... to return to the supposed connection between the Indus people and the Sumerians, it may be recalled that, before anything whatever had been discovered of the Indus civilization, Dr H.R. Hall proposed to locate the homeland of the Sumerians somewhere to the east of Mesopotamia, and suggested that they might belond to the same ethnic type as the Dravidians of India, who, though now restricted to the South of India, are believed on linguistic and ethnological grounds to have once populated virtually the whole of the peninsula, including the Pandjâb, Sind and Baluchistan, where, as is well known, the Dravidian speech is still preserved in the language of the Brahuis.
Following on the discoveries at Mohenjo-daro and Harappa which revealed various points of resemblance between the material cultures of these places and of Sumer, it was natural that a fresh impetus should be given to this theory and that the resemblances referred to should be interpreted as additional proof of its correctness. Pending, however, the discovery of further evidence, it is well that we should realize on what a very insecure basis this theory really rests.
What, in effect, is the supposed similarity of type between these two races - the Sumerian and the Dravidian - which is coming to be accepted as an established fact ? Sir Arthur Keith says that the people who spoke Sumerian were dolichocephalic, with large brain capacity, like a certain section of the pre-dynastic Egyptians and like the present-day Mesopotamians. "They had", he writes, "big, long, and narrow heads; their affinities were with the peoples of the Caucasian or European type, and we may regard South-western Asia as their cradle-land until evidence leading to a different conclusion comes to light." Mr. Woolley also states that, judging by their physical type, the Sumerians "were of the Indo-European stock, in appearance not unlike the modern Arab". On the other hand, Professor Langdon holds the view that the dolichocephalic skulls found at Kish were Semitic and the brachycephalic ones Sumerian. If, however, were are uncertain about the physical type of the Sumerians, we are just as uncertain about that of the ancient Dravidians, for the very good reason that we possess no remains whatever that can be identified with them. The modern Dravidian stock is officially described as being "of short stature, complexion very dark, approaching black; hair plentiful, with an occasional tendency to curl; eyes dark, head long, nose very broad, sometimes depressed at the root but not as to make the face appear flat".
It would be absurd to assume that this represents the Dravidian type of 5,000 years ago. In the case of the Brahui-speaking people of Baluchistan we know that, though they have preserved the Dravidian speech of their ancestors, they have entirely failed to preserve their racial character, which thanks to continuous recruitment from without has now become mainly Iranian; and we know, also, that the Dravidian type in the south of the peninsula has been largely transformed by the free admixture of the aboriginal, i.e. Proto-Australoid, blood as well perhaps other elements. So shadowy, indeed, is the distinction between the Dravidians and many of the aboriginals, that in the case of the Munda-speaking people most authorities incline to doubt if any distinction at all can be drawn.
Any attempt, therefore, to equate the Sumerians with the ancient Dravidians is complicated at the outset by the difficulty of defining either the Sumerian or the Dravidian type.
If, as most authorities on the subject maintain, the Dravidians came out of the West and entered India as invaders, we might supposed that they were originally related to the Meditteraneans who are represented at Kish, Anau, Nal, and Mohenjo-daro (where the largest proportion of skulls belong to this type), and that the type was subsequently transformed in India itself by intermarriage with proto-Australoids and others. If, however, they were indigenous, as others hold, in India, we must suppose that they were proto-Australoid in origin and developed their Dravidian character by intermingling with foreign elements and by process of natural evolution. But, in whatever direction they may have moved, whether from East to West or West to East, it would obviously be very rash in the present uncertain state of our knowledge to endeavour to identify as "Dravidian" either skulls classed by Colonel Sewell as Proto-Asutraloid or those classed as Mediterranean; rasher still to identify any of these skulls as "Sumerians".