THE PROGENY OF CAIN

I’m presenting here a perspective for the origin of African and Asian people by means of a Biblical foundation, to establish a complete, concise scenario that is severely lacking despite all the best research of most scholars. This perspective focuses on the progeny of the Biblical person named Cain of the book of Genesis.  First of all, the biblical narrative of Cain and Abel was neither allegorical nor literal but somewhere in between, because the story is not simply about two individuals but about the patriarchs of two clans; one of Pastoralists and one of Agrarians. There was a thriving little civilization during that time and many of the earliest technologies already existed at that time of the Antediluvian age (before the Great Flood). This was the origin and idea by which inspired the story known as Plato’s lost civilization of Atlantis, because before the Great Flood the area East of the Garden of Eden itself may have been located where the Gulf Aden (Aden means Eden) now exists as an extension of the Great Rift Valley in Ethiopia before the valley between Arabian and African continents were inundated. Or, it may have been the Mediterranean Sea, depending on a polar shit of the earth’s mantle.
The earth was still at the geologic stage of a proto-Pangaea, when Cain was exiled to the East, which is further East from where Adam and Eve were expelled. East in the Hebrew language means 'towards the rising sun.' Far enough East would take the clan of Cain, to Far East Asia.
First let me explain what I mean by a proto-Pangea. Obviously the world physically was very much different from how it is now. One major clue is that the Bible suggests that it never rained on the earth before the Great Flood. The Flood itself caused and was caused by some major cataclysmic events that drastically changed the face of the earth. I make a full explanation of this in my article “The Noachian Flood.” But, just for this article, I need just say that all the water on the earth now is the only thing that separated the continents. Pangea was simply the absence of most of this water. Most of the earth was exposed with a shallow sea of an earth with a wider circumference. Thus, Pangea, whatever shape the geologists propose it was is inconsequential. That is what I mean by a proto-Pangea.
Also, In regards to the book the Preadamites by Alexander Winchell, it can be interpreted that since Mongoloid and Negro people (distinctively non Hametic) are acutely absent from the Biblical genealogy of the 70 families of Noah’s progeny, then Cain’s progeny in exile consisted of Mongoloid and Negro type people and that they were spared, for the most part, from the Divine judgment of the Great Flood of Noah.
Other groups of people may have also been spared, survived who where not descendants of Cain.
From there a proto Ntu (plural of Bantu) people spread across the southern part of the equator in both directions further East to Melanesia and to the West returning to Africa. Many ethnic groups developed along the way bringing remnants of the Atlantis civilization with them into the Hsia, Shang,  Indus Valley, Sumerian and Egyptian civilization.  Despite official chronology I consider all these civilizations somewhat contemporary. The only difference is the re-establishment of cultural and physical contact between the progeny of Cain with the progeny of Noah, who already occupied much of West Asia and East Europe and had preserved their own technological remnants of Atlantis civilization. This altogether would culminate into the event of the Tower of Babel. So overall, the earliest and oldest occupation of humans has always been in Africa and West Asia. But after the Great Flood these ancient lands were reoccupied by two separate families.
Using the Flood legends of Mesopotamia, India and China as a time marker for historical correspondence; the clan of families that migrated to the east, separated centuries before the Noachian Flood into different parts of East Asia. However, it seems very likely that other families survived the Flood like the Basque, Khoi-san, pygmies, Gaelic, Dravidians and Australian aborigines.

All races of Humanity are one family originating from one human couple, thereby the so-called races of humanity are rather a ultra characterization, through an isolation of peculiar genetic characteristics. It is a simple process of a human trait to choose a partner for marriage of similar characteristics. Since the genetically young material of Adam and Eve would reproduce children through sibling intermarriage, as characteristic traits become more prominent through every division of progeny, the tendency would be to continue that trend.

PART 1

"And Abel came to be a herder of sheep, but Cain became a cultivator of the ground."Ge.4:2b.

It is certain that while Adam and Eve gave birth to Cain and Abel, that other children were born to them. We must understand that when the Bible speaks of any of the named patriarchs (except for Adam and Eve initially), that it includes a clan of his wife or wives, sons and daughters and extended relatives. The book of the Genesis is made from a collection of many little books of the patriarchs. Many of these are very succinct narratives and cannot devote time and space writing about other members of the family. The brief concise history of Genesis only allows room to mention those who are the patriarchs and matriarchs of a social evolution. These likewise became gods and goddesses of aberrant ancient traditions. This I had inferred from my review of the book by Wiseman, P.J.  Ancient records and the structure of Genesis: a case for literary unity. T. Nelson Publishers, c1985. With that perspective, when Cain killed Abel it my have been a situation of social and territorial conflict between two clans. Early in the development of the human family two clans emerged from two social orders, that of agrarian and pastoral. These two social orders cannot coexist without some friction over land use and of boundaries. According to Genesis 13:5-9, even the pastoral clans of Abram and Lot could not coexist in the same space without some disputes.
Cain went into banishment in "the land of Fugitives to the east of Eden," [which was further east from "the east of the garden of Eden" where Adam and were expelled, Ge.324], taking with him his wife, being an anonymous daughter of Adam and Eve. (Ge.4:16,17; compare 5:4, also the much later example of Abraham's marriage to his half sister Sarah, Ge.20:12.) Following the birth of his son Enoch, Cain "engaged in building a city," [with and for his clan], naming it for his son. Such a city may have been but a fortified village by present standards. His descendants are listed in part and include men who distinguished themselves in nomadic stock raising, the playing of metal tools as well as those who were known for their practice of polygamy and their violence. (Ge.4:17-24) Insight on the Scriptures p.386. Likewise, we can take notice by this scripture that this was not the Iron Age. Which additionally give credence to secular historical correspondence.
The progeny of Cain is supposedly thought to have perished in the Flood of Noah's time. The reason for that assumption is that the Flood was extensive and covered the whole earth. However, if according to archaeologists the Flood was only a local flood of the Mesopotamian plain, then it would stand to reason that Cain's progeny was totally spared from that disaster, and contributed to the present population of earth. But then again, if faithfully adhering to the literal description of the Flood according to Genesis, then the flood was extensive world wide, but despite that, it would still allow that some parts of the world in the “land of the Fugitives” in the Far East, some parts of Africa and Europe to be spared its destructive effects. Because we must consider that God exiled him not simply as a punishment but also for his protection. His progeny was genetically young, fresh and vital, potentially resulting in many ethnic genotypes of people, likewise as with Seth and Abel.  But the many unknown different genotypes that could have resulted from Abel’s progeny is now lost to us. It is then reasonable to consider that God would not then just let them all perish also in the Great Flood. God exiled them in a land that effectively isolated them, which may have been a formidable natural barrier in regards the sign God have employed for people to stay away from him. This may have likely also proved as a buffer against the Great Flood.  Most importantly, it would be necessary to disregard and reevaluate the enormous scale of time of earth’s geology, especially that which is assigned to the worldwide transgression of the Jurassic sea on Pangaea.

In the book by Amedaus Grabau, "The Rhythm of the Ages", chapter 23, 'The World In The Jurassic Age'. It states:
"To summarize [the event], we may stress the fact of the wide transgression of the Jurassic sea after the Lias contraction {[ME. lyas < OFr. liois (Fr. liais), kind of limestone] a series of rocks, the oldest or lowest part of the Jurassic System, noted for its fossils} and final continental coal-forming condition of the Interpulsation period, or the re-erosion of some of the earlier deposits of the Lias during the land period. Though developed in west Europe, the Lias is already wanting at Regensburg and Passau, in parts of Saxony, in the whole of trans-Carpathian Moravia, in Upper Silesia, near Krakau, and over most of the Baltic areas, over the whole of European and Asiatic Russia, north-west and Arctic North America, East Greenland, Spitzbergen and Franz-Joseph's land and over most of Africa (except in the north and east) and in India and South America, except the west coast. At all these points the Jurassic overlaps directly on to the older rocks, beginning with various stages, the older being progressively overlapped, until in some sections the whole of the Dogger is likewise missing.'
'This was probably the most extensive marine transgression known in the whole history of the earth. It was made possible by the great extent of the country, which had been peneplaned during the long continental interval, for this provided extensive flat areas, over which the sea could transgress, as it rose during the Jurassic period. Beginning at the several epi-seas the transgression filled the geosynclines, extended over the marginal platforms and swept the country in one gigantic flood that spelt destruction to all animal- and plant-life in its path. It was the last great inundation; after its retreat, the Pangaea became subjected to the process of dismemberment, beginning with the opening of the South Atlantic between Africa and South America, widening as the latter land block drifted westward. This increased, step by step with increase in size of the Atlantic, until finally the arrangement of lands and seas that we are familiar with came into existence." p.386-7.
This was greatly recognized by many geologist during that time in the 1800's, by creationist and evolutionary geologist. But the whole idea that this event corresponded to the the Great Flood of Noah was discredited by the enormous time scale assigned to it by the uniformitarian theory of geology. Ironic, since now most creationist totally disregard that theory but it seems they also totally forgot about the Jurassic Transgression as a corresponding event to the Great Flood of Noah and offer no scientific proof of the creation story.

