What was the language of the Sumerians?
PTZM
surviving languages! That is to say it is neither Indo-European (Iranian,
Hittite, etc), nor Afro-Asiatic (Semitic, etc), nor Altaic (Turkic, etc), nor
Dravidian (Brauhi, etc), nor Caucasian (Chechen, etc), ....... Can anyone
confirm this???
So why is it that the Indus language which is still undeciphered (unlike the
Sumerian language), is not given the hypothesis of being a language unrelated
to any known or surviving languages?? We know that Sumerians and the Indus
people had strong links.... So why do we limit ourselves with the Indus people
being either Dravidian or Aryan??
Thanks...
Zimri
news:19990909190641...@ng-ba1.aol.com...
> As far as I know, Sumerian language is not related to any of the
known or
> surviving languages! That is to say it is neither Indo-European
(Iranian,
> Hittite, etc), nor Afro-Asiatic (Semitic, etc), nor Altaic (Turkic,
etc), nor
> Dravidian (Brauhi, etc), nor Caucasian (Chechen, etc), ....... Can
anyone
> confirm this???
Not really, except to say that this is the scholarly consensus.
> So why is it that the Indus language which is still undeciphered
(unlike the
> Sumerian language), is not given the hypothesis of being a language
unrelated
> to any known or surviving languages?? We know that Sumerians and the
Indus
> people had strong links.... So why do we limit ourselves with the
Indus people
> being either Dravidian or Aryan??
"We"? Most people have been standing off from the fray. Those who've
picked a side have been doing it extremely cautiously.
As far as "limiting ourselves", there's the linguistic evidence of
Dravidian loan-words in Sanskrit. Also, Brahui and possibly Elamite
(c.f. Mallory's In Search of the Indo Europeans) are Dravidian
languages, both well outside south India. That implies that Dravidian
once occupied most of the subcontinent and beyond at the time of the
expansion of the Sanskrit language. And here a few centuries before
the Vedas were composed, we have this script and civilization. Either
the people of the Indus valley spoke a Dravidian language or the
Dravidians replaced them -bloodlessly and without trace in the
archaeological record - before they switched to Sanskrit. It's just
easier to accept the latter <shrug>
-- Z
PTZM
What do you mean? Can you be more detailed? So are you saying that Sumerian
language is linguistically linked to any other known or surviving family of
languages?
>"We"? Most people have been standing off from the fray. Those who've
>picked a side have been doing it extremely cautiously.
By "we" I was referring in general, as majority of historians, archeologists
and linguists label or theorize Indus people as being Dravidian or Aryan.
>As far as "limiting ourselves", there's the linguistic evidence of
>Dravidian loan-words in Sanskrit.
Does this prove that Indus people spoke Dravidian language? What if Sanskrit
absorbed some Dravidian elements due to Aryan-Dravidian interactions in India
(Gangetic Valley, Central India, etc), long after Harappan civilization. We
know that initially, for many generations, Vedic/Aryan literature was only
memorized, and the first "written records" (including of Rigveda) comes at a
much later date, many centuries after the post-Harappan period. Most of it
written in the Gangetic Valley.
>Also, Brahui and possibly Elamite
>(c.f. Mallory's In Search of the Indo Europeans) are Dravidian
>languages, both well outside south India.
On what basis are you claiming Elamite as a Dravidian language?? As far as
Brauhis are concerned, there are only "theories" about their origin, while some
like to claim Brauhis as the descendents of the Harappan people (usually by
protagonists of Harappans being 'Dravidian') due to their Dravidian identity
being an island in the ocean of Aryan languages; it is more likely that Brauhis
are migrants from south India with their nomadic and warlike culture they
surely contradict the essence of Harappan culture.
Steve Thurston
Correct. It has not yet been connected with any language family, although
people are always willing to speculate. It's just that no one theory has
gained widespread acceptance.
>So why is it that the Indus language which is still undeciphered (unlike the
>Sumerian language), is not given the hypothesis of being a language unrelated
>to any known or surviving languages??
Precisely because it still remains undeciphered. You can't say that a language
is unrelated to any others when you don't understand the language in question.
For all we know, it may be related to a known language, and we just haven't
figured out which yet.
Steve Thurston
I speak only for myself.
ADR
>So why is it that the Indus language which is still undeciphered (unlike
the
>Sumerian language), is not given the hypothesis of being a language
unrelated
>to any known or surviving languages?? We know that Sumerians and the Indus
>people had strong links.... So why do we limit ourselves with the Indus
people
>being either Dravidian
Forget 'Aryan', there is no 'Aryan' language. The term 'arya' came from a
misunderstanding of an Egyptian title (the Sun) and after that was misused.
As for Sumerians, in the beginning they migrated from the east. That is for
sure, so contact with the Indus civ. is unavoidable. Similiar physical
traits can be seen between them as well. Here is something else I have
observed though. Once the Akkadians had taken over much of the area where
the Sumerians resided (2000 BCE), the Sumerians must have headed eastwards,
it was the only direction worth going in, and very shortly after that, we
have the demise of the Indus Valley civ. Could a large amount of Sumerians
have migrated to the Indus and competed for resources which led to both of
them fighting a battle which resulted in the demise of both of their
civilisations(1800 BCE)? It is likely, because the Sumerians have to have
turned up somewhere after being pushed out by the Akkadians (but many
Sumerians would also have integrated themselves with the Akkadians because
culture and religion wise there was hardly a difference for the Akkadians
had taken nearly all their new culture from the Sumerians). The 'Aryan'
theory can be thrown out easily because there is simply no evidence of an
arrival of IE speakers until aroun 800-900 years later.
Dragonblaze
"ADR" <a.dall...@virgin.net> wrote:
Here we go again...
[snip]
> Forget 'Aryan', there is no 'Aryan' language. The term 'arya' came
from a
> misunderstanding of an Egyptian title (the Sun) and after that was
misused.
