean at Howard University, a leading HBCU in the USA. His work "Blacks in Antiquity" published by Harvard University Press in 1970 is the most complete review of all the extant Greek and Roman writers that totally examines all those extant texts regarding descriptions of "Aethiopes" relative to other ancient peoples they encountered. At no time were the Egyptians, who had darker skin tone yes than Europeans, described with the same phenotype descriptions (e.g., head, nose, hair, etc.) as Ethiopians (Black Africans). Yes, I am aware than Egypt for a time was ruled by Kings from ancient Nubia/Cush who were from the ancient city of Meroe. Those were indeed "Ethiopians".

My sources point out what the DNA of 48 Etruscans show, 40 of them were local from Central Italy and had source ancestry from Early European Farmers with some Steppe admixture. They were not Greek migrants from Anatolia. Period. And whatever the linguistic affinity of the Etruscan language to other languages, Language does not necessarily correlate with ancestry. The Etruscans and Latins were genetically similar, but spoke different languages.

And the Greeks settled in Sicily, Basilicata, Calabria, Campania and Puglia for the record.
 
And the last thing about the Egyptians in this thread that I am going to say. There are numerous DNA studies that have been published on ancient Egypt, with some samples going back to about 2,000 BC. None of them show these ancient samples were genetically related to peoples South of the First cataract of the Nile. Now, I am aware that there needs to be more studies from more regions of Egypt and from periods further back. But none of the DNA evidence today supports your points. As for that Historian, I am not saying he is a liar, I am saying he perhaps is wrong.

Just do a quick search on ancient DNA studies done on Egypt. After you have read them, then perhaps I will discuss them.
 
Pre roman greeks also said Meluhhans live all along Ganges which is in North india and were blacks ( asiatic ethiopians / long haired ethiopians ) and are same elamites ( which we know are ancestors of dravidians ) and sumerians ( Cephenes/blacks of euphrate and south irak met by Hellanicus )

Only Romans say later blacks were in south egypt only ( what is faked because Beja tribe live in east egypt from red sea gulf to Nubians far south region... ) and say blacks in india are only in south what is faked cause the Nishada / Munda live in east of india and in their langage human = black person ŋuri lu rüö, cek kulu rüök, Kurukh in Nepal are black dravidians too and Brahui are black dravidians of afghanistan / Pakistan region near BALOUCHISTAN and there were Nihali , Korku and Adivasi in north india
 
No I did not commit and error. Herodotus was incorrect. The Etruscans were not from Anatolia. Get over it. And Herodotus did not say the Egyptians were "black skin" he said darker skinned. And in addition, Greek writers never called them Aethiopes. However, they were not as dark as the peoples how lived on the border between Egypt and Nubia (first cataract) and the peoples on the border region were lighter than the peoples in Ancient Kush whose kingdom was near the ancient city of Meroe (near 4th cataract). When Herodotus is describing Ethiopians (Black Africans) he is describing peoples South of first cataract. As I noted before, the ancient Greek writers starting with Xenophanes, who actually lived before Herodotus, Greeks were describing Ethiopians with anthropological descriptions other than just skin tone. He was the first to point out the flat-noses of Black Ethiopians. .
Fake herodotus said this : For it is plain to see that Colchians are Egyptians; and this that I say I myself noted before I heard it from others. When I began to think on this matter, I inquired of both peoples; and the Colchians remembered the Egyptians better than the Egyptians remembered the Colchians; the Egyptians said that they held the Colchians to be part of Sesostris' army. I myself guessed it to be so, partly because they are dark-skinned and woolly-haired; though that indeed goes for nothing, seeing that other peoples, too, are such; but my better proof was that the Colchians and Egyptians and Ethiopians are the only nations that have from the first practised circumcision saying egyptians are colchians ,colchians are dark skinned and wooly haired and colchians since practised circumcision the same ancient egyptians and ethiopians and we know arabs and berbers are not blacks and don' t practise circumcision until Mohamed came and only jews practise circumcision , and no one except them did it in semites tribes and sumerian tribes which are sons of ubaidians which in turn are first people of irak and qatar and bahrein except to no one the same way veddoids 50000 years ago as showed here in light pink and deep pink
main-qimg-8a1e2300d2869577d4ed9ae64e0898d3-pjlq

and dravidians where some tribes still practised circumcision and australian aborigines who pratice it and have the same origin from africa as veddoids and dravidians and Mundas https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/jharkhand-mundas-may-be-ancestors-of-oz-aborigines/story-26TXdlmJjCScJgq3KNAciM.html