This provides the foundation for my "Atlantis theory", which according to Mediterranean, Mesopotamian, Chinese and Dravidian legends there was a civilization prior to a great calamity, such being equitable to the Great Flood of Noah's time. Since this flood corresponds perfectly to the Jurassic Transgression, then the lost continent was not submerged into the sea, but rather the low valley was completely submerged. The story about the Nephilim in the book of Genesis chapter six also alludes to the Atlantis legend. In fact there are some skeletal remains of Gigantopithecus that prove giant humanoids once existed:
In the Chien-shih cave they were found associated with skulls of Gigantopithecus blacki. Concerning this creature, see G.H.R. Von Koenigswald, "A Giant Fossil Hominoid from the Pleistocene of Southern China," Anthropological Papers, American Museum of Natural History, no.43 (1952), 301-9. Franz Weidenreich "Giant Early Man From Java and South China, Anthropological Papers, American Museum of Natural History, no.40 (1945), pt.1; "Apes, Giants and Man, University of Chicago Press, 1946. P'ei Wen-chung, VPI (1957), no.2, 65-70.
In this Atlantian civilization there may have been one common language underlying the origin of all current languages, and that some may have survived in fidelity of the original form. Therefore such would not be limited to a particular race, as in the relationship found between Basque and Sumerian. Also, art, science, technology, theology under one cultural umbrella for all the proto-races however advanced or primitive would've had only remnants survive after the flood which explain the sudden developments of civilizations in recorded ancient history without any so-called gradual evolution. Indus Valley, Hsia-Shang, Sumer, Elam, Mesopotamia and Egypt are probably all reinvented remnants of that Atlantian civilization, and thus not necessitating cultural diffusion by any sort of migration, but each one a cultural autochthon. Atlantis was the civilization of Eden.
However, the Indo-European and Semito-Hamitic races were evolved from the progeny of Noah's family. They created the Mediterranean and Mesopotamian civilizations that eventually made contact with the proto-Sumerians, proto-Egyptians, proto-Elamites, and Dravidians and assimilated their cultures, and race. These "Pre-Noachite races" were the families of Cain's clan who were exiled to the east of Eden whereby they migrated into all of East Asia. After the flood there may have been a few survivors as the Khoi-san and Pygmy human inhabitants on the continent of Africa before the proto-Ntu’s migrated back towards the Eden resulting in the legends of Gilgamesh. This could only have been accomplished by a seafaring venture as demonstrated and documented by Thor Heyerdahl in a prototype replica of an ancient Egyptian ship across the Indian Ocean in "The Tigris Expedition.” It is apparent that all the early civilizations commenced near a river basin.
This allegation was inspired by the research done by Alexander Winchell in his book the Preadamites. For example in the chapter entitled "Pre Noachite Races" he says:
As a corollary of this conclusion, the deluge of Noah was not universal, and did not destroy all human beings, but only all the people which fell within the purview of Semitic history and tradition, - perhaps the history and tradition of the White race. No anxiety should be occasioned, therefore, if the history of the Brown races, - that of the Chinese, for example, - is found to run back over a period more remote than the accepted epoch of the Deluge. Finally, it may be added, the local nature of the Deluge is proved not only by the existence of prenoachite races, but by a number of other considerations, which have of themselves determined the belief of most persons who feel free to cut loose from traditional opinions. p.154
Still further, the antediluvian Jabal, son of Lamech and fifth in descent from Cain, "was the father of such as dwell in tents and (of such as have) cattle." "Such as dwell" is a phrase, which leads us to inquire, to what time does the present tense of the phrase refer? There must have been people dwelling in tents and having cattle at the time of the composition of this history. Such as "dwell" in tents and (have) cattle is a phrase implying that the descendants of Jabal were living in the time of Moses. If we admit that Moses was author of the account (or in some postdiluvium age if the account has a postdiluvium origin) this would mean, that the posterity of Cain were not destroyed by the Deluge, and hence that the Deluge was not "universal." The same line of reasoning applies to Jubal "the father all such as handle the harp and organ." It equally applies to Tubal-Cain, "an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron." The descendants of these gifted patriarchs seem to have been in existence after the Flood. It is not admissible, then, on biblical grounds, to assume that Noah was the progenitor of all existing peoples.
This conclusion seems the more probable in view of the non-biblical evidence of a population in Noah's time, which had survived the Flood. pp.136-137
  Since according to P.J.Wiseman, in his book "Ancient records and the structure of Genesis," It is Adam who the wrote the account of Cain's descendants, and not Moses, who only compiled and revised the ancient Genesis accounts, from tablets onto scrolls. Therefore, Winchell's argument is not valid, but the allegation made for his conclusion can still to be true, except that the Flood was still universal, but just not total in its destruction. A more valid allegation is:
"Again, we are told in Genesis 10:12, that Nimrod - or the Nimrodites, the immediate descendants of Ham, were concerned, in some way, in building famous cities in the land of Shinar. 'The beginning of his kingdom was Babel and Erech and Calneh.' Is it possible that Nimrod built these four cities without a preexisting population? Asshur, also, a son of Shem, migrated from the land of Shinar northward and built five cities, where of Calah is said to have been 'a great city.' Did Asshur also build cities without a preexisting population? But perhaps the purport of the text signifies that these cities had been built at the date of the account. Now, as the account ends with Peleg, it is presumable that the lifetime of Peleg marks the date of the account. But Peleg was the great-great grandson of Shem; and in another undoubtedly later account (chp.11) we have data, which enable us to ascertain that Peleg was born 101 years after the Flood, and died 239 years after the Flood. If, therefore, Peleg, or in the lifetime of Peleg, the utmost allowance of 239 years for the development of the populations of the nine cities 'built' by Nimrod and Asshur. It seems more probable that Prenoahites were found in existence, and that the grandson and great-grandson of Noah organized them under settled governments." p.135-6
Likewise, indicating the lack of a sufficiently large population for all those cities, the publication of "Insight on The Scriptures," vol. 1, under 'Chronology,' on p.460, states:
The date of the attempt at building the Tower of Babel is not stated in the record. Genesis 11:25 indicates that the division resulting from the confusion of the languages there occurred sometime during 'the days of Peleg,' It does not necessarily follow that this event occurred at Peleg's birth. The expression "in his days would in fact indicate that the division took place, not at or immediately subsequent to Peleg's birth, but sometime during his life span, which extended from 2269 to 2030 BCE. If each post-Flood male parent at the age of 30 were to begin fathering children at the rate of one male child every six years, and continued this until the age of 90, then in a period of about 180 years from the end of the Flood (that is, by 2189 BCE) the population could have grown to a total of over 4,000 adult males. This conservative [?] number would [not by themselves] be ample to fit the circumstances relating to the tower construction and the dispersal of the peoples.

PART 2

For an alleged connection of the Bible's record of Cain's progeny to the ancient history of China, there exist some coincidences. In the legendary or historical personalities of ancient China there is one mention of the "Three Primeval Emperors" (sanhuang) in the "Historical Records" by Sima Qian through which the recorded history of ancient China is transmitted to us. He had studied all the ancient writings that had come down to his day, which was the 2nd century BCE; and not all the ancient writings he studied have come down to us, by decision after careful consideration. Sima Qian offers no explanation in his text for the allusion to: “In the ancient times there were tianhuang (Heavenly Emperor), diahuang (Terrestrial Emperor), and taihuang (Primal Emperor)...." However, in context to the Yellow Emperor it seems to correspond to God as the Heavenly Emperor, Eve as Terrestrial Emperor, and Adam as Primal Emperor. As for ancient writings that antedate Sima Qima, a number of them have indeed given quite a few names of those who were supposed to have ruled China before the Yellow Emperor. The four that deserve attention are (1) Youchao ("Have Nest"), (2) Suiren ("Fire Maker"), (3) Paoxi or Fuxi ("Animal Domesticator"), and Shennong ("Divine Husbandman"). In the account given about them in the "Book of Changes", a comparison can be inferred of Paoxi with Abel and Shennong to Cain. However since the first two cannot be compared to anyone else in the Bible, it is possible that since Cain and Abel are contemporaries that either Youchao or Suiren is Seth, and the other is probably Enosh his son. It is a stretch since non of them except Cain and his progeny were anywhere near China. But I believe there is a correlation there somewhere to the first families.  The accounts of these persons in the Bible and in Chinese legends are concurrent events despite written in consecutive order. For example the following account given about them in the 3rd century BCE:
In the ancient times there were fewer people and more animals. The people were victimized by beasts and reptiles. Then there came a sage who taught them how to build nests with wood in order to avoid harm; and the people were happy. So they made him their ruler and called him Youchao, "Have Nest."
However, the people continued to eat fruits, berries, fish, clams, which were raw, fetid, malodorous, and causing so much injury to the digestive organs that they were ill most of the time. So there came another sage who taught them how to obtain fire by drilling wood and then cure the food of its stench and decay. And the people were happy and made him their ruler and called him Suiren, "Fire Maker." (HanŸeizi, wudu), p.51.
Now the pastoralist Paoxi was known also as Fuxi. Paoxi is known to have taught the people how to make meat always available for the kitchen; and Fuxi, more directly, that he taught the people how to domesticate animals. Also, in the "Book of Changes" it is expressly stated:
When Paoxi ruled the world, he looked up, observing the phenomena of the heavens, and he looked down, observing the ways of the earth. Also, he observed the styles of the birds and animals as well as the conditions of land and soil. He learned lessons from near and from afar, from his own person and from things outside. And he began to form the Eight Trigrams in order that men may communicate with divine enlightened virtues, and also categorize the nature of ten thousand matters. (Book of Changes xici, II, chap.2.) p.51.
The agrarian Shennong had been described by several books antedating Sima Qian. One of them says:
In the ancient times the people ate and drank whatever and wherever they could, gathering fruits and berries from trees and plants and feeding on beasts and reptiles. And they were most of the time afflicted with disease, poison, and injuries. Then came Shennong who taught the people to plant and cultivate the five cereals, to observe the difference of soil, to take note of what grains are suited to what kind of land, dry or wet, rich or poor, high or low. He himself tasted hundreds of plants as well as spring waters, both sweet and bitter, so that the people might what to avoid. Once in this experiment, in a single day, he took in poison seventy times. (Huainanzi, xiuwu xun)
This, also, was authenticated by no less an authority than the Book of Changes:
At the end of the house of Paoxi, the house of Shennong rose. The latter bent wood to make a plow, and cut it to make a rake; with the plow and the rake he taught the whole world. (Book of Changes xici, II, chap.2.)
All these showed how he had come to be known as "Divine Husbandman" (Shennong). But he seemed to have done even more. According to the same authority, it was he who first introduced systematic barter in China; or, at least, it was during his time that trade began to be institutionalized:
The noontime was set as market time. At that time all the people would meet with one another carrying their produce or merchandise. After making exchanges, they would each go their own ways satisfied. (shenŸenlan, 6, shenshi)
And it appeared too that Shennong had not gained the empire without some sort of struggle. This is noted in another book: "The people of Shusha attacked their own prince and joined with Shennong." (Lushi Chunqiu, lisulan, 4, yongmin)
It is apparent the same point of time is referred to in both the accounts of Suiren and Shennong in regards to the food available to the people then. And as an alternative to the simple Bible narration between Cain and Abel, this Chinese narrative infers a struggle between two clans, which led to Cain (Shennong) being exiled to the Far East along with his clan. This would explain the need and ability for constructing a "city" as it purports to be in Genesis 4:17. This leads to the comparison of the Yellow Emperor to Lamech in Genesis 4:18-24. For example:
Before Sima Qian obtained access to the "books stored in metal cabinets inside stone chambers" of the Han palace, for information on the Yellow Emperor and his immediate successors, he relied principally on Confucius's two discourses-Virtues of the Five Premier Emperors (wudide) and Genealogy of the Premier Emperors (dixixing). These discourses were delivered by Confucius in response to a disciple's question, not of his own volition. In fact, it may almost be said that he was more or less compelled to give answer because he did not want such misrepresentations about the Yellow Emperor as were apparently implied in the inquiry to continue uncorrected.
Zai Wo inquired of Confucius: "Formerly I heard from Rongyi that the Yellow Emperor had three hundred years. May I ask about Yellow Emperor? Was he human, or not human? How could he have three hundred years?"
Confucius was at first reluctant to answer the question, declaring that the times of the Yellow Emperor were of exceeding antiquity and it was all but impossible to give a full and authentic account of him. But at the disciple's insistence, he delivered a brief sketch of the Yellow Emperor's virtues and achievements, and then added:
While he lived, the people enjoyed the advantages he gave them for some one hundred years, after he died, the people continued to be awed by his presence for another hundred years; and when his presence was no longer felt, the people still used his teachings for another hundred years. This is why it is said that he had three hundred years. p.55
However, despite his conservative explanation, on face value if the Yellow Emperor had lived three hundred years that would be a consistent life span as a contemporary of the Noah's children the postdilluvium patriarchs. Also, the Yellow Emperor practiced polygamy, which is an outstanding character of Lamech. In China proper, the rivalry between tribes within the clan may have lead to Lamech's lamentation of having killed someone. (Genesis 4:23,24) With all things considered therefore the reason the narration of Cain's genealogy is recorded in the Bible is not for a dead history, but for a living legacy of a people not included in the narration of Noah's descendants.
This allegation was inspired by the research done by Alexander Winchell in his book the "Preadamites". For example in the chapter entitled "Pre Noachite Races" he says:
I think it appears from the foregoing citation that the general opinion among ethnologists sustains the doctrine of a wide-spread Mongoloid population over the continents of Asia and Europe, save where the Dravidians held possession of the peninsula of Hindustan and neighboring regions. It appears that this race has been recognized in the prehistoric peoples of Europe, in the ancient Iberians, and in the Basques, Finns, Lapps and Esths as well as in sundry remnants of primitive peoples of the Asiatic countries still held by Mongoloids. It appears that this population was spread over the two continents at a date much earlier than that commonly assigned to the Deluge, and that the posterity of Noah, in their dispersion over Europe and Asia, were everywhere confronted by races of men already in possession of the earth. p.153
Under these circumstances, it is incredible that their divergence commenced but four thousand years ago. Again, the very populous ness of the Mongoloids argues the high antiquity of their race. They number forty-four percent of the whole population of the world. Four hundred years ago they were probably twice as numerous as all the Hamites, Semites and Aryans then in existence. They have spread over vastly more territory than the Mediterranean race, and have encountered the vicissitudes of even a greater range of climates, - a contrast all the more apparent if we extend the comparison back a few centuries. In the Old World they brave the rigors of shores of the Arctic Sea, quite secure from the encroachments of the White race. They luxuriate over tropical peninsulas and the islands of the Pacific. In America they begin upon the desolate coasts of the Frozen Ocean, and stretch through every degree of latitude across the equator, and onward to the sleety and rock-bound retreat of Terra del Fuego. They have infused their blood into a third of the populations of Europe. Now, I hold that these facts of daily observation strongly remind us of the comparatively high antiquity of this race. In my own mind the only question remaining is, whether they are not descendants of preadamites as well as of prenoachites. But this question I do not hasten to press. I am satisfied to point out the prenoachian origin of the two brown races.