'Aryan' is not related to 'ra'.
> As for Sumerians, in the beginning they migrated from the east. That
is for
> sure,
No, it isn't. There is a current theory that the Sumerians would have
originated somewhere near the Caspian Sea, but given the lack of
archaeological evidence, that is uncertain, to say the least.
> so contact with the Indus civ. is unavoidable.
The Indus Culture was quite far away SE from the supposed eastern
Sumerian homeland, so there is no necessity of contact.
> Similiar physical
> traits can be seen between them as well.
Such as? Apart from both belonging to the human species, that is.
> Here is something else I have
> observed though. Once the Akkadians had taken over much of the area
where
> the Sumerians resided (2000 BCE), the Sumerians must have headed
eastwards,
> it was the only direction worth going in, and very shortly after that,
we
> have the demise of the Indus Valley civ.
What is your evidence for this supposition? Are you not aware that after
the fall of the Akkadian dynasty, there was the 'Sumerian renaissance'
during the Ur III dynasty? I'd say the Sumerians simply intermarried
with the Semitics and were absorbed into the Semitic Mesopotamian
population.
> Could a large amount of
Sumerians
> have migrated to the Indus and competed for resources which led to
both of
> them fighting a battle which resulted in the demise of both of their
> civilisations(1800 BCE)?
Not very likely, there is no evidence of Sumerian influence in the Indus
Valley.
Dragonblaze
--
- God? I'm no God. God has mercy. -
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
ADR
It is not pronounced 'Ra' throughout all of Egypt and certainly looking at
the Amarna letters.IE speakers around 2000-1800 BCE would hardly call
themselves advanced or 'kings' being mostly nomadic. What's happened is that
the Egyptian Sungod is written as 'Aria', 'Ria' and 'Rya' in the Amarna
letters. This could tell us that there might have been some confusion and
many thought that the element which was the name of the Sungod, was mistaken
to mean 'king' or 'noble' and at a later point 'Aria', 'Ariya' and 'Arya'
were used to mean exactly that by Indic and Iranian speakers. it was
probably transferred to them via the Mitanni kings who corresponded with
Egyptian kings.
>> As for Sumerians, in the beginning they migrated from the east. That
>is for
>> sure,
>
>No, it isn't. There is a current theory that the Sumerians would have
>originated somewhere near the Caspian Sea, but given the lack of
>archaeological evidence, that is uncertain, to say the least.
I'll give you the title of a good book to read that says they came from
between Afghanistan and the Tarim Basin.
>> Similiar physical
>> traits can be seen between them as well.
>
>Such as? Apart from both belonging to the human species, that is.
I'll have to get that book again.
>> Here is something else I have
>> observed though. Once the Akkadians had taken over much of the area
>where
>> the Sumerians resided (2000 BCE), the Sumerians must have headed
>eastwards,
>> it was the only direction worth going in, and very shortly after that,
>we
>> have the demise of the Indus Valley civ.
>What is your evidence for this supposition? Are you not aware that after
>the fall of the Akkadian dynasty, there was the 'Sumerian renaissance'
>during the Ur III dynasty?
I didnt say every single Sumerian left, but one would think that around
2000-1800 BCE, many could have left the region due to the influx of
Akkadians. It's like the English leaving Bradford because too many Muslims
live in the area.
I'd say the Sumerians simply intermarried
>with the Semitics and were absorbed into the Semitic Mesopotamian
>population.
Happens all the time and everywhere, but groups of disgruntled peeople also
migrate away unable to deal with an influx of foreigners.
>> Could a large amount of
>Sumerians
>> have migrated to the Indus and competed for resources which led to
>both of
>> them fighting a battle which resulted in the demise of both of their
>> civilisations(1800 BCE)?
>
>Not very likely, there is no evidence of Sumerian influence in the Indus
>Valley.
Then there must be a reason why there is evidence for battles in the Indus
during the same period. It is not IE speaking tribes, that is for sure. IE
speakers around 2000-1800 BCE would hardly call themselves advanced or
'kings' being mostly nomadic.
Temujin87
>It is not pronounced 'Ra' throughout all of Egypt and certainly looking at
>the Amarna letters.IE speakers around 2000-1800 BCE would hardly call
>themselves advanced or 'kings' being mostly nomadic. What's happened is that
>the Egyptian Sungod is written as 'Aria', 'Ria' and 'Rya' in the Amarna
>letters. This could tell us that there might have been some confusion and
>many thought that the element which was the name of the Sungod, was mistaken
>to mean 'king' or 'noble' and at a later point 'Aria', 'Ariya' and 'Arya'
>were used to mean exactly that by Indic and Iranian speakers. it was
>probably transferred to them via the Mitanni kings who corresponded with
>Egyptian kings.
>
What the devil has this to do with the Indo-Arryans?
Re-hu, Ra, Ariya... whatever... is still unrelated. The PIE roots which give us
the name Arryan to describe the groups which invaded the Indus and set up a new
ethnic base is the same root which gives us Aries and aristocracy... it comes
from the root for "Horse", which would be related to the Arryans because they
were horse mounted.
>IE speakers around 2000-1800 BCE would hardly call
>themselves advanced or 'kings' being mostly nomadic.
well they would call themselves kings because of their superior horsework and
ability to use them in battle.
Bob Keeter
>>originated somewhere near the Caspian Sea, but given the lack of
>>archaeological evidence, that is uncertain, to say the least.
>
was a theory being advanced that the omnipresent legend of a "Great Flood"
might will relate back to the monsterous flood that occured when the
Bosphorus was breached at the end of the Ice Age, allowing the Med to
flood in and create the Black Sea. Supposedly there are lots of very
fertile, obviously terrestrial (vice maritime) sediment layers under the
current shorelines of the Black Sea.