[url]https://cosmosmagazine.com/history/archaeology/dna-confirms-aboriginal-australian-origins/


https://web.archive.org/web/2021042..._des_dernieres_decouvertes_archeologiques.asp

[/URL]also look genese de l' inde (Paris, Payot, 1997) of Bernard Sergent

chapter (pp. 45-84) on dravidians and melano indians




 
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.

.
How do you know it ?, a french student told this is not written in the site
Can you talk us about it ?
THANKS !
 
Adian808: you have reading comprehension problems. I said Herodotus theory on the Etruscans was not correct. The DNA evidence on that is pretty clear. As for the Egyptians and the use of the word "melagochroes" does not mean "black" it means "dark". So in the context of the Egyptians and Ethiopians, I said nothing regarding whether he was wrong. It is that you are misquoting him.

Professor Frank Snowden who wrote the book I cited above "Blacks in Antiquity" published this paper in 1989 that points out that the "afro-centrist" translation of "melagochroes" as "black" is not correct. He as I stated cites all of Herodotus works regarding Egyptians and Ethiopians and all the other extant writers of ancient Greece. The Egyptians were darker than the Greeks themselves, that is true, but it is also clear that they were not as dark as Ethiopians. I suggest you read the article. I am not interested in aliens.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26308578?seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents


I also repeat, go read the ancient DNA studies on Egypt.
 
Adian808: you have reading comprehension problems. I said Herodotus theory on the Etruscans was not correct. The DNA evidence on that is pretty clear. As for the Egyptians and the use of the word "melagochroes" does not mean "black" it means "dark". So in the context of the Egyptians and Ethiopians, I said nothing regarding whether he was wrong. It is that you are misquoting him.

Professor Frank Snowden who wrote the book I cited above "Blacks in Antiquity" published this paper in 1989 that points out that the "afro-centrist" translation of "melagochroes" as "black" is not correct. He as I stated cites all of Herodotus works regarding Egyptians and Ethiopians and all the other extant writers of ancient Greece. The Egyptians were darker than the Greeks themselves, that is true, but it is also clear that they were not as dark as Ethiopians. I suggest you read the article. I am not interested in aliens.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26308578?seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents


I also repeat, go read the ancient DNA studies on Egypt.

Hi Palermo, you have the passion of an angel. You would make a great teacher. I hope you succeed in educating adian808 and correcting his misconception.
 
Is there any gain in answering to adian808?
 
Adian808: you have reading comprehension problems. I said Herodotus theory on the Etruscans was not correct. The DNA evidence on that is pretty clear. As for the Egyptians and the use of the word "melagochroes" does not mean "black" it means "dark". So in the context of the Egyptians and Ethiopians, I said nothing regarding whether he was wrong. It is that you are misquoting him.

Professor Frank Snowden who wrote the book I cited above "Blacks in Antiquity" published this paper in 1989 that points out that the "afro-centrist" translation of "melagochroes" as "black" is not correct. He as I stated cites all of Herodotus works regarding Egyptians and Ethiopians and all the other extant writers of ancient Greece. The Egyptians were darker than the Greeks themselves, that is true, but it is also clear that they were not as dark as Ethiopians. I suggest you read the article. I am not interested in aliens.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26308578?seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents


I also repeat, go read the ancient DNA studies on Egypt.
Frank Snowden committed an error because melanchroes really mean blacks , it's close to mela which means black, Old Greek: *karümnó- 'black': karümnón = mélan
k[ǟ]lás = kelai̯nó- = kēlḗnē = mélaina
Old Greek: mélās = mélan= mélai̯na = dark , black

so melanchroes (μελάγχροες in greek )= black ...