In "The Origins of Chinese Civilization" edited by David N. Keightley, published by the University of California Press in 1983, under chapter 8 by Karl Jettmar, pp.217-233:
N.N.Cheboksarov takes forty pages (18-59) to discuss the oldest finds of skulls, including those of the Wei valley during the Yang-shao culture phase at a stage between the eastern and southern branches of the Mongoloid Great Race. He also comments on the observations made by Davidson Black in his work on the Kansu Skulls. He is of the opinion that the skulls could be called proto-Chinese, but a comparison of these proto-Chinese skulls with those from the Wei valley indicate that the Wei valley skulls posses more distinct Mongoloid features.... The Kansu do not have specialized form, and they preserve certain features peculiar to the late Paleolithic emigrants to the New World, for which reason this differentiated form of the Mongoloid race could even be designated Americoid. p.220
Under chapter 11 by W.W. Howells pp.297-317:
A single American Indian cranial series has been analyzed as representing an amalgam of Negroids, Australoids, Mediterranean-Caucasoids, and of course Mongoloids. Polynesians have been viewed as a mixture of migrant Melanesians, Indonesians, Caucasoids, and others (including in a more recent evangel, American Indians of both continents). This kind of scenario puts the matter of origins back a whole stage - races are mixtures of previous races - and creates a picture of energetic migrations of quite distinct peoples around and through northeast Asia.... p. 299
Although it sounds attractive to say that there were dynamic migrations of distinct races intermixing at such an early date of human history, it is only another fallacy of the evolutionary theory. It is also a great contradiction to the evolution of the animal kingdom; wherein a parent of a species differentiates into specialized forms or breeds, which would be equivalent to a race. Thus instead of saying a breed of the Feline or Kanine family, one could replace breed with race. The races of the human family were not created as if different species of Hominids intermixing into different species of Homosapiens intermixing into races. A proper perspective is a proto race where familiarity to peculiar genetic characteristics lead to families of isolated genetic pools; in other words, familiar selective breeding. Both humans and animals can suffer from too much inbreeding, leading to genetic deficiency.
The Bronze Age consists essentially of the crania from the Shang tombs at An-Yang. In these excavations several thousand human skulls were recovered, mostly decorporated and placed in sacrificial pits in groups of ten to over thirty. (Li Chi 1978).... Many were classically Mongoloid, but others strongly recalled other recognized racial forms: of Chukchi (or Buriat), Melanesian, Eskimo, or Caucasoid (or perhaps Plains Indian).... p.304-5
The expanse that constitutes modern China clearly emerges as greatly affected by the diffusion of the southern Mongoloids. But in their southern periphery these mixed with Australoids. The Tai peoples, the Austro-Asiatics, and the Austronesians could have developed in such bordering zones... The presence of Western (Europoid) immigrants, either unmixed or as hybrids with local Mongoloids, has not been proven.
Some of the skulls excavated in An-yang and its immediate vicinity have been brought to Taiwan and some (from later excavations) are in Peking. The Taiwan series is heterogeneous... Cheboksarov is of the opinion that northern Mongoloid characteristics are observable, as well as southern Mongoloid and even Australoid-Mongoloid hybrid forms....
The appearance of the Peking series is totally different... The homogeneous Peking series originates from graves of the dominant ethnic group.... According to Cheboksarov, relatively homogenous anthropological communities existed not far from the capital (he suggests distances of two or three hundred kilometers) that were nevertheless different from the Shang population... He believes that such outsiders were depicted on certain bronzes. The Sumitomo Collection in Kyoto includes a famous bronze vessel in the shape of an ogre holding a small human figure, and Cheboksarov claims to recognize non-Chinese facial features in this figure [which characteristically resembles a negroid type]... Furthermore, no brachycephalic skulls exist that could be ascribed to immigrants from the West [Europe]. pp.221-22
So far, little is known about South China... The southern branch of the far eastern Mongoloids was dominant, even during the second millennium BC Australoid features appear. The term "Indonesian race" has been coined for a crossbreed of Mongoloids and Australoids, and it should be clear that this term possibly encompasses the ancestors of many ethnic groups. p.222
I have gone into this at length because the issue is central to interpretation of the one present body of Bronze Age evidence, that from An-yang. In sum, I can see no indication that the peoples buried in the sacrificial pits were other than ordinary members of the Shang Chinese population. I would not deny that the actual victims might have been drawn a wide area and might have included members of peripheral populations. And I would not deny that the Chinese population itself may have had some kind of mixed origin, as other scholars believed, because as I have said the achievement of normal population variation following hybridization can be rapid... And the An-yang samples does not seem to have variation above the normal. p.312-13
It seems apparent that negroid ethnic groups occupied China during the Hsia/Shang civilization. They would obviously have contributed to the development the Chinese culture and civilization. Since the time of their migration from Eden, as a proto race, as families of Cain's clan, a process of character selective inbreeding has resulted in the races or ethnic groups which primarily settled into the three regions of Asia: India, Australia and China before the Flood. Evidently, after the Flood, geologic isolation resulted in genetic isolation, and Australia became too in-bred and peculiar while India became limited to Dravidian and proto Ntu’s. Yet China had greater genetic diversity, as in the manner of Mongoloids, Melanesians, and Americoids. In China an increased distinction between meladerms and paliderms eventually resulted in migrations of meladerms to southern tropical climates. There may have also been a much earlier eventual distinction between ulotrichs and lissotrichs, even in India, but not Australia.
Further evidence of the Negroid contribution to Chinese civilization is in chapter 16 by K.C. Chang, on page 497:
According to myths and legends of late Chou and early Han (e.g., those recorded in the 'Shih pen' and the 'Ti hsi'), Yu, the founding ancestor of the Hsia dynasty, descended from Chuan Hsu, a descendant of the Yellow Emperor. And Hsieh, founding ancestor of the ruling clan of the Shang dynasty, descended from Ti K'u, another descendant of the Yellow Emperor. The Shih-chi records that the ancestors of all three dynasties, Yu, Hsieh, and Hou Chi, served in the royal courts of Ti Yao and Ti Shun. From these accounts, Hsia and Shang, at least, were two political groups with a parallel existence beginning with the Yellow Emperor. On the basis of more reliable data, however, one can say only that the Shang were able to claim a history of their own of considerable glory prior to their conquest of Hsia, a history now often referred to as that of the period of hsien-kung hsien-wang or predynastic lords and kings. In the Shih-ching ("Ch'ang fa," Mao 304) we read that
The dark king valiantly ruled;
The service of small states everywhere he received,
The service of great States everywhere he received.
Hsiang-t'u was very glorious;
Beyond the seas he ruled. (Waley 1960:277)

PART 3

In "An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology" under chapter 15 'Skeletal Remains', 15.2 'Human':
No evidence is available for the evolution or movement of early man in India. Though there is an abundance of Palaeolithic tools [4.2-4] their authors have eluded us till now.
According to Sankalia and Karve, 1949, the Mesolithic [4.5] human remains discovered at LANGHNAJ belong to a dolichocephalic population having supra-orbital ridges and well-rounded occiputs, showing Veddoid or Australoid affinities. Guha et al., 1961, regarded them as of Proto-Australoid affinity similar to the Bhils and other aboriginal tribes of c. India....
Of the sites of the Indus civilization, the Chanhu-daro skulls (Krogman and Sessaman, 1943) were dolichocranial, representing a Proto-Mediterranean type in which ancestral Negroid traits manifested themselves. One group at Mohenjo-daro was of a moderate stature with a long head, a narrow prominent nose and a long face but not physically very strong. The second group was a long-headed type, very powerfully built and with a tall stature, stout eyebrow ridges and large brains. An enormous development of postauricular part of the skull was a characteristic feature. The third identified group was broad-headed, with a high cranial vault, prominent nose and flat or round shape of the occiput. (Sewell and Guha, 1931.) The population belonging to the mature Harappa culture at Harappa (Cemetery R 37) was long-headed. One type was tall, rugged and sturdily built, having pronounced eye-brow ridges, a receding forehead and broad nose with depressed root; the other was gracile, comparatively short and of weak type. The population of the later Cemetery H, besides the long-headed and round-headed types, another medium-statured, small- and medium-headed, low-faced type was found. (Gupta et al., 1962.) The LOTHAL skulls show similarity with those discovered at Sialk. Cranial indicies vary between hyperdolicho to hyperbrachy. The nose shape varied from very fine to very broad. The shape of the superior face varied between hyperlepton to hypereuren. The stature varied from below medium to very tall. (Rao.1973.)
It will be seen from the above that the population at Harappa, Mohenjo-daro and LOTHAL possessed broad noses, though the noses of the Mohenjo-daro people were less broad then those of the other two. The population of LOTHAL had, in comparison to those of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro, broad heads. The population at each site was homogeneous with respect to at least the head and nose shapes and stature, indicating thereby that the population at the site belonged to a single biological group, not recognizable into several races with distinctive characteristics. The Indus population was tall, long-headed and broad-nosed in the n-w. region but had somewhat rounder heads in Gujarat.
All over India there are now areas of people with short-to-medium stature, dolichocephallic, chamaerrhine and mesorrhine population, known as Proto-Australoid (Guha, 1935)....
Sarkar, 1964...is of the view that an autochthonous, hyperdolichocranial element represented by Veddid or Australoid ethic strain appears to be at the base of the Indus people. Guha, 1935, is of the opinion that as the three groups found at the Harappa sites also occurred at 'Al Ubaid and Kish, a close affinity of the Harappans with the people of Pre-Sargonic Mesopotamia can be inferred....
The Proto-Australoid type so conspicuous during the Megalithic period of peninsular India is one of the major elements in the aboriginal population. The entire c. and s. Indian tribes belong essentially to this type. The same can be said of the tribes of w. India and some groups in the Ganga valley. pp.316-318.