>I'll give you the title of a good book to read that says they came from
>between Afghanistan and the Tarim Basin.
>
The title, please?
>I didnt say every single Sumerian left, but one would think that around
>2000-1800 BCE, many could have left the region due to the influx of
>Akkadians. It's like the English leaving Bradford because too many Muslims
>live in the area.
>
ENTIRELY possible since I believe that some very rudimentary artifacts from
each culture have been found in cities belonging to the other. I will look
around, but I think that there was a paper on the existence of a thriving
trade between Mesopotamia and the Indus cities; just not sure of the period.
>I'd say the Sumerians simply intermarried
>>with the Semitics and were absorbed into the Semitic Mesopotamian
>>population.
>
>Happens all the time and everywhere, but groups of disgruntled peeople also
>migrate away unable to deal with an influx of foreigners.
>
Could you explain why you suspect that the Sumerians were not of generally
what we could consider Semitic stock in the first place?
>>
>>Not very likely, there is no evidence of Sumerian influence in the Indus
>>Valley.
>
Not yours, but dont think that this will hold water with just a little bit
of research! I believe that there is solid evidence of trade between
Mesopotamia, Harrappa, Mohenjodaro, extending all the way to Oman and Bahrain.
Those little square seals and cuneaform tablets just keep turning up all
over the place! 8-)
>Then there must be a reason why there is evidence for battles in the Indus
>during the same period. It is not IE speaking tribes, that is for sure. IE
>speakers around 2000-1800 BCE would hardly call themselves advanced or
>'kings' being mostly nomadic.
If you take a broader look at history there has been a steady stream of
nomadic invasions of southern Asia and eastern Europe from the plains
of Eurasia. Why should we presume that these battles were not merely
an earlier edition of the Goths, Huns, Mongols, etc, etc, etc.
FURTHERMORE, I believe that the weapon points and such found in the Indus
cities (residue from the "invasion"?) are decidedly non-Sumerian and
definitely not of typical Indus manufacture (i.e. bronze not the copper
that was more typical of Indus points).
Lets see. Bronze arrow points, invasion, rape pillage and plunder? Sounds
like the distant ancestors of the Scythians (who were quite adept at scourging
the Greeks and Persians two thousand years later!).
Regards
bk
Kristopher/EOS
>
> Could you explain why you suspect that the Sumerians
> were not of generally what we could consider Semitic
> stock in the first place?
I don't recall the reasons, but I had always been under
the impression that the Sumerians were't considered to
be of Semetic origin.
Might as well ask, while we're on the subject. Are there
any books or webpages that one should read if interested
in serious, reputable, sane information on the Sumerians?
Kristopher/EOS
Ross Clark
>
> As far as I know, Sumerian language is not related to any of the known or
> Hittite, etc), nor Afro-Asiatic (Semitic, etc), nor Altaic (Turkic, etc), nor
> Dravidian (Brauhi, etc), nor Caucasian (Chechen, etc), ....... Can anyone
> confirm this???
>
> Sumerian language), is not given the hypothesis of being a language unrelated
> to any known or surviving languages?? We know that Sumerians and the Indus
> people had strong links.... So why do we limit ourselves with the Indus people
>
> Thanks...
Sumerian is a known language. Various attempts have been made to
establish a relation to other known languages and families, but none has
been convincingly demonstrated.
The Indus language is not even a known language. So we cannot apply the
techniques of comparative linguistics to try to determine its
affiliation. The most we can do is speculate about what it might turn
out to be if we knew something about it. I guess Dravidian and
Indo-European are just two of the big language families in the area, so
they are obvious possibilities. But you're quite right to say that it
could equally well be related to Sumerian, or Afro-Asiatic, or another
isolate. Who knows?
Ross Clark
Steve Whittet
a.dall...@virgin.net says...
>
>>'Aryan' is not related to 'ra'.
>
>
>the Amarna letters.IE speakers around 2000-1800 BCE would hardly call
>themselves advanced or 'kings' being mostly nomadic. What's happened is that
>the Egyptian Sungod is written as 'Aria', 'Ria' and 'Rya' in the Amarna
>letters.
No. Its written [r3] (ra).
>This could tell us that there might have been some confusion and
>many thought that the element which was the name of the Sungod, was mistaken
>to mean 'king' or 'noble' and at a later point 'Aria', 'Ariya' and 'Arya'
>were used to mean exactly that by Indic and Iranian speakers. it was
>probably transferred to them via the Mitanni kings who corresponded with
>Egyptian kings.
No. Noble in Egyptian cartouches is [nefer ka ra] ( beautiful, high {minded},
brilliant)
>>> As for Sumerians, in the beginning they migrated from the east. That
>>>is for sure,
The same people occupied the same sites since Acheulian times.
As later as c 16,000 BC the Persian Gulf was still a river extending
the Tigris and Euphrates to the Indus. Back then Arabia was a savanna.
Much like the plains of Africa it teemed with game. Connected to both
Africa and India through Yemen and Oman it was a major migration route
out of Africa. Fording the Red Sea and Persian Gulf when they were mere
rivers was accomplished by at the latest c 100,000 BC.
>>
>>No, it isn't. There is a current theory that the Sumerians would have
>>originated somewhere near the Caspian Sea, but given the lack of
>>archaeological evidence, that is uncertain, to say the least.
To say the least its Baloney....
>>> Here is something else I have
>>> observed though. Once the Akkadians had taken over much of the area
>>where
>>> the Sumerians resided (2000 BCE), the Sumerians must have headed
>>eastwards,
>>> it was the only direction worth going in, and very shortly after that,
>>we
>>> have the demise of the Indus Valley civ.
The Sumerians connected to the Halaf culture to the northeast
and to the Indus Valley where they were engaged in commerce
not conguest.
>...
