>not semitics
>not indo-europeans
WHO were Sumerians?
Kangz probably
>>1347727
People who lived there before those incursions? Does it need to be something you'd recognize today?
>>1347727
Those are Assyrians.
Sumerians were probably just the native people of southern Iraq who adopted agriculture from around Syria/northern Iraq, or they might have been the descendants of those early agriculturalists who migrated into the region.
>>1347761
I think, if we're to trace back to the advent of agriculture, "Sumeria" was a sort of funnel point for goods from what we consider now the Persian Gulf to flow into Mesopotamia. I think during the advent of agriculture in the region, the Persian Gulf was not so large and deep, perhaps a good quarter to third of it was nutrient-rich flood plain, and this was a prospering proto-society, until some cataclysmic event filled the basin to the manner we see today.
Seen people claim they were related to modern Finns.
semitic comes from the biblical figure shem, correct?
does that mean all ancient semitic people believed in some form or variation of some of the stories contained genesis?
A language isolate?
Like we've agreed for over 100 years?
>>1347749
I came into this thread for this
>>1347812
No, we call them Semitic because our understanding of them historically came from the bible.
>>1347727
I am watching this shit for 1.5 hours, am I lost?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DEAzA6TNR0
Chechens or Dagestanis
>>1347727
In the earliest Bronze age (prior to 2000 BCE) the middle East had quite a few language isolates (Hurrian, Sumerian, Urartian). Most of those language isolates probably were remnants of stone age languages which were spoken in the local areas, so that the language spoken in the settlements of Çatalhöyük probably sounded similar to Hurro-Urartian.
>>1347727
They look like Jews, rubing their hands like that. Pretty scary to be honest family.
>>1347727
genetically their closest living relatives are chirkas
>>1347727
Turks
>>1348427
People can totally diss the Bible but honestly it really is illuminating in its ability to speak about Semitic expansion and cultures around them.
Archeology shows a lot of the Bible being based on some truth when it's not all magic.
Well considering the relative proximity to the Indian sub-continent and/or China, they might've been migrated peoples from there.
Or we are just wrong and they really were Indo-Europeans, there's just too little evidence to prove it.
>>1347727
Interesting I had this video open before coming to this thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbNqcKoJYhU
finns
>>1348466
niggers?
Their descendants became modern day irish people
The descendants of the Ui Neill clan immigrated to Ireland 8000 BC from displaced assyrian traders.
Stop whitewashing black history. Malcolmius Africanus was the first Assyrian American in 632BC.
>>1347727
Reptilians
>>1347727
Most likely theory is that they came from the Zagros mountains and mixed with the pre-agricultural Ubaid culture, shortly after the end of the last ice age (~10,000 YBP)
>>1347727
Koreans
>>1350840
Op said their weren't Semitic though
>>1349028
Well according to jewish mythology they did come from Ur
>>1347727
>WHO were Sumerians?
Revisionists
>>1348417
No worries man
>>1350330
The same works for hindu vedas and other sacred books, they point several things that have been found and deppending when they were created local things were added, which depended on how deep they(the indoeuropeans who migrated there) were into India, for example, tigers appear in the lattest books.
>>1350744
source?