In the book by Upadhyaya, U. Padmanabha, "Dravidian and Negro-African: an ethno-linguistic study..." It states:
In spite of the fact that modern scholarship, especially the Western scholarship connects Dravidian people and language with one or the other West Asian or Mediterranean sources with such great vehemence and evidence, no native tradition mentions Dravidians as having come from other sources. Ramachandra Dikshitar, (in "The origin and spread of the Tamils" Madras Adyar Library. 1947), examines all available evidences of early Dravidian civilization and puts forward the view that South India was their original home from where they subsequently spread westwards and eastwards.
Walter Raleigh in his 'History of the World' states that India is the first country, which had plants and human habitation after the flood. References to the submerging of the seats of learning found in Tamil classics may perhaps be due to a vague memory handed down through oral tradition, of that universal flood. The poets might have given a poetic interpretation of that tradition.
The propagandists of the theory of native origin observe that if at all there was migration, it could not have been from West to East and North to South, but from South to North and then to West. It is argued that if the ancestors of the Dravidians were the creators of Mediterranean, Sumerian and Indus Valley civilization, how is it that we do not find the continuity of that civilization in South India? What happened to their writing system? So, migration must be the autochthons of South India and one branch of this population might have gone to Sumeria and Indus Valley and participated in the evolution of the civilization of these regions.
Regarding the original home of this community it can be assumed that the original black [Bantu] race evolved in the tropical regions from West Africa to South Asia, might have spread into the entire region of Africa, West [and East] Asia and the Indian Sub-continent long before the evolution of Indo-European and Semitic civilizations and there must have been constant migrations of these black [Bantu] races in the area resulting in both innovations and mutual borrowings of those innovations. Many of those cultural and linguistic traits survived even to this day in certain areas of these regions. The West African Negroes and the Dravidians of South Asia perhaps represent the two important branches of that stock, which not only survive to this day, but also retain some of the most basic elements of that ancient civilization. pp. 25-72

From the Encyclopedia of Religion, under Indus Valley Religion:
The Foundation of Elamite culture was laid by Proto-Elamite-speaking settlers who brought wheat and barley cultivation and the herding of sheep, goats, and cattle into the southern Zagros Mountain region of Iran sometime after 7000 BCE, cultivation had been carried into the lowlands of Khuzistan at the western base of the Zagros, providing an agricultural base for urbanization. Sumer, across the Tigris in southern Mesopotamia, achieved urbanization around 3500 BCE. By 3200 BCE, Khuzistan and the Zagros highlands had been united in the rival urban civilization of Elam, with a highland capital at Anshan near Persepolis and a lowland capital at Susa. Within the next two centuries, a Proto-Elamite script had been developed and Elam had extended its influence eastward along a trade network that passed through Tepe Yahya in southern Iran as far as the Nal village culture of southern Baluchistan.
The expansion of Elamite urban culture was limited to the early third millennium, and its eastern trading centers had been abandoned several centuries before the first Indus cities emerged. p216
A more detailed reference is provided by C.C. Lamber-Karlovsky in “The Proto-Elamites on the Iranian Plateau" published in "Antiquity,” LII, 1978.
In "The Cambridge Ancient History" vol.1, under 'The evidence of Language' by W.F. Albright and T.O.Lamdin:
The last of the languages which we shall discuss is Elamite, which has been known since the early nineteenth century as the third language of the trilingual Achaemenian royal inscriptions of the late sixth to early fourth centuries BC. [On the Elamites and their background see particularly C.A.H. I3, ch. XXIII and II3, ch. VII, XXIX, XXXII.] Thanks to several decades of French excavation at Susa and other sites in Susiana, Elamite can be traced back to the early third millennium, when it was written in a pictographic script (Proto-Elamite) with Sumerian analogies. [C.A.H. I3, ch. XXIII, sect.  IV.] The pictographic script which was followed by an apparently unconnected linear script which was partly deciphered by Walther Hinz in 1961. [§ IV, 15.] In the Akkad period it began to be written in Babylonian cuneiform, which gradually developed a special syllabary of its own. Meanwhile Elamite continued in use as the actual language of Susiana, though it was already filled with Old Persian loan-words by the late fifth and early fourth centuries BC [§ IV, 3, 40ff.] There is no reason to doubt that Elamite continued to be spoken as Khozi until the tenth century A.D., if not later. [Arabic Khuzist an means, of course, 'Khozi-land'.]
Elamite was also a suffixing language, though the extent to which it can be called 'agglutinative' must await the discovery and interpretation of letters and literary texts, which generally tell us much more about linguistic structure than the formal inscriptions and administrative texts on which we largely depend. It was certainly agglutinative in the sense that morphemic elements are much more loosely 'bound' in a chain than would be true of inflectional families like Indo-Hittite and Afro-Asian. There was also a tendency to treat transitive verbs passively, as in Hurrian and Urartian; it must, however, be emphasized that this phenomenon may also be considered as an isogloss rather than as an indication of genetic relationship.
Since there is absolutely no evidence for a migration of Elamite-speaking people from the northern mountains, there is a strong possibility that Elamite is related through Brahui, still spoken in Baluchistan (south-western Pakistan) to the Dravidian tongues of southern India, which exhibit a somewhat similar structure.
This frequently suggested connexion has gained plausibility in recent years, after the recovery of the Indus Valley civilization of Harappa and Mohenjo Daro. Today it is ethno-geographically even more plausible, since Harappa ports have been discovered some 400 miles west of the mouth of the Indus, at the Iranian frontier. [See George F. Dales, 'Harappan Outposts on the Makran Coast', Antiq. 36(1962), 86ff.] While Indian archaeologists have located nearly a hundred sites between the Rann of Kutch on the Indian frontier south-east of Karachi and a site some 150 miles north of Bombay. [See S.R. Rao, 'Excavation at Rangpur and Other Explorations in Gujarat' in Ancient India, nos. 18-19(1963).] In other words, the entire coastal area of Indus valley civilization was perhaps occupied by Dravidians, who have left their linguistic imprint west of the lower Indus valley and within 400 miles of the southernmost now known outpost of the Harappan a culture in question. Among common features are the relatively simple suffixing structure in nouns and verbs, which is agglutinative rather than inflexional, and a tendency toward passival treatment of transitive verbs. It is interesting to note that M. Andronov has lately employed glottochronology to estimate the approximate time at which Brahui may have separated from its Dravidian sisters in India, arriving at a plausible date in the early fourth millennium BC [§III, 4.] Needless to say, this is not a precise calculation, but it is quite reasonable in the light of our archaeological and cuneiform evidence, which fixes the final destruction of the Indus valley culture by the Indo-Aryan invaders somewhere between c. 1950 and 1750 BC [§ S.R. Rao, op.cit. Plate LII, opposite p. 200, places the end of Harappa culture proper about 1500 BC, with its height about 2000, but the dates are too low even for the low Babylonian chronology, and B.B. Lal, Ancient India, nos. 18-19, pp. 208 ff., basing himself on radiocarbon datings, now wishes to raise the date of the end of Harappa culture in its proper sense 'by about a couple of centuries' (p.219), 'to c. 1700 BC'. See above, p. 144.] Further research in comparative Dravidian linguistics, which seems to be a most likely area for scientific exploration, has now become an urgent necessity. p.145.