>>Not very likely, there is no evidence of Sumerian influence in the Indus
>>Valley.
There is considerable evidence of Sumerians, or more properly Ubaids,
(to include most of southern Mesopotamia) in the IVC.
>
>Then there must be a reason why there is evidence for battles in the Indus
>during the same period. It is not IE speaking tribes, that is for sure. IE
>speakers around 2000-1800 BCE would hardly call themselves advanced or
>'kings' being mostly nomadic.
There are no IE speakers for more than a millenium after the Ubaids and IVC
first connect.
steve
Doug Weller
-0400, eosl...@net-link.net said...
> Might as well ask, while we're on the subject. Are there
> any books or webpages that one should read if interested
> in serious, reputable, sane information on the Sumerians?
>
From: "Bu Hao" <buh...@earthlink.net>
Newsgroups: alt.archaeology
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 00:16:02 -0700
Also worth a look:
Jack Finegan:
Archaeological History of the Ancient Middle East
Seton Lloyd:
The Archaeology of Mesopotamia
A. Leo Oppenheim:
Ancient Mesopotamia Portrait of a Dead Civilization
Samuel Noah Kramer:
History Begins at Sumer
The Sumerians
Denise Schmandt-Besserat:
From Counting to Cuneiform
C. Leonard Woolley:
The Sumerians
and From: Dragonblaze <drago...@my-deja.com>
Here's a selected bibliography:
General works on Ancient Near East:
Roaf, M.: A Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East
Kuhrt, A. : The Ancient Near East c. 3000-330 B.C.
Sasson, J.M.: Civilizations of the Ancient Near East
Regional Historical:
Roux, G.: Ancient Iraq (1980 edition)
Maisels, C.: The Emergence of Civilization: From hunting and gathering
to agriculture, cities and the state in the Near East
Postgate, J.N.: Early Mesopotamia
Cultural:
Jacobsen, T.: Treasures of Darkness
Pritchard, J.B.: Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old
Testament
Amiet, P.: Art of the Ancient Near East
Crawford, H.E.W.: Sumer and the Sumerians
There are also two books worth reading, but their precise names escape
me just now. They are approximately: Potts, D.T.: Material Foundations
of Mesopotamian Culture and Roth, M.: Law Collections from Ancient Near
East.
Dragonblaze
I also like:
Mesopotamia (British Museum) ~
Julian Reade / Paperback / Published 1991
Then there's:
Babylonians (Peoples of the Past)
by H. W. F. Saggs [and other books by him]
Should keep you going. :)
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Doug Weller
-0400, eosl...@net-link.net said...
> >
> > Could you explain why you suspect that the Sumerians
> > were not of generally what we could consider Semitic
> > stock in the first place?
>
> I don't recall the reasons, but I had always been under
> the impression that the Sumerians were't considered to
> be of Semetic origin.
>
ADR
>No. Its written [r3] (ra).
>
>>This could tell us that there might have been some confusion and
>>many thought that the element which was the name of the Sungod, was
mistaken
>>to mean 'king' or 'noble' and at a later point 'Aria', 'Ariya' and 'Arya'
>>were used to mean exactly that by Indic and Iranian speakers. it was
>>probably transferred to them via the Mitanni kings who corresponded with
>>Egyptian kings.
>
>No. Noble in Egyptian cartouches is [nefer ka ra] ( beautiful, high
{minded},
>brilliant)
Completely wrong. The full name of the Sungod is never written, sometimes
just the 'mouth' sign [r'] is written. but in the cartouches we would have,
for example:
Nebmaatre, is written (and I have describe it) - Sundisc (Denoting the
position of the king (Sunking), followed by the sing for Neb (Lord) under
the disc. To the right, sits the goddess Ma'at, with a feather in her hair.
The same happens in all cartouches. The name of the Sungod is not written as
to give any clue to its pronunciation.
ADR
>Could you explain why you suspect that the Sumerians were not of generally
>what we could consider Semitic stock in the first place?
What is Semitic stock anyway? How can we connect ethnicity with language
when the former is always transforming from generation to generation?
Anyway, typically Sumerians are depicted as clean chaven with a distinctive
hairstyle and dress sense which is quite different from the Akkadians. They
are also shown with flatter, broader faces, some even seem very oriental,
with thinner eyes. Akkadians, however, are depicted sometimes with humungous
noses, long beards and large eyes (The Egyptians considered that the look of
a barbarian). We must not forget though that it sometimes comes down to what
period we are talking about and that individuals are also completely
different. Fro instance, out of five Jewish friends I know, all five of them
are physically completely different. One is small and light skinned with a
small nose. One looks like a Rabbi Mel Brooks. One is very fat, light
skinned with an Arab appearance, one is very tall and thickly built with a
flat face, one is is tall, very dark and looks Indian.
ADR
>Lets see. Bronze arrow points, invasion, rape pillage and plunder? Sounds
>like the distant ancestors of the Scythians (who were quite adept at
scourging
>the Greeks and Persians two thousand years later!).
>
>Regards
>bk
Yes, but I dont want to blame IE speakers for that as there is noe evidence
for them being there at all. No archaeological remains of IE tribes in India
until after 1000 BCE. The problem I have is this:
We know that there are some speakers of an early version or language related
to Sanskrit living in Mitanni around 1500-1260 BCE. After that they
disappear, presumbaly to migrate to India. If they enter India around 1100
BCE and find that the Dravids have been replaced with Elamites or
descendants of Sumerians, what is going to happen? Are they going to fight
over the land? What happens at about that time is an invasion of Elamites
into Babylonia c. 1160 BCE and I'm wondering what pushed them west? Indic
and Iranian speakers?
Dragonblaze
"ADR" <a.dall...@virgin.net> wrote:
> >'Aryan' is not related to 'ra'.
>
> It is not pronounced 'Ra' throughout all of Egypt and certainly
looking at
> the Amarna letters.