Read carefully herodotus ( original versions):
melanchores-original-greek.png


μελάγχροες as we saw is black

Oulotriches is curly / wooly

and we must know this :

History and Etymology for ulotrichous (synonym of greek oulotriches )

New Latin Ulotrichi (plural) division of humankind having crisp or woolly hair (from Greek oulotrich-, oulothrix having curly or woolly hair, from oulos curly, woolly + trich-, thrix hair) + English -ous; akin to Greek eilein to roll, eilyein to roll, wrap.



[h=3]Ulotrichous Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster[/h]

http://www.sacred-texts.com
version:
“For the fact is as I soon came to realise myself, and then heard from others later, that the Colchians are obviously Egyptian. When the notion occurred to me, I asked both the Colchians and the Egyptians about it, and found that the Colchians had better recall of the Egyptians than the Egyptians did of them. Some Egyptians said that they thought the Colchians originated with Sesostris’ army, but I myself guessed their Egyptian origin not only because the Colchians are darkskinned and curlyhaired (which does not count for much by itself , because these features are common in others too) but more importantly because Colchians, Egyptians and Ethiopians are the only peoples in the world who practise circumcision and who have always done so.


  1. [url]https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Herodotus/2b*.html version:
    [/URL]
For it is plain to see that Colchians are Egyptians; and this that I say I myself noted before I heard it from others. When I began to think on this matter, I inquired of both peoples; and the Colchians remembered the Egyptians better than the Egyptians remembered the Colchians; the Egyptians said that they held the Colchians to be part of Sesostris' army. I myself guessed it to be so, partly because they are dark-skinned and woolly-haired; though that indeed goes for nothing, seeing that other peoples, too, are such; but my better proof was that the Colchians and Egyptians and Ethiopians are the only nations that have from the first practised circumcision. The Phoenicians and the Syrians of Palestine acknowledge of themselves that they learnt the custom from the Egyptians, and the Syrians of the valleys of the Thermodon and the Parthenius, as well as their neighbours the Macrones, say that they learnt it lately from the Colchians. These are the only nations that circumcise, and it is seen that they do even as the Egyptians. But as to the Egyptians and Ethiopians themselves, I cannot say which nation learnt it from the other; for it is manifestly a very ancient custom. That the others learnt it from intercourse with Egypt I hold to be clearly proved by this — that Phoenicians who hold intercourse with Hellas cease to imitate the Egyptians in this matter and do not circumcise their children.

we can notice herodotus precised what he named colchians were egyptians meaning they were of the same stock and said they were oulotriches which means whooly /curly haired what arabs and berbers are not except those who have african black ancestry as people of Mauritania , some touaregs and arab sudaneses or yemenites ( who have ethiopians genes) and we know most arabs and berbers have long hairs ...
WE ALSO KNOW herodotus said colchians are egyptians because they have wooly hair and are black skinned and are companions of Sesostris which he said is an egyptian who ruled after the ethiopians kings of egypt and even the map of the bible shows there's peoples of Cham the ancestor of blacks in Georgia - abkhazia- adygea region ( it also talks about Nimrod people Nimrod being ancestor of first mesopotamian people the sumerians which call themselves blacked headed people and have veddoid blacks genes genes of the first people of india
main-qimg-8a1e2300d2869577d4ed9ae64e0898d3-pjlq
and OF arab coasts to india and very high in dravidians and of which the name Nim existing both in sumerian and dravidian has the same sense in both langages of "high"...
Saba in yemen is also mentioned when we know there's black himyarites in yemen vassals of Axoum in ethiopia meaning this map is truthful
...)
even the abkhazians certify there were blacks in Nart epos
. An episode from Nart epic (several thousand years old), which deals in a peculiar manner with the appearance of black people on the East coast of the Black Sea, is interesting in this respect.