PART 4

In the book "Comparative lexical study of Sumerian and Ntu ("Bantu"); Sumerian, the Sanskrit of the African Ntu languages" by Rev. Willibald Wanger, published by W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart and Berlin in 1935 pp.viii, a close genetic relative, cognate to the Sumerian language has always been known, but scholars have all along refused to admit it.
INTRODUCTION - Sumerian inscriptions reach back to at least 4000 years BC (LANGDON, Grammar p.7). I need not remind my readers that a language is older than inscriptions made in it. The foregoing date is of importance for our special subject. For, on the one hand, there are close relations between Sumerian and the Zulu grammar (and Zulu is one of the numerous Ntu languages), as can be seen from my "Scientific Zulu Grammar"; likewise the present book will show that there are many lexical identities. On the other hand, Sumerian speech had its own development, and Ntu (Zulu) had its own too. The only possible conclusion, I believe, is that the mother-tongue from which both the Sumerians and the forefathers of the Ntus drew their fundamental idea of grammar as well as the greater part of their vocabulary common to both, belong to prehistoric times. This would also explain why the Zulus like all Ntus have no kind of writing, whilst the Sumerians had. Had the Sumerians and the forefathers of the Ntus been still living together at the time when the Sumerians acquired the art of writing, the ancient Ntus would certainly have profited of it.
The big family of the Ntu peoples occupies a very large part of the African continent. Their odd four hundred languages and dialects, though differing to a degree in vocabulary and grammar, belong to a uniform language group. Zulu is one of them. With the exception of the Xosas, the present habitat of the Zulu proper (Zululand) and the Zulu-speaking peoples (Natal, etc.) is more remote in a southward direction from the land of the ancient Sumerians than that of any other Ntu people. The Ur of the Sumerians was, as we have seen, a little below the 31st parallel N.L., and the Zulu area is above and about the 30th parallel S.L. And yet, in spite of this vast geographical distance the forefathers of the Zulus have clung with a truly marvelous tenacity, with conservatism undreamt of by the guild of linguists. And this, at the same time, in spite of a temporal distance of say millenniums and more intervening between the ancient Sumerians and the present-day Zulus, in spite also of all the wanderings of their forefathers outside of Africa before reaching it, and within Africa all the way down from about the equator to the 30th parallel. The same roots and words, dead letters at Mukayyar (the ancient Ur), at Ab– shahrain (the ancient Eridu), at Tello (the ancient Lagash), and so on, are still being spoken at Eshowe (Zululand), at Durban (Natal), and so forth. When the Zulu says zima for 'black', he speaks pure Sumerian, zi-ma being a combination of Sumerian zi 'dark', 'black', and ma 'night', 'dark', 'black'. To quote one more example:- When the Zulu says kukumala, it is again pure Sumerian. ku (doubled: ku-ku) is identical with Sumerian kur, ku 'great', and mala, as we have already seen, is Emesal mal for Emeku gal. Therefore ku-ku/mala literally means 'great-great/become', i.e. 'become very great', whence the actual meanings 'get inflated', 'swell up', etc.
In his review of my "Scientific Zulu Grammar" LANGDON wrote (Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1928): "I have read with interest all the private communications I have received from workers in many African and Asianic [sic] languages, and the studies of many scholars who have endeavoured [sic] to find a language cognate to Sumerian....
To part of the readers it may have been news that relationship with Sumerian should be claimed for so many and different languages and language groups. Knowing as I do my limits, I am not to pose as judge of the tenability or otherwise of all these claims. Supposing that one-day all of them will prove true, it would be a mighty step towards scientifically demonstrating primordial unity of human speech.
In concluding this little chapter it may be safely stated that in no other language there are so palpable and so numerous lexical identities with Sumerian as in Zulu and in Ntu generally.
A family is not a solitary unit, isolated on all sides. A family has family connections, be it by relationship or by ties such as social, economical, and so on. The Ntu peoples are a family of their own, a fact admitted on all sides. The Ntu family, just like any other family, has its family connections, and has a history behind it. The Ntus had forefathers. If we were in a position to follow up the pedigree of the Ntus up to prehistoric times, we would arrive, no doubt, at some common stock, common to them and others. As time passed, that common stock divided and broke up into several branches, which in due course became separate peoples. When breaking away from the common stock, each branch went away with the words or, if you prefer, roots that were in use amongst the common parent stock. Therefore it is not surprising in the least that there should be peoples, ancient (in our case the Sumerians) or modern (e.g. the Lepchas in the Sub-Himalaya), whose languages show relations with those of the Ntu peoples, be they ideological or lexical or grammatical. On the contrary it would be truly surprising to find on the whole of God’s earth no peoples linguistically connected with the Ntu family. Consequently from the historical point of view there is nothing in the way of looking out for linguistic family connections of the Ntus. If so, comparative research work in this direction is quite within the limits of philological science.
Both the temporal and the geographical distances of the Zulus from the Sumerians - say six to seven millenniums and roughly sixty degrees of latitude - seem to have been a great stumbling block to some critics of my comparative work. Evidently they were not aware of a Ntu feature, observed and remarked upon by archeologists, namely their tenacious conservatism.
Our age is still so saturated with evolutionism that many seem to overlook the simple fact that to a thousand cases of evolution, of changes engendered by it, there is a thousand cases of stability. So it is in nature. There are almost countless varieties of roses, and yet the wild rose in our hedge is still the same as that of thousands of years ago. The daisy of our meadows has not changed its neat coloring for the sake of evolutionism. Nor does our common frog or for that the African elephant or baboon think of undergoing alterations to please evolutionists. Or has the bee ever changed its hexagonal cells for quadrangular ones, although by doing so no space would be lost?
Very likely linguists would resent being taxed with unsound evolutionism. All the same it is evolutionism of the wrong kind, subtle perhaps and therefore unconsciously nurtured, when there are linguists to whom it is a matter of course that any given word of a modern language or for that even of an ancient one, must be the final outcome of no one knows how many changes. That "must" of theirs is precisely the fallacy of evolutionism. Since they mean to be scientific, let them recognize for a first step at least the possibility of stability in linguistics, just as the representatives of other disciplines, the archeologists, the ethnologists, etc. admit it. And as a further step, let them recognize facts wherever they meet with them. True, differently from inanimate and dumb nature, man is a free agent. But precisely because he is a free agent, he is free to be conservative, just as he is free to indulge in a change.
To such as possess a true knowledge of the Ntu, it has been no secret that the unsophisticated native, untouched by foreign influence, is an extreme "conservative". In a South African paper, dated Aug.25th 1929, a journalist quoted the following words of FROBENIUS: "The African is the most conservative civilization of any. For example, in the Congo they use today the same type of articles as were used elsewhere before the Christian era." If the Kongo native leaves unchanged a household article for thousands of years, he may as well leave a word unaltered for the same period.
Scientific Purposes. - The establishing of relationship between the Germanic language of Europe with the Sanskrit of Asia has been considered as one of the greatest feats of linguistic science, and rightly so. If so, it will be no mean achievement if correspondingly the same can be established for the Ntu languages of Africa - in number by far exceeding the Germanic languages of Europe - and Sumer of Asia, if, in other words, Sumerian can be shown to be "the Sanskrit" for the immense  Ntu family of languages, at least so far as their vocabularies are concerned.
Another purpose I have in mind, is not restricted to Sumer and Ntu. I Know I may lay myself open to derision, or the like, from the part of such as believe it to be a scientific demand to ascribe to humanity an age of hundred thousands, if not millions, of years. Happily there are others who with sober palaeontologists content themselves with a much lesser number of thousands (there are scientists who have come down to about 10,000 BC). And there are others again who with Christian exegetes arrive at less, some of them considerably less, than 10,000 years for the existence of the human race. To these Sumerian is a language not so very remote from the era of the first human pair. Taking into account the astonishing conservatism with which the Ntus have preserved words, as spoken 3,000 or 4,000 years BC, intact down to our own days, we may legitimately infer that, with the same conservatism at work, there are amongst the Sumerian words or roots such as go back upon primeval speech. Thus a great step would be made towards establishing at least the possibility of primeval unity of human speech. It would be at the same time a strong support to the late TROMBETTI's thesis propounded in his "L'Unita d'Origine del Linguaggio Umano".
How old must Ntu be to deserve the name of Proto-Ntu? It will be old enough, I suppose, if it reaches back to prehistoric times. Of Old Sumerian we know that it ceased being a living tongue about 3,000 BC We may give it another thousand, and even two, for the time of its having been a spoken speech. This brings us back to 4,000-5,000 BC, or roughly 6,000-7,000 years before our present time. I suppose six or even millenniums will do for Proto-Ntu. And this is the case if Ntu is cognate with Sumerian. pp. vi - xxxix
"Ntu" stands for the "Bantu" of others. Apart from recommending itself for its shortness, it leads to no such incongruities as "Bantu" does. Therefore, if other authors write "a Bantu" or "the Bantu" in the sense of one member pertaining to that race, it is about the same as if one were to write "an Englishmen" or "the Englishmen", when referring to one only. Again, if "Bantu" is employed in the sense of the grammar or language of that race, it is no less incongruous than to say "the Greeks" instead of "Greek" in the sense of "the Greek grammar" or "the Greek language". (For more on this subject see "Africa", the Journal of the International Institute for African Languages and Cultures, II, 4 p.413) Pronounce N'tu with the accent on sonant N (not Ntú).
In other-words, Bantu = people, and Ntu = person.
LIST OF AUTHORS: BRYANT, A.T., Zulu-English Dictionary, Mariannhill 1905; COLENSO, J.W., Zulu-English Dictionary, Pieter Maritzburg 1903; CRABTREE, Rev. W.A., Bantu Speech: A Philological Study, Journal of African Society, London 1918; DEIMEL, P.Antonius, S.J., Vocabularium Sumericum, Rome 1910. - Sumerische Grammatik, Rome 1924; DELITZSCH, Friedrich, Sumerisches Glossar, Leipzig 1914. - Grundzüge der Sumerischen Grammatik, Leipzig 1914; DREXEL, Albert, Eine Sumerische Negationspartikel, Anthropos 1917-18. - Bornu und Sumer, Anthropos 1919-20; HEINICHEN, F.A., Lateinisch-Deutsches Schulwärterbuch, Leipzig u. Berlin 1917; HOMMEL, Dr. F., Sumerische Lesestücke, München 1894. - Sumero-Türkische Wortvorgleichungen, München 1915; JOHNSTON, Sir Harry, A Comparative Study of the Bantu and Semi-Bantu Languages, vol. i, Oxford 1919. - do., vol. ii, 1922; LANGDON, Stephen, M.A., Ph. D., A Sumerian Grammar, Paris 1911. - Cambridge Ancient History, vol. i (quoted C.A.H.); MEILLET-PRINTZ, Einführung in die Vergleichende Grammatik der Indo-Germanischen Sprachen, Leipzig u. Berlin 1909; MEINHOF, Carl, Grundriss einer Laulehre der Bantusprachen, 2. Aufl., Berlin 1910 (quoted 'Grundriss'). - Grundzüge einer Vergleichenden Grammatik der Bantusprachen, Berlin 1906 (quoted 'Grundzüge'). - Laulehre des Zulu, Zeitschrift für Eingeborenensprachen XIV; OORDT, J.F. van, The Origin of the Bantu, Cape Town 1907; POEBEL, Arno, Grundzüge der Sumerischen Grammatik, Rostock 1923; TORREND, J.S.J., A Comparative Grammar of the South African Bantu Languages, London 1891; TROMBETTI, Alfredo, L'Unita d'Origine del Linguaggio, Bologna 1905; WANGER, Rev. W., konversationsgrammatik der Zulusprache, Mariannhill 1917. - "Ntu" instead of "Bantu", Bibliotheca Africana 1924. - Scientific Zulu Grammar, vol. i, Stuttgart 1927 (quoted Sc. Z. Gr.). - Gemeinschaftliches Sprachgut in Sumer und Ntu, Festschrift P.W. Schmidt, Wien 1928. - Afrikanische V”lkernamen in europ„ischen Sprachen, Africa, the Journal of the International Institute of African Languages and Cultures, London 1929. - Sumerisches Sprachgut im Zulu und Ntu, Anthropos 1929. - Richtlinien für eine Vergleichende Grammatik der Ntusprachen, Bibliotheca Africana 1929-30 (incomplete). - Ntu Philology, Journal of the African Society, London 1930 (the text on the words for 'woman' and 'shine' to be rectified according to Nos. 55 and 21 of the present volume); WERNER, Alice, Introductory Sketch of the Bantu Languages, London 1919.