This is beside the point. The pronunciation is not the issue here.
In Sanskrit it is 'a:ryas', 'noble', and I suspect it is proto-IE. It
was used already in the earliest records by the Iranian and Indian IE
people of themselves, and it is very hard to see how it would have
jumped there from Egypt, bypassing almost the entire Near Eastern
region.
The Amarna letters use 'ria', but the clumsiness of cuneiform Akkadian
as regards foreign names is notorious. That just happens to be the
language of most of the Amarna Letters, and none of them is in
Egyptian.
>IE speakers around 2000-1800 BCE would hardly call
> themselves advanced or 'kings' being mostly nomadic.
Take that up with the Mongols. They were nomadic, but managed to
conquer most of Asia, Near East and parts of Europe.
> What's happened is that
> the Egyptian Sungod is written as 'Aria', 'Ria' and 'Rya' in the
Amarna
> letters.
Where in the Amarna Letters have you seen that 'Aria'? In the same one
that has all those Nubian sailors?
> This could tell us that there might have been some confusion and
> many thought that the element which was the name of the Sungod, was
mistaken
> to mean 'king' or 'noble' and at a later point 'Aria', 'Ariya' and
'Arya'
> were used to mean exactly that by Indic and Iranian speakers.
Ahem, just how many people do you think had the bloody access to royal
correspondence?
> it was
> probably transferred to them via the Mitanni kings who corresponded
with
> Egyptian kings.
Using _trained_ scribes, who would have been pretty familiar with names.
[snip]
> >What is your evidence for this supposition? Are you not aware that
after
> >the fall of the Akkadian dynasty, there was the 'Sumerian
renaissance'
> >during the Ur III dynasty?
>
> I didnt say every single Sumerian left, but one would think that
around
> 2000-1800 BCE, many could have left the region due to the influx of
> Akkadians. It's like the English leaving Bradford because too many
Muslims
> live in the area.
Haven't noticed too many of them _emigrating_.
The Akkadian influence was very marginal in the swamplands of S.
Mesopotamia, so if some discontented Sumerians left, that is the
likeliest area they would have gone to.
There is no sign of this kind of antagonism in the texts. Even the Ur
III _imitated_ the Akkadian administration and modeled its rule by that.
> I'd say the Sumerians simply intermarried
> >with the Semitics and were absorbed into the Semitic Mesopotamian
> >population.
>
> Happens all the time and everywhere, but groups of disgruntled
peeople also
> migrate away unable to deal with an influx of foreigners.
Not very often, and mainly in the case of _aggressive_ influx. This is
not what happened with the Akkadians. Akkadians were installed as
governors in Sumerian cities - probably because the Akkadian kings
though that native Akkadians would be easier to control - but their
ethnicity was probably not an issue with the Sumerians. We know from
Sumerian texts that there were Semites in Sumeria way before the
Akkadian dynasty. There was some warfare, but there had been earlier
much more fighting between the Sumerian city-states.
> >Not very likely, there is no evidence of Sumerian influence in the
Indus
> >Valley.
>
> Then there must be a reason why there is evidence for battles in the
Indus
> during the same period. It is not IE speaking tribes, that is for
sure.
First, I should have said no _major_ Sumerian influence.
Where it is written that they couldn't have internal warfare (remember,
we do not know if they had city-states or not) or fought with their
neighbors?
Dragonblaze
bke...@netway.com (Bob Keeter) wrote:
> >>No, it isn't. There is a current theory that the Sumerians would
have
> >>originated somewhere near the Caspian Sea, but given the lack of
> >>archaeological evidence, that is uncertain, to say the least.
> >
That is a possibility, I had no reference works with me when I was
writing that.
> >I didnt say every single Sumerian left, but one would think that
around
> >2000-1800 BCE, many could have left the region due to the influx of
> >Akkadians. It's like the English leaving Bradford because too many
Muslims
> >live in the area.
> >
> ENTIRELY possible since I believe that some very rudimentary
artifacts from
> each culture have been found in cities belonging to the other. I
will look
> around, but I think that there was a paper on the existence of a
thriving
> trade between Mesopotamia and the Indus cities; just not sure of the
period.
I should have written that more clearly, that there is no evidence of
_major_ Sumerian influence, and that excludes trade contacts, which
explain the presence of imported artifacts. These have been found in
both areas.
> >>
> >>Not very likely, there is no evidence of Sumerian influence in the
Indus
> >>Valley.
> >
>
> Not yours, but dont think that this will hold water with just a
little bit
> of research! I believe that there is solid evidence of trade between
> Mesopotamia, Harrappa, Mohenjodaro, extending all the way to Oman and
Bahrain.
I exclude trade contacts, as ADR was speaking of Sumerian migration to
Indus early 2nd millennium BCE.
> Those little square seals and cuneaform tablets just keep turning up
all
> over the place! 8-)
See the above reply.
Dragonblaze
"ADR" <a.dall...@virgin.net> wrote:
> Yes, but I dont want to blame IE speakers for that as there is noe
evidence
> for them being there at all. No archaeological remains of IE tribes
in India
> until after 1000 BCE. The problem I have is this:
>
> We know that there are some speakers of an early version or language
related
> to Sanskrit living in Mitanni around 1500-1260 BCE. After that they
> disappear, presumbaly to migrate to India.
The evidence is mostly in the IA royal personal names and a few
loanwords, but most of the royal family seems to have had Hurrian
names. There were also a couple of IA gods in the Mitannian pantheon,
but they were definitely minor gods, and the last ones mentioned in the
Mitannian list of gods. So, the IA contigent must have been very small
indeed, probably assimilated into the Hurrian population even before
the Mitannian records begin. There probably was not an IA speaker in
Mitanni to emigrate to India, therefore the Indo-Aryans of India must
come from another wave of IA peoples.
