From: John Croft
Message: 1601
Date: 2000-02-21
> John: I don't see Ubaid as synonymous with Sumerian. Rather I seeUbaid
> as a development of the pre-Sumerian substratum peoples.Spot on
>
> Gerry: OK. So Ubaid is pre-Sumerian.
> John: Extending the cultural realm down the Persian gulf brought themsubsequently
> into contact with the Bahreini aboriginals (Sumerians), who
> migrated northwards, settling first at Eridu, but hardly gettingfurther
> north than Kish.Spot on again!
>
> Gerry: And Bahreini aboriginals are the Sumerians. Absolutely
> fascinating! And it was the Sumerians who migrated north to Eridu and
> Kish.
> John: As for when the nomads, (probably Semites), they probably alsoarchaeological
> penetrated Mesopotamia in the north too (where they were to emerge as
> Akkadians). Whether they "pushed" the Sumerians out of Dilmun, or the
> Sumerians had decamped earlier (as a result of increasing dessication
> of the Arabian mainland), I think is too close to call... Perhaps a
> mixture of both.
>
> Gerry: I knew the Akkadians were Semitic. What does the
> evidence show for displacement in Dilmun? Was there warfare or not?Yes there is evidence that during the Jemdet Nasr phase Dilmun seems to
> > John: Thus there was a greater distance between the BahreiniSumerians
> > and the Elamite-Dravidian dialect chain, stretching from the Zagrosto
> > the Indus and possibly beyond.I dig it out and send it to you. It may take a little time.
> >
> > Gerry: Hmmmm. We're now talking language rather than people?
>
> Gerry - I suspect the answer to this is "both".
>
> > Gerry: YES. Thank you. Do you have more?
>
> John: Certainly more on a proposed Dilmun/Bahreini origin of the
> Sumerians - yes. I'll send more on later if you want.