PART 5

A description of the Sumerians by their skeletal remains is made in the "Publication of the Joint Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania to Mesopotamia; Ur Excavations" vol.1, 'Al-'Ubaid', by H.R.Hall and C.l.Woolley, 1927. In chapter 10, "Report on the Human Remains" by Prof. Sir. Arthur Keith, F.R.S., M.D., Conservator of the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, pp.214-240, it says:
In this report descriptions are of the skulls of two groups of people. Those of the first group were obtained in the winter of 1923-4 from graves in the ancient cemetery at al-'Ubaid and represented the earliest inhabitants of Mesopotamia that have so far come under the eye of the craniologist. The Director of the Joint Expedition, Mr. C. Leonard Woolley, assigns this group to a date about the beginning of the fourth millennium BC or earlier. The skulls of the second group of people were obtained during the winter 1925-6 under the 'Tomb Mound' at Ur; they lay in brick-build and other tombs under the floor of houses. These graves Mr. Woolley assigns to a period dating between 1900 and 1700 BC These two groups of people were inhabitants of the same locality, for al-'Ubaid is only four miles to the west of Ur; but they were separated on point of time by more than two thousand years. These two groups, we shall find, differ in certain respects, yet in both groups we meet with the same series of types, only in a different proportion. There is evidence that new blood had entered southern Mesopotamia between the dates of the earlier and later burials, but the incomers were of a race closely allied in origin with the older inhabitants. Further I have had the good fortune to see in Oxford the skulls disinterred by the Oxford and Field Museum Expedition on the side of Kish; they represent inhabitants of Mesopotamia who lived 150 miles to the north-west of Ur and at a date rather earlier than the second group of people dealt with in this report. The skulls and bones brought home from Kish have been described by Dr. L. H. Dudley Buxton.... p. 214.
Evidently, the proto-Bantu who occupied Sumer were meet by the Hamites and Semites who were likewise dolichocephalic or ulotrichmeladerms.
I have introduced this brief discussion on racial continuity in Mesopotamia and Egypt in order to offer an answer to question of some importance. Of what race were the Ancient Sumerians? We can answer that question if we can assign their descendants - modern Mesopotamians - to a racial category. They are people with nut-brown skins, as dark, or even darker than people of the Mediterranean stock. Like the people of that stock they are inclined to be hairy and to have long narrow heads. They certainly belong to the same racial division of mankind as the nationalities of Europe; they are scions of the Caucasian stock. If we look at a map of Asia on which the areas occupied by the various racial divisions of mankind are indicated, such as that published as a frontispiece to vol. iii of Ratzel's History of Mankind (English Translation, 1898), we see that Mesopotamia lies along a racial watershed or zone of transition. [Note the use of superpersiflage, a.k.a. double talk or evasive rhetoric]. To the south and west lies the whole of the great Arabian peninsula, from the Indian Ocean to the Levant, as marked as the home of the Semites; to the north and east the homeland of the Iranians stretches from the valley of the Indus to the Black Sea. Mesopotamia is regarded as lying on the Semitic side of the boundary line between the prevailing type of modern Persia and that which is most commonly met with in the great Arabian peninsula of to-day. We shall find when we proceed describe the racial features of the ancient people of Ur, That they share in the characteristics of both types; they are both Iranian and Semites. It is usual to explain the existence of such intermediate types as being the result of hybridization, brought about by peaceful penetration or as a result of warlike measures. No doubt intermarriage and hybridization do take place across racial frontiers, but we cannot in this way explain the evolution of the original Iranian and Semitic stocks. Both have clearly arisen, at some remote period, from a common ancestry, and we therefore ought to find between the centuries or cradles of their evolution an intermediate or transitional type. The Mesopotamian peoples, both past and present, represent a transition between Iranian and Semitic types, but they have retained more of the Iranian than of the Semite. [The original Iranian were Elamo-Dravidians and the Semites also included the ulotrichmeladerm Hamites]. One can still trace the ancient Sumerian face eastwards among the inhabitants of Afghanistan and Beluchistan, until the valley of the Indus is - some 1,500 miles distant from Mesopotamia; the valley of the Indus represents another watershed that separates the Iranian from Punjabi type. The civilization of Ancient Babylonia was evolved in the very heart of that part of Asia, which has been the homeland of the Iran-Semitic stocks. On the other hand the civilization of Egypt arose on another transitional racial zone - that which lies between Semite and Hamite. In every point wherein the Hamitic type of northeastern African differs from the Semites, it approaches the essential type of Africa - the Negro (Bantu). It is difficult to believe that the people represented by the predynastic skulls of Egypt were the pioneers of civilization; on the other hand the people represented by the skulls which Mr. Woolley has recovered at al-'Ubaid were large-brained, with strong facial features, and answer well to the ideal which anthropologists expect to find in a race of pioneers. pp.215-216.
Enumeration of the individuals represented in the second group. The remains of this group were found in graves under the 'Tomb Mound' of Ur and are assigned by Mr. Woolley to an early date in the second millennium BC p.219.
The men buried in the care of L'Homme Mort in the south of France during the Neolithic period had a mean head length of 190.5mm., a head width of 135.8mm., giving a cephalic index of 71. These men seem to have been of the same stock as our long barrow men, and both of them were kin to the ancient inhabitants of Mesopotamia.  In coming to a conclusion as to the racial nature of the ancient Sumerians this view has to receive a full consideration. They were a dolichocephalic people, their breath index varying from 66 percent to 80 percent. The ancient Egyptians were also a dolichocephalic, their mean index varying according to the group examined from 72 to 75 percent. In their degree of dolichocephaly, as well as in absolute dimensions of length and width, the skull of the ancient Sumerians was nearer to that of the long barrow men of England than to that of the ancient Egyptians. p.222.
Summary of Inferences Drawn from Cranial Dimensions.
The ancient Sumerians were a large-headed, large brained people, and approaching or exceeding in these respects the longer headed races of Europe. They had many points of resemblance to a predynastic people whose remains have been found in cemeteries of Upper Egypt - one, which differs, considerably from all other Egyptians ancient and modern. There is evidence when the crania found at al-'Ubaid - which is only four miles from the site of Ur - are compared with those obtained from beneath the 'Tomb Mound' of Ur, that there had been a considerable change in the composition of the people of Babylonia between the beginning of the fourth millennium BC and the beginning of the second millennium. The al-'Ubaid crania representing people of the earlier date and Ur crania those of the later date. The most likely explanation of this change is an invasion of Babylonia by people with long, narrow, and high heads, which were in an evolutionary sense related to, but more primitive than the first Sumerian inhabitants of Mesopotamia. The homeland of such a race of invaders is more likely to have been the Arabian peninsula than any other land. In their cranial characters these invaders seem to have been nearer to the long-barrow people of England and to the Kawamil people of Egypt than were the older Sumerian type found at al-'Ubaid. There is no evidence of the presence of any people of Mongol affinities nor of any showing the characteristic Armenoid form of head. p.226.
Among the various elements, which make up the width of the face the most important for the identification of races is the width of the nasal opening. Englishmen in the mean are narrow nosed; the mean width of the nasal aperture is a fraction above 24mm.; this was also so in the long-barrow Englishmen. In the al-'Ubaid males the opening is wide 25.7mm.; in the Ur males 26.6mm. Their noses were long and wide - a character of Iranian and Semitic races. In the Kawamil predynastic Egyptians the nasal width was only 24.3mm.; in other predynastic Egyptians 25mm. is a common mean; in skulls from the Royal Tombs the mean nasal width was 25.5mm. In the al-'Ubaid women the nasal width was almost the same as in Englishwomen. p.228.
Conclusion. I have to thank Sir Frederick Kenyon and Mr. Leonard Woolley for permitting me to examine and report on these ancient Mesopotamian skulls. Their preservation was due to the foresight of Mr. Woolley, and their reconstruction cost my assistant, Edward Smith, many months of care. I think their pains have been well spent, for of all the pioneers of civilization, the Sumerians, so far as concerns their racial origin and physical nature, remain the most obscure, and they deserve to be the best known, for it is probable that they have a better claim to be regarded as the founders of modern civilization than any other people. Hence I have entered with a degree of fullness into the details of their structure, which may prove wearisome to those who read this report. As to the racial nature of the al-'Ubaid people there cannot be any doubt; if they were living today we should call them Arabs [?]. It is possible that in no Arab community of to-day does there exist a group of individuals with such large heads,, big brains, and massive jaws as those whose remains Mr. Wooley recovered at al-'Ubaid. Yet in the Arab skulls in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons there is one which belongs to comparatively modern times and nevertheless is a counterpart of the larger skulls from al-'Ubaid. Prolonged civilization does seem to exhaust every people; it has been so in Egypt, Greece, and Rome, and it has been so in Mesopotamia. There is no trace in the people brought back by Mr. Woolley of any round-headed element neither of the Hittite type nor of a Mongolian type. Yet Dr. Seligman, in the publication we have already noted (p.215), has found ample evidence of brachycephaly amongst the modern natives of South Arabia; there are four round or brachycephalic Arab skulls in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons. When this strain reached southern Arabia is not known, but no trace of it has been found in the people of who lived in or near Ur of the Chaldees in Ancient times. The southern Mesopotamians at the beginning of the fourth millennium BC had big, long, and narrow heads, their affinities were with the peoples of the Caucasian or European type [of the long barrowmen], and we may regard south-western Asia as their cradleland until evidence leading to a different conclusion comes to light. They were akin to the predynastic people of Egypt described by Dr. Fouquet, but differed from all other predynastic and dynastic Egyptians. The Neolithic people of English long barrows were also related to them - perhaps distantly; the Sumerian type made its appearance in Europe in Palaeolithic times. For one of the earliest of Aurignacian skulls - that found at Combe Capelle in the Dordogne, France - is near akin to the ancient Arab type.
There is evidence, too, that between the fourth and second millennium there was a change in the cranial features of the people of Ur. Yet the new arrivals were people of the same physical stock as the older inhabitants with whom they became mixed; the invader must have been a cousin people - one with smaller and narrower heads [Semites]. Certainly, as physical anthropologists measure people, the later people of Ur were not the equals of the earlier people found at al-'Ubaid. p.240
In “The Cambridge Ancient History, chapter VIII-The Development of Cities, part-I - Babylonia and Mesopotamia”:
Another impression which emerged from a first examination was that the Eridu skulls showed a marked prognathism, and this feature also was in agreement with the smaller amount of skeletal material which Arthur Keith examined at Al-‘Ubaid itself: the Eridu men, however, appeared to have had less prominent noses. P.348