> What happens at about that time is an invasion of Elamites
> into Babylonia c. 1160 BCE and I'm wondering what pushed them west?
In all likelihood, nothing. Elamites lived in their Iranian homeland
even _much_ later, and this 'invasion' was just another war of
conquest. They fought with the Mesopotamians throughout the whole known
history, but never actually migrated west.
ADR
>the Mitannian records begin. There probably was not an IA speaker in
>Mitanni to emigrate to India, therefore the Indo-Aryans of India must
>come from another wave of IA peoples.
But your'e being just as speculative here as well. Nothing can be refuted
here either way.
>> What happens at about that time is an invasion of Elamites
>> into Babylonia c. 1160 BCE and I'm wondering what pushed them west?
>
>In all likelihood, nothing. Elamites lived in their Iranian homeland
>even _much_ later, and this 'invasion' was just another war of
>conquest. They fought with the Mesopotamians throughout the whole known
>history, but never actually migrated west.
There is always a reason why it should have happened. Why did they invade at
that particular time?
ADR
>In Sanskrit it is 'a:ryas', 'noble', and I suspect it is proto-IE.
How does a nomadic people come up with idea of nobility?
>was used already in the earliest records by the Iranian and Indian IE
>people of themselves, and it is very hard to see how it would have
>jumped there from Egypt, bypassing almost the entire Near Eastern
>region.
Via Mitanni it could have. If Hurrians can get Sanskrit loanwords, then why
not loanwords to Sanskrit, such as the 'Ria' used in the Amarna letters? Did
they even know what 'Ria' meant? Could it have been mistaken for an epithet
such as 'noble'?
>
>The Amarna letters use 'ria', but the clumsiness of cuneiform Akkadian
>as regards foreign names is notorious. That just happens to be the
>language of most of the Amarna Letters, and none of them is in
>Egyptian.
You dont say. But it gives us a clue to it's pronunciation and where the
Greek 'Helios' and Indic 'Suryah' come from.
>
>>IE speakers around 2000-1800 BCE would hardly call
>> themselves advanced or 'kings' being mostly nomadic.
>
>Take that up with the Mongols. They were nomadic, but managed to
>conquer most of Asia, Near East and parts of Europe.
They still were not noble. Neither were the Turks who lived under them.
>Where in the Amarna Letters have you seen that 'Aria'? In the same one
>that has all those Nubian sailors?
Haha. Can you tell me, if Egyptian boats were coming and going to and from
Amurru, was there some sort of American style policy where Nubians had to
sit at the back of the boat?
>Ahem, just how many people do you think had the bloody access to royal
>correspondence?
Priests, viziers, nobles and kings. Generally it is those people who can
bring such load words into upper class lingo.
>> I didnt say every single Sumerian left, but one would think that
>around
>> 2000-1800 BCE, many could have left the region due to the influx of
>> Akkadians. It's like the English leaving Bradford because too many
>Muslims
>> live in the area.
>
>Haven't noticed too many of them _emigrating_.
I have.
Brian M. Scott
> >the Mitannian records begin. There probably was not an IA speaker in
> >Mitanni to emigrate to India, therefore the Indo-Aryans of India must
> >come from another wave of IA peoples.
> But your'e being just as speculative here as well. Nothing can be refuted
> here either way.
You snipped the evidence: a very small corpus of loans, mostly names and
technical terms, in an otherwise solidly Hurrian context. Absolute
proof is obviously not possible, but on the evidence it is plainly very
unlikely that there was any significant body of IA speakers in Mitanni.
Your implication that the two hypotheses are equally speculative is
absurd.
Brian M. Scott
Brian M. Scott
> >In Sanskrit it is 'a:ryas', 'noble', and I suspect it is proto-IE.
> How does a nomadic people come up with idea of nobility?
Why on earth not? (And *which* idea of nobility?)
> >was used already in the earliest records by the Iranian and Indian IE
> >people of themselves, and it is very hard to see how it would have
> >jumped there from Egypt, bypassing almost the entire Near Eastern
> >region.
> Via Mitanni it could have. If Hurrians can get Sanskrit loanwords, [...]
The words in question are *not* Sanskrit, though they are obviously
closely related.
> You dont say. But it gives us a clue to it's pronunciation and where the
> Greek 'Helios' and Indic 'Suryah' come from.
The Greek is from PIE *<se'H2-ul->, and I believe that Sanskrit
<su:rya-> is as well.
[...]
Brian M. Scott
ADR
>You snipped the evidence: a very small corpus of loans, mostly names and
>technical terms, in an otherwise solidly Hurrian context. Absolute
>proof is obviously not possible, but on the evidence it is plainly very
>unlikely that there was any significant body of IA speakers in Mitanni.
>Your implication that the two hypotheses are equally speculative is
>absurd.
>
>Brian M. Scott
The Hurrians brought charioteering and other forms of warfare that were
known to IE speaking groups. That's the orthodox belief. Or...the Indic
speakers came into Hurrian country and brought those things? You have no
evidence for or against. For certain, Kulkali would have at least met an IA
speaker at some point. Why dont you at least tell us where these 'IA'
speakers were dwelling at the time?
ADR
Brian M. Scott wrote in message <37DAA0...@stratos.net>...
>ADR wrote:
>
>> >In Sanskrit it is 'a:ryas', 'noble', and I suspect it is proto-IE.
>
>> How does a nomadic people come up with idea of nobility?
>
>Why on earth not? (And *which* idea of nobility?)
There was no system of kingship amongst them, nor any historical record of
one.
>> You dont say. But it gives us a clue to it's pronunciation and where the
>> Greek 'Helios' and Indic 'Suryah' come from.
>
>The Greek is from PIE *<se'H2-ul->, and I believe that Sanskrit
><su:rya-> is as well.