“The Narts, all the hundred brothers, once saddled their steeds and as usual started on their way in search of glory. They travelled for many days spending the night where it found them and on the morrow starting on their way again. Thus they travelled for 18 months. Once, at the close of the day, they pitched camp under the shady branches of a large tree, made a fire and stated to cook supper. The smoke from their camp fire rose to the sky, and some people living at a distance of half a day’s ride from the place noticed it. They were black-skinned people. They were so black, that even a brave horseman would get frightened on seeing them.

“The black-skinned people understood that the Narts would do them no harm. So they arranged a great feast. The Narts spent a whole month as the black-skinned people’s guests’ and when they decided to return home, the natives presented them with a large number of cattle, and one hundred of the best black-skinned horsemen went together with them to visit the famous Narts and see how they lived. The black-skinned people liked the Apani mountains very much, and when the time of parting of the black-skinned guests returned to their home, while the other decided to stay in these places forever.”
https://abkhazworld.com/aw/publications/archives/971-when-did-africans-get-to-soviet-union-1973

Herodotus also said what he named Colchians were ancient egyptians because being the only one with ancient egyptians and ethiopians to practise circumcision besides being people of Sesostris which was an egyptian king after the ethiopians reign who migrate to Caucasus and being oulotriches meaning wooly/curly haired and black skinned what is common in black africa where circumcision is practised since immemorial times when it was not present in asia and europe except in asia in sumerians ( black veddoids) and dravidians people before aryans come in india and was still practised by some dravidians community and that untouchables that are mostly black skinned and called sudras which also mean blacks are said in india to be old practitionners of too bloody sacrifices and circumcison hence their situation in india because aryans hate too bloodied sacrifices and circumcision because it make blood to flow when we know humans originates in africa and were all black skinned before 8000 years before Jesus Christ meaning blacks were the first people and were the first to do circumcision when we know ancient egyptians said they come from Pount in North SOMALIA next to ethiopia [url]http://www.histoire-secrete.fr/265475300
and diodore of sicily said the same way ancient egypt was an ethiopian colony led by Osiris , and told ancient egyptians told himself culture and culture of religion and royalty of egypt come from ethiopians and knowing somalis , ethiopians , darfouris and ancient egyptians have same EV32 haplogroup https://www.flickr.com/photos/anbessa2011/6284194929, we can said the colchians named by herodotus were blacks and the ancient egyptians were blacks
and we know ancient egyptians use the same brown color typical to blacks to describe themselves and pountites who have the same clothes ancient egyptians
[/URL]

ancient egyptians girls dancing

Pountites walking ...
 
@adian808

μελάγχροες should be translated as 'dark' because it is a rather vague term and the translator imho should choose an equally vague term. Today we use the cognate word μελαγχρινός -η with a primary meaning brunet/ bunette.
Then we take into account the context, which shows that Colchians according to Herodotus were at least darker than the Greeks, they had curlier hair than the Greeks (who did not have straight hair either), had probably similar complexion to Egyptians and had some customs of likely East African origin. So I think a movement from (North?) East Africa is likely but I don't know what the scale and the timeframe was.
 
Well although we don't have Sumerian samples, it's safe to assume that Sumerians had considerable Iran_N admixture and Iran_N has a lot of ANE ancestry so we can can say that both Sumerians and Native Americans have common ANE/Yana/ANS roots in Eurasia. How ever direct linguistic relationship between Sumerians and Native Americans seems very remote. Also Turkic ancestry is associated with Hong-Kong millet farmers or Devil Gates ancestry which was mostly ENA. Tbh Mongolic, Tungustic and Turkic don't seem be ANE derived language groups, if anything, Proto IE and Uralic plus Yenesians seem to be language's derived from more ANE rich populations that may have ties in the wind swept tundra of Ice age Siberia, but that is stretching things to far back me thinks 🤔
 

This thread has been viewed 56483 times.

Back
Top