Again from Alexander Winchell in his book the Preadamites: [The] cranial measurement in high esteem among anthropologists is the proportion between the length and breadth of the skull. The length is measured antero-posteriorly, and the breadth from side to side. The ratio of these two measurements is expressed in percentage of length; that is; the length of any skull being represented by 100, the "cephalic index" is the portion of this 100 covered by breadth. Skulls, which have a cephalic index between 74 and 78, are said to be mesophalic, because this is about the average of mankind. If the index is above 78, they are said to be brachycephalic if below 74, they are dolichocephalic. It will be noted that though brachycephalic and dolichocephalic signify "short-headed" and "long-headed," they refer only to the width in relation to the length:
Noachites            Mongoloids
Irish - 75            Eskimo (Bessels) - 71.37
English - 77            Eskimo Greenland - 71.71
Parisians - 79.45        Asiatic Eskimo (Dall) - 79.5
Italians - 81.80        N.W.Amer. Eskimo (Dall) - 75.1
Austrian Germans - 82    Aïnos - 71
South German - 83        Aleutians (Bessels) - 78
              South American - 79.16
Negroids            North American - 79.25
Joruba - 69            Mongols - 81.40
Dahomey - 72        Indo-Chinese (Malay) - 83.51
Zulu - 72            Finns - 83.69
SE Africa - 72.54        Lapps, Scandinavian - 84.43
W Africa - 73.40        Lapps - 85.07
Equ. Africa - 76        Esthonians - 90.39
Khoi-San - 72.42
Australians - 71.49
These tables show: (1) The Noachites are all brachycephalic, except the Irish and English, who are mesocephalic. (2) The Mongoloids exhibit a remarkable range, nearly all being brachycephalic, and the northern Mongoloids excessively so, except the Eskimo, who are the only dolichocephalic type among them, and the doubtful Aïnos, who are mesocephalic. The Mongoloids present the highest brachycephalism known (in the Esthonians), and at the same time almost the highest dolichocephalism known (in the Eskimo). These are divergences of racial value. (3) The Negroes (Bantu) are all Dolichocephalic, except certain mesocephalic tribes of the interior. (4) The Khoi-san range from dolichocephalic to mesocephalic. (5) The Australians are dolichocephalic to a marked extent. pp.164-168.
In the book "Prehistoric Migrations In Europe" by V.Gordon Childe, of the Instituttet For Sammenlignende Kulturforskningin in Series A: Forelesninger XX, published in 1969 by Anthropological Publications in Oosterhout N.B. - The Netherlands:
All [the artifacts] are more or less like those of the Almeria culture [SE Spain] in the [Iberian] Peninsula and more distantly related to North African wares found as far as Merimde on the western edge of the Nile Delta. Hence it is inferred that immigrants from Africa formed at least the core of the earliest farming communities in Brittany and Switzerland. This is confirmed by their physical type that was universally dolichocranial and in a general way Mediterranean. In their earliest settlements in Britain the equipment of the western farmers is strikingly free from any admixture with the tools elaborated by mesolithic precursors, and it must be admitted that the neolithic economy was introduced to the whole area as a result of an actual colonization by peasant societies spreading immediately from the Mediterranean zone and ultimately perhaps from North Africa.
A second stage in the development of neolithic economy is marked by the arrival in Southern France, Brittany, Ireland, South West England and the Western coasts of Wales and Scotland as far as Orkney and Shetland of missionaries or prospectors. The sole evidence for their advent is afforded by the megalithic collective tombs ["long barrows"] and the associated cult of the dead. Such tombs, strung out along the Atlantic coasts of France and the British Isles, can only have been built or inspired by voyagers arriving by sea. In architecture some resemble most closely those of Provence, while others agree more accurately with the Early Hispanic of Portugal.
In the 'Archaeological Postulates' of the same book, says on page 5:
The neolithic economy of temperate Europe was based on the cultivation of wheat and barley and the breeding of cows, sheep, goats and pigs. Now it is admitted that the annual grasses from which our wheats and barleys are descended never grew wild in temperate Europe. Einkorn may have grown wild in the Balkans, - that is doubtful - but the possible habitats for barley and emmer all lie further south or east, and Syria and/or perhaps Abyssinia seem the most likely cradles of their cultivation. So too it is improbable that wild sheep lived north of the Mediterranean zone - save perhaps in the Crimea - and the earliest European sheep are generally said to belong to Asiatic varieties. Anyhow the sheep is an exotic animal in the temperate forest cultivated by the first Neolithic peasants in Europe. Hence on the whole it seems reasonable to assume that the cultivation of cereals and the breeding of sheep - were introduced into Europe from the Near East or North Africa.
On page 83 of the same book it says:
The adaptation of a neolithic economy, evolved for a warm and arid climate and based upon plants and animals adapted thereto, presented quite novel problems when the temperate zone of deciduous forest and evenly distributed annual rainfall was reached. It involved either serious modification of the culture or equally serious modification of the landscape. The heavy precipitation and cold winters were uncongenial to animals and plants evolved in warmer and drier climes. Though the water supply was unrestricted, forest and marsh constituted just as serious obstacles to cereal cultivation or pasturing of sheep as the aridity of the Assyrian steppe. It was not only necessary to remove these obstacles with stone axes, bone shovels and fire but also to elaborate a novel economy. Instead of alternation between crop and pasture, slash and burn agriculture seemed the most practicable method of grain growing; the ashes of burnt frees and scrub take the place of dung; but once a plot has been exhausted by cropping, it must be allowed to revert to bush for several years. In practice it might seem more profitable to leave the district once the most convenient patches had been used up than to wait to repeat the cycle. Hence all neolithic farmers in temperate Europe were inclined to be nomadic.
The damp forest landscape provides unsuitable pasture for mountain beasts like sheep and goats but is on the other hand well adapted for horned cattle and pigs. Cattle accordingly formed the staple livestock of early European farmers; sheep were relatively scarce. But the rigours of the climate made it difficult to carry young calves over the long winters so herds had to be depleted by an excessive consumption of veal. At the same time sheep must have been too scarce to allow of the use of woolen clothing; just where its warmth would be most needed, men were forced to rely on linen and silks.

To avoid the confusion, in the English language the word “negro” has the connotation of specifying physical characteristics other than to color being: a prognathous (protruding) jaw, wide nasal aperture and dolichocephalic (long) head. Although “negro” literally means black in any language, black could apply to anyone with brown skin, even in regards to people of Asiatic straight (lissotrich) hair, as the East Indian and Mongolids. Therefore, scientists try to specialize the word “negro” as “negroid.” Which actually doesn’t really make much difference literally. Actually, the people being referred to as “negro” or “negroid” are primarily the Bantu and Melanesians. And this does not include the Hamitic family, although to a great deal they have Bantu blood mixed into their populations.
I want to include a classification of racial ethnic types to show how much of our genetic family are missing and maybe provide a proper terminology to name people’s racial types.
In Webster New World Dictionary 2ed., race is defined as: 1. any of the different varieties of mankind, distinguished by form of hair, color of skin and eyes, stature, bodily proportions, etc.: many anthropologists now consider that there are only three primary major groups, the Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid, each with various subdivisions (sometimes called races): the term has acquired so many unscientific connotations that in this sense it is often replaced in scientific usage by ethnic stock or group; 2. a population that differs from others in the relative frequency of some gene or genes: a modern scientific use.

Hair – Haddon’s Classification:
Leiotrichy or Lissotrichy – the condition of having straight hair.
Cymotrichy – the condition of having smooth, wavy, or curly hair.
Ulotrichy (ulotrichous) - <yoo lät’ri kas> adj. [Gr. Oulothrix, woolly-haired < oulos, crisp, woolly + thrix, hair + ous] having woolly or thightly twisted hair.
trich·o – [Gr. Tricho <thrix (gen. trichos), hair] a combining form meaning hair.
o∙cher (o’ker) n. [ME. “ocra”<L. ochra <Gr. ochra< ochros, pale, pale-yellow]
pale - adj. [ME. <Ofr.<L. pallidus, pale <pallere, to be pale <IE. Base *pel-, grey, pale, whence Fallow] 1. Of a whitish or colorless complexion; pallid; wan 2. Lacking intensity or brilliance: said of color, light, etc.; faint; dim 3. Feeble; weak [a pale imitation].
mel·a·no – [<Gr. melas (gen. melanos), black <IE. Base *mel-, dark, whence MHG. Mal, a spot] a combining form meaning black, very dark.
Durmis – n.[ModL.<LL. Epidermis,…] the layer of skin just the epidermis.
Ocherdermis – lissotrichous   + lisso (mela/ocher) trichous
Ocherdermis – cymotrichous + cymo (mela/ocher) trichous
Ocherdermis – ulotrichous    + ulo (mela/ocher) trichous

Meladermis - lissotrichous   + lisso (mela/ocher) trichous
Meladermis - cymotrichous + cymo (mela/ocher) trichous
Meladermis - ulotrichous    + ulo (mela/ocher) trichous

Pallidermis - lisso (mela/ocher) trichous
Pallidermis - cymo (mela/ocher) trichous
Pallidermis - ulo (mela/ocher) trichous

In the Cambridge Ancient History volume five under 'The Earliest Populations Of Man In Europe, Western Asia and Northern Africa', in pages 166- it says:
Skeletal evidence from a number of sites in North Africa has also been interpreted as indicating that contemporary peoples in that area resembled, to some extent, those found in Europe. For example, parts of some fifty individuals have been recovered from Afalou-bou-Rhummel, near Bougie in Algeria, associated with an Ibero-Maurusian (Caspian) culture. Parts of some thirty individuals, associated with an Ibero-Maurusian (Oranian) culture, have been recovered from Meshta-el-Arbi, near Constantine in Algeria. There are only minor differences between the cranial and facial structure of these African peoples and that of the Cro-Magnon people of Europe. [Here is where the author wants us to believe that the Africans were Caucasoid, but most of their research contradicts itself] Other sites of importance are Wadi Halfa, within the borders of the Sudan, and Taforalt in Morocco.
The ecological changes initiated during the Mesolithic Period continued into the Neolithic Period, which is characterized by the adoption of agriculture and animal husbandry. As the glaciers continued to shrink northwards into Scandinavia, so the well-watered grasslands moved in response, so that areas such as Iran and Afghanistan became desiccated, and the fertile Nile valley became swampy and inimical to man. One result of these ecological changes was the migration of peoples, a movement that had begun in Mesolithic times but which now received fresh impetus from newly learned agricultural techniques. Palestine, North Africa and southern Europe were the first areas to feel this immigration, Neolithic farmers eventually spreading over most of Western Europe and reaching Britain. Such migration came from the south and from the east, and these immigrant populations were to form the basis from which the present populations of Europe are descended. [This is talking about the time after the Great Flood when the progeny of Cain had spread into Europe ahead of the progeny of Noah] The traits held in common by most of these Neolithic people were long heads of medium size, vertical orthognathous facial profiles, and noses of narrow or medium width.... No doubt there were pigmentary and other genetically determined differences between many of these Neolithic groups, but in osteological terms and with only minor exceptions there is little gross difference demonstrable between the Sumerians of Mesopotamia, the predynastic Egyptians, and the Neolithic inhabitants of Switzerland, except perhaps in statue. The Badarian series of crania from Upper Egypt is the earliest of any length to have been recovered, and demonstrates a variability no less than that of many modern populations. [Badarian – {Badari (village in Egypt where artifacts were found) + -an} designating or of a neolithic culture of Upper Egypt, characterized by cattle-breeding, fine pottery, and a large range of ornaments. Webster's New World Dictionary 2ed.] They were a small, gracile people, with fairly broad noses and protruding jaws, although negroid affinities would seem to be contradicted by the hair samples that have been preserved. The Badarians were succeeded in Upper Egypt by people who are usually grouped together as the predynastic Egyptians, and who are well represented by the Naqada (or Negadah) cranial series. The Naqada people were taller than the Badarians, had wider faces and heads, narrower noses and less jaw protuberance. The predynastic population of Lower Egypt, however, differed from that of Upper Egypt in having broader heads, longer faces and narrower noses. The subsequent racial history of Egypt was to be that of a gradual replacement of the Upper Egyptian type by that of Lower Egypt - a history amply documented by the numerous well-preserved series of crania from predynastic times and extending to Ptolemaic times.
Neolithic crania from Europe and western Asia are not nearly so numerous. There are fairly small cranial series from Spain and Portugal, some of which are claimed to resemble metrically those of the predynastic Naqada series from Egypt. This skeletal evidence appears to confirm suggestions, based upon archaeological evidence, that the Iberian peninsula was an entry point for Neolithic peoples from North Africa - peoples who also moved into the upper valley of the Nile in predynastic times.
In chapter X of Dr. Emile Massoulard's Histoire et protohistoire d'Egypt (Institute d'Ethnologie, Paris, 1949), it comments on the Naqada cranial series:
Miss Fawcett considers that the Negadah skulls form a sufficiently homogeneous collection to warrant the assumption of a Negadah race. In the total height of the skull, the auricular height, the length and breadth of the face, nasal length, cephalic index and facial index this race would seem to approximate the negro [Bantu]; in nasal breadth, height of orbit, length of palate and nasal index it would seem closer to the Germanic peoples; accordingly the Pre-Dynastic Negadians are likely to have resembled the negroes [Bantu] in certain of their characteristics and the white races in others. (pp.402-3)
This would seem to qualify the Naqada people as a proto-Ntu ethnic group equal to Melanesians, Negritos and Autraloids. For example, the Khoi-san proves that prognathism (jaw protuberance) is not a singularity of being negroid. There many negroid ethnic groups who are as flat face - orthognathous - as many Mongoloids. Any genetic affinities to Germans or any other Indo-European is insignificant considering that all races are descendants of a proto-race of the same human family. This is an extensive effort to deny and fabricate the evidence that the physical characteristics of the Sumerians and Egyptians were a Negroid type of people.