No. Suryah is a combination of the Egyptian and PIE. By the way, where can I
find the earliest Greek for 'sun'?
Brian M. Scott
> Brian M. Scott wrote in message <37DAA0...@stratos.net>...
> >ADR wrote:
> >> >In Sanskrit it is 'a:ryas', 'noble', and I suspect it is proto-IE.
> >> How does a nomadic people come up with idea of nobility?
> >Why on earth not? (And *which* idea of nobility?)
> There was no system of kingship amongst them, nor any historical record of
> one.
Several concepts of nobility are not inseparable from that of kingship.
> >> You dont say. But it gives us a clue to it's pronunciation and where the
> >> Greek 'Helios' and Indic 'Suryah' come from.
> >The Greek is from PIE *<se'H2-ul->, and I believe that Sanskrit
> ><su:rya-> is as well.
> No. Suryah is a combination of the Egyptian and PIE.
I very much doubt this, as the word appears to contain not only the same
root but also the same affix as the Greek (apparently something like
*<-yo->).
> By the way, where can I
> find the earliest Greek for 'sun'?
I have no idea.
Brian M. Scott
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> Supposedly there are lots of very
> fertile, obviously terrestrial (vice maritime) sediment layers
> under the current shorelines of the Black Sea.
I have read a book on this. The geographical evidence makes a
convincing argument for the Black Sea being a large freshwater lake.
The evidence also indicates that the lake flooded rapidly filling the
basin in less than 10 years. Archeological evidence indicates major
cultural upheaval at about this period. The actual event is dated to
about 5000 BC. The authors claim that this was the origin of the flood
legend and the book is called Noah's Flood. The authors also make
clear that the major problem is that there has as yet been no evidence
of settlement about the old lake shore.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
Brian M. Scott
> >You snipped the evidence: a very small corpus of loans, mostly names and
> >technical terms, in an otherwise solidly Hurrian context. Absolute
> >proof is obviously not possible, but on the evidence it is plainly very
> >unlikely that there was any significant body of IA speakers in Mitanni.
> >Your implication that the two hypotheses are equally speculative is
> >absurd.
> The Hurrians brought charioteering and other forms of warfare that were
> known to IE speaking groups. That's the orthodox belief. Or...the Indic
> speakers came into Hurrian country and brought those things?
*That* is the orthodox view.
> You have no
> evidence for or against.
On the contrary: the fact that technical, horse-related terminology
makes up a significant fraction of the corpus of IA loans in the Hurrian
documents clearly suggests that the associated technology was also
originally non-Hurrian.
> For certain, Kulkali would have at least met an IA
> speaker at some point.
His name is Kikkuli, and there is no reason to think so.
> Why dont you at least tell us where these 'IA'
> speakers were dwelling at the time?
The orthodox view is that they probably weren't: the Mitanni are
supposed to have resulted from a fusion of an IA elite with a
Hurrian-speaking population, and the IA terminology may very well be
fossilized.
Brian M. Scott
ADR
>> For certain, Kulkali would have at least met an IA
>> speaker at some point.
>
>His name is Kikkuli, and there is no reason to think so.
that's the one!
>> Why dont you at least tell us where these 'IA'
>> speakers were dwelling at the time?
>
>The orthodox view is that they probably weren't: the Mitanni are
>supposed to have resulted from a fusion of an IA elite with a
>Hurrian-speaking population, and the IA terminology may very well be
>fossilized.
Come on. Thats not the answer to the question above. And also, using terms
like 'Indo-Aryan' is as misleading and incorrect as saying that the people
of Britain were 'Celtic'.
ADR
>> There was no system of kingship amongst them, nor any historical record
of
>> one.
>
>Several concepts of nobility are not inseparable from that of kingship.
You're missing the point. There were not even concepts of nobility. They
were small nomadic units that would sometimes come together and other times
split apart depending on what resources were available and were needed.
>> By the way, where can I
>> find the earliest Greek for 'sun'?
>
>I have no idea.
The earliest reference? 8th C BCE? 4th? 2nd? It's very important to this
debate.
Brian M. Scott
[...]
> >> Why dont you at least tell us where these 'IA'
> >> speakers were dwelling at the time?
> >The orthodox view is that they probably weren't: the Mitanni are
> >supposed to have resulted from a fusion of an IA elite with a
> >Hurrian-speaking population, and the IA terminology may very well be
> >fossilized.
> Come on. Thats not the answer to the question above.
It certainly is. It may of course not be the *right* answer, but it is
*an* answer, and one that has met with wide acceptance.
> And also, using terms
> like 'Indo-Aryan' is as misleading and incorrect as saying that the people
> of Britain were 'Celtic'.
It isn't at all misleading: your prejudices to the contrary
notwithstanding, the term is standard for a particular family of
languages. And referring to *languages* as IA isn't in the least
similar to referring to *people* as Celtic.
Brian M. Scott
Brian M. Scott
> >Several concepts of nobility are not inseparable from that of kingship.
> You're missing the point. There were not even concepts of nobility.
You offer no evidence for this assertion. In any case, 'noble' is a
very loose translation of the word used as a self-name by the
Indo-Iranians.
[...]
> >> By the way, where can I
> >> find the earliest Greek for 'sun'?
> >I have no idea.
> The earliest reference? 8th C BCE? 4th? 2nd? It's very important to this
> debate.
It's of very little importance, as the word is common IE and therefore
ancient. However, I have now verified what I suspected before: it's in
Homer.
Brian M. Scott
Dragonblaze
"ADR" <a.dall...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> >In Sanskrit it is 'a:ryas', 'noble', and I suspect it is proto-IE.
>
> How does a nomadic people come up with idea of nobility?
As easily as any other people. They did have chiefs, or are you trying
to deny that as well?
As regards the Mongols, I have a faint recollection that method of
execution differed if the condemned person was a noble (he was wrapped
in a carpet and kicked to death).
