Not semitics

>not semitics
>not indo-europeans

WHO were Sumerians?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=0DEAzA6TNR0
youtube.com/watch?v=NbNqcKoJYhU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Kangz probably

People who lived there before those incursions? Does it need to be something you'd recognize today?

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.

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?

I came into this thread for this

No, we call them Semitic because our understanding of them historically came from the bible.

...

I am watching this shit for 1.5 hours, am I lost?

youtube.com/watch?v=0DEAzA6TNR0

Chechens or Dagestanis

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.

They look like Jews, rubing their hands like that. Pretty scary to be honest family.

genetically their closest living relatives are chirkas

Turks

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.

delet!

t. mehmet mehmetoglu

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.

Interesting I had this video open before coming to this thread.

youtube.com/watch?v=NbNqcKoJYhU

finns

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.

Reptilians

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)

Koreans

Op said their weren't Semitic though

Well according to jewish mythology they did come from Ur

>WHO were Sumerians?

Revisionists

No worries man

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.

source?