PART 6


Now, after the flood of the Jurassic Transgression the whole continent of Africa becomes an uninhabited wilderness. All survivors are now located on continents outside of Africa. The Proto-Bantu pioneers, including some cymotrichpaliderm families of Cain's clan, migrated to Africa, either as pilgrims in a quest of the Edenic/Atlantis homeland, long before the emergence of the Noachians or as refugees displaced by the tribal conflict with Mongoloid races. This was certainly done by coastal sea voyage. As every civilization circa 3000 BC commences near the mouth of a river basin. Their voyage ended at any of the numerous river basins on Africa's east coast, south of the Red Sea. In this case I would wonder how would the animals repopulate Africa if they all migrated from Noah’s Arc, which would be in Northern Mesopotamia? But I assume they procreate much faster than humans and have a natural tendency to find there way back home.
In connection to this allegation, "The Lost Cities of Africa" by Basil Davidson, rev. ed., under chapter one 'The Peopling of Ancient Africa', part 2 'Lines of Migrations' p.7:
Some time around 5000 BC new types of humanity appeared in Africa. The Negro, or Negroid [Proto-Bantu], type was prominent among these. His earliest remains have come, so far, from much the same African latitude: a fossilized skull and some other fragments from a Middle Stone Age site near Khartoum in the Sudan, another skull and some bones from beneath thick clay at Asselar, some two hundred miles northeast of Timbuktu in the western Sudan.
These people, these "Negroes" [Proto-Bantu], undoubtedly multiplied in the years after about 5000 BC. An analysis of some eight hundred skulls from pre-dynastic Egypt - that is, from the lower valley of the Nile before about 3000 BC - shows that at least a third of them were Negroes or ancestors of the Negroes [Proto-Bantu] whom we know. And this may well support the view to which a study of language  [C.A. Diop, 1977 (an agglutinate language would associate it with Bantu rather than the Hamito-Semitic languages of the Noachians)] also brings some confirmation, that remote ancestors of the Africans of today were an important and perhaps dominant element among populations which fathered the civilization of ancient Egypt. (Cheik Anta Diop, Origins of the Ancient Egyptians, 1977)
In regards to the language of the Hamitic family the book "The Cambridge Ancient History" 3rd., edition, vol., 1, part 1, pp.132-134:
The Hamito-Semitic language family has until recently been rather poorly defined. Already in the last century the study of a number of North African languages had brought to light enough common lexical and grammatical items to suggest a common origin. But the term Hamitic, used to denote this language stock, was unfortunately applied also to various racial and ethnic characteristics, so that as a linguistic term it lost in precision. The languages as a group also have many elements in common with the Semitic languages, originally spoken outside of Africa; the combined designation 'Hamitio-Semitic' gained general acceptance in spite of the lack of clear internal classification. Only recently has careful attention been directed toward this problem, the most systematic survey being that of J.H. Greenberg, whom we shall follow here. It must be emphasized, however, that the last word concerning the affiliations of many African languages is far from being said, and the next decade or so will undoubtedly see important modifications.
Five coordinated subgroups may be recognized: (1) Semitic, (2) Ancient Egyptian, (3) Berber, (4) Cushitic, and (5) Chadic (Hausa). Only the first two are clearly attested in antiquity, both from the early third millennium onward. The Berber dialects are currently spoken in the vast area extending from the Siwa Oasis westward to the Atlantic and southward to the Niger River. Whether the language of the so-called Libyan inscriptions, dating from the Roman Period in North Africa, is an early form of Berber or not remains problematical. A similar situation prevails with reference to the strongly Egyptianizing Meroitic inscriptions from the long-lived kingdom in Nubia (Cush), centered first at Napata (c. 1000-300 BC) and then at Meroe (to c. AD 400). The Meroitic language cannot be related confidently to any known family, but is often classified uncritically with Hamito-Semitic. The ancient forerunners of Cushitic and Chadic, both represented by many languages and dialects in present-day north-east and north-central Africa respectively, are unknown. It should be noted that the present classification of Hamito-Semitic excludes several language groups formerly assigned to it, such as Fulani in West Africa, and Hottentot (khoisan) in the extreme south.
The language of ancient Egypt, attested from early in the third millennium with the beginnings of hieroglyphic inscriptions during the Early Dynastic Period, is now sufficiently well understood to permit serious study of its genetic relationships with other members of the Afro-Asian family and with the Semitic languages in particular. Although Egyptian is not to be placed within the Semitic family, there are few grammatical features, which can be considered alien to that group. A close genetic relationship is thus indicated and accepted; only on details is there a divergence of scholarly opinion. The total loss in Egyptian, for example, of prefix verbal conjugations, a common feature not only of Semitic but also of Berber and other African members of the Afro-Asian family, points probably to early separation from the parent stock. Then too, much of the ordinary vocabulary of Egyptian finds no convincing cognates in Semitic, and many of the items, which have been compared, suggest, by the irregularity of their phonetic correspondences, a long and complex prehistory whose details cannot be reconstructed without more evidence than is currently available.


The year 1958, as it happens, brought vivid illumination to an otherwise meager record. A French explorer of the Sahara, Henri Lhote, returned to Paris with a wonderful collection of copies of rock paintings and engravings. His exhibition of these was a memorable affair.
For here was human history on the grand style, tier after tier of Sahara styles that told of a bewildering succession of different peoples through uncounted millennia, ranging from marvelously sensitive pictures of animals to no less sensitive portraits of men and women; from scenes of wheeled warfare to scenes of pastoral peace; from gods and goddesses that surely came from ancient Egypt to masks and figures that just as surely did not. Many of them were the work of Negro peoples in a time that was probably not long before, or not long after, 4000 BC
From such evidence as this the empty centuries enlarge and echo with forgotten peoples. It had earlier been thought that the Sahara had known four main periods of habitation during its time of fertility. The earliest of these had been a hunting people, who were eventually followed by a cattle-keeping people, and these last, or their successors, had acquired horses around 1200 BC Into this bare outline Lhote has now poured a wealth of new evidence which brings it suddenly and wonderfully to life. Basing himself on recognizable variations of painting and engraving style, he suggests no fewer than sixteen different phases of occupation between the time of the hunting people and the time of the cattle-keeping people. "A fact," he says, "that is astonishing and revolutionary, since it was unthinkable until now that the Sahara could have known so many different populations." pp.8, 9.
The Cro-Magnon Ibero-Maurusian populations of North Africa may have come from surviving remnants of the Jurassic Transgression in Europe, like the Basques, Lapps, Epps, etc., who were actually Mongoloids having an agglutinative language in similar origin to Sumerian.
In chapter 3 'The Desert Barrier' ibid. Basil Davidson:
Some time before the fourth millennium BC the Sahara began to lose its green fertility. Its great rivers, running southward to the Niger and eastward to the Nile - their arid beds may still be traced in fruitless outline - began to dwindle and perish. Its lakes began to disappear. Its peoples began to migrate elsewhere.
There is plenty of evidence for this long, disastrous change. Those earliest Stone Age blacks (Bantus) of Khartoum - they who laid foundations for much of the civilization of the Nile and manufactured pots even before pots were made in Jericho, earliest of the world's known cities - lived beside a river which rose in floods between twelve and thirty feet higher than it does today.
They used barbed spearheads of bone that were later supplanted by beautifully precise harpoons with three or more bards and a perforation through the butt. And the nearest parallels to these harpoons of the Nile Valley occur at sites in the Wadi Azaouak, two thousand miles to the westward across the grim Sahara that we know today. Even as late as the third millennium large numbers of cattle are known to have found grazing in lower Nubia where, as Arkell says, "desert conditions are so severe today that the owner of an ox-driven water-wheel has difficulty in keeping one or two beasts alive throughout the year." And anyone who has traveled in these dusty latitudes will have noticed how the wilderness of sand and rock that lies to the west of the Nile far out upon the empty plains, is scored with ancient wadi beds which must once have carried a steady seasonal flow of water, but are now as dry as the desert air.
The immediate reasons for this long and ruthless desiccation, which is still going on, are unknown; they belong, clearly enough, to the same grand order of events which pushed the tropics southward through the ages... The important point, at any event, is that the Sahara began to offer a major barrier to human passage some five or six thousand years ago - at about the same time, that is, as black peoples began to move and multiply, and North Africa began to develop settled agriculture. In thus stretching a barrier to human contact between the lands to the north and the lands to the south, this Saharan wilderness would deeply influence the course of human development in Africa.
North of this worsening desert there was intense and seldom interrupted contact between all the developing societies and civilizations of North Africa, the Middle East, and the Mediterranean. South of the desert there was more or less unrestricted movement through the continental mainland, so that Negro or Negroid [Proto-Bantu] people are found today in almost every part of it. But the south and the north were increasingly divided from one another. They developed apart. They developed differently.
Conditions of river valley settlement that were decisive in the Middle East, India, and China appear to have [been impractical] in continental Africa. Not only that, so vast the land that need for a surplus of food at any one place was absent too. Early peoples, running short of game, simply moved elsewhere. And whenever agriculture and, later on, metal age technique produced a greater density of population than any given area of land would support, the same thing happened again: sub-tribe hived off from parent tribe and marched away to new land. Often enough it would move to virgin land. Sometimes it would collide with earlier migrants or nomads, and then the shunting process would begin once more, until waves and tremors of new migration would slowly ripple out across the forests and the plains. To this simple picture there were large and obvious exceptions. Yet it is a picture that is worth holding in mind because it helps to explain both means and motive in the peopling of historic Africa. Many tribal histories are known by now, invariably they include the story of migration and new settlement. Often enough they tell of movement from the northward or the eastward, and the general trend of migration was very probably from north to south. Thus the picture of the desert is one of restless ever-quickened movement across a continent where no great mountain ranges or unflankable deserts ever interposed a lasting check. They moved like the unseen armies of the stars, southward, westward; then, as time passed returning on their tracks, eastward, northward, in hidden orbits that we do not know.
According to Cyrus H. Gordon in his book “The Ancient Near East”, in chapter 3, p.53, it says:
There is evidence of a number of migrations. At an early date (perhaps well back in the fifth millennium) Hamito-Semites swept down from Asia into the Nile Valley, where they vanquished an earlier population. Egypt has always been exposed to infiltration from the north and south ends of the Nile Valley. Negroes [Bantu] came up from the south and constituted the main racial stock of Nubia in antiquity and of the Sudan today.
Therefore, considering the seafaring capabilities of the Sumerians it is not impossible that initially, Proto-Ntu’s, some Dravidians and Mongoloids had directly entered through Africa's east coast, through its many river basins, and followed the course of the rivers to the north, west and southern interior. Traveling by canoe, some may have ended their trip at the Sahara, during its time of fertility. The proof for that allegation are the migrations of the Nilo—Saharan family of languages by the Southern Nilotic-speacking pastoralist from the Sahel, of whom the identity and origin of that people can be establihshed as the Elamo-Dravidians, the immediate neighbors of the Sumerians. (The peopling of Africa: a geographic interpretation / James L. Newman. New Haven: Yale University Press, c1995).