In 1937, a debate was held in Paris at the society of (Ethnography) where professor Contino talked about ancient peoples, “tests carried out on some Sumerian skulls showed that there is a difference in them,” he said.
Sculptures in particular represent models of small heads; however, craniometry does not approve these models, “The lack of archeologists’ interest in bone remains discovered in these excavations is partially attributed to the rapid deterioration of human remains due to exposure to air and the difficulty of preserving them in a condition that allows conducting archeological tests,” he continues.
The method that guarantees preserving these antiquities, especially the skulls is relatively modern, and we hope to see cooperation between archeologists and anthroposophists in this regard in the near future despite the difficulty of achieving compatibility between these two sciences along with linguistics.
In short, all these criteria are relative; sometimes it is difficult to determine the true lineage of a nation through its works and initial movements as narrated by stories just as the difficulty of figuring out a person’s childhood features through his/her features as an adult.
Indeed, there are some similarities, yet, we should not forget, despite the obvious good intention, that our guidance is derived from our personal convictions concerning one nation only.
Basili continues the research about the Kurds’ origin, ” the series of circles connecting between a nation as we know in the present and its claimed primitive image, is rarely sufficient to suggest the similarities between them,” he says.
This is the response of “Basil Nikitin” to the claims of the Kurds searching for their nation’s origin.
We will see him in the next article pursuing the research on the Kurds’ origin where he speaks about Xenophon i.e. (XenophonCardochian)