> >was used already in the earliest records by the Iranian and Indian IE
> >people of themselves, and it is very hard to see how it would have
> >jumped there from Egypt, bypassing almost the entire Near Eastern
> >region.
>
> Via Mitanni it could have. If Hurrians can get Sanskrit loanwords,
> then why not loanwords to Sanskrit
You've already been told that it was not Sanskrit, but an Indo-Iranian
language (related to Sanskrit, of course).
Because the Mitanni Aryans had been assimilated into the Hurrians, they
couldn't have given any loanwords to Sanskrit.
> such as the 'Ria' used in the Amarna letters? Did
> they even know what 'Ria' meant? Could it have been mistaken for an
epithet
> such as 'noble'?
Can you give any plausible connection where this confusion could have
happened?
> >The Amarna letters use 'ria', but the clumsiness of cuneiform
Akkadian
> >as regards foreign names is notorious. That just happens to be the
> >language of most of the Amarna Letters, and none of them is in
> >Egyptian.
>
> You dont say. But it gives us a clue to it's pronunciation and where
the
> Greek 'Helios' and Indic 'Suryah' come from.
You've already been told it comes from PIA. I've nothing to add to
that, except that the -l is more original than -r, l -> r is a common
IE change.
> >>IE speakers around 2000-1800 BCE would hardly call
> >> themselves advanced or 'kings' being mostly nomadic.
> >
> >Take that up with the Mongols. They were nomadic, but managed to
> >conquer most of Asia, Near East and parts of Europe.
>
> They still were not noble. Neither were the Turks who lived under
them.
Try reading the laws of the Mongols.
> >Where in the Amarna Letters have you seen that 'Aria'? In the same
one
> >that has all those Nubian sailors?
>
> Haha. Can you tell me, if Egyptian boats were coming and going to and
from
> Amurru, was there some sort of American style policy where Nubians
had to
> sit at the back of the boat?
You've yet to give me the identification of the Amarna letter that
mentions all those Nubian sailors, as you claimed. Moreover, your
argumentation was based on your claim that they were expert mariners.
> >> I didnt say every single Sumerian left, but one would think that
> >around
> >> 2000-1800 BCE, many could have left the region due to the influx of
> >> Akkadians. It's like the English leaving Bradford because too many
> >Muslims
> >> live in the area.
> >
> >Haven't noticed too many of them _emigrating_.
>
> I have.
Out of the country?
Brian M. Scott
> > You dont say. But it gives us a clue to it's pronunciation and where
> > the Greek 'Helios' and Indic 'Suryah' come from.
> You've already been told it comes from PIA. I've nothing to add to
> that, except that the -l is more original than -r, l -> r is a common
> IE change.
And in particular characteristic of the Indo-Iranian languages, though
according to Beekes /l/ remained in central Indian dialects, and /r/
became /l/ in some eastern dialects.
Brian M. Scott
ADR
>> And also, using terms
>> like 'Indo-Aryan' is as misleading and incorrect as saying that the
people
>> of Britain were 'Celtic'.
>
>It isn't at all misleading: your prejudices to the contrary
>notwithstanding,
How can I be the prejudice one? I'm supposedly half Indo-Aryan but I neglect
the term as inappropriate.
the term is standard for a particular family of
>languages.
The term is misused, just like 'Semite' and 'Caucasian.
And referring to *languages* as IA isn't in the least
>similar to referring to *people* as Celtic.
Would you like to show me 'Celtic' people living in Britain?
Misused and no longer appropriate terms that have to be ammended:
-Indo-Aryan (a term born out of imperialism)
-Aryan (as above)
-Negroid (racist term, typically misused, born out of imperialism to denote
any African, even those whose genetic relation is far apart)
-Jew (Used to apply to the people of Judea, no longer valid for some reason)
-Arab (Nations which belong to the Arab League were hardly Arab people
before and only speak an Arab language)
-Semite/anti-Semite (Using a mythological patriarch's name and attaching it
to a group of languages didn't exactly have good results)
-Celt (From a Greek description of what they thought were barbarians, the
English started using the term in the early 18th century to subjugate the
people of Scotland and Ireland and make them inferior to so called
Anglo-Saxons)
-Caucasian (All light skinned people are from the Caucasus?)
ADR
>You've yet to give me the identification of the Amarna letter that
>mentions all those Nubian sailors, as you claimed. Moreover, your
>argumentation was based on your claim that they were expert mariners.
And are you denying that they sailed in Egyptian boats?
Brian M. Scott
> >> And also, using terms
> >> like 'Indo-Aryan' is as misleading and incorrect as saying that the
> >> people of Britain were 'Celtic'.
> >It isn't at all misleading: your prejudices to the contrary
> >notwithstanding,
> How can I be the prejudice one? I'm supposedly half Indo-Aryan but I neglect
> the term as inappropriate.
> > the term is standard for a particular family of
> >languages.
> The term is misused, just like 'Semite' and 'Caucasian.
The term isn't analogous to 'Semite'. It *is* analogous to 'Semitic',
which is the perfectly standard name for a family of languages, a branch
of the Afro-Asiatic family. It is also analogous to 'Caucasian' AS THE
NAME OF A FAMILY OF LANGUAGES. When are you going to get it through
your head that languages and people are two different things, even if
some of the same names happen to be used for them?
> And referring to *languages* as IA isn't in the least
> >similar to referring to *people* as Celtic.
> Would you like to show me 'Celtic' people living in Britain?
Irrelevant: 'Indo-Aryan' refers to LANGUAGES. And I'll be happy to show
you Celtic LANGUAGES in Britain.
> Misused and no longer appropriate terms that have to be ammended:
[snip more confusion of the same nature]
Brian M. Scott
ADR
>NAME OF A FAMILY OF LANGUAGES. When are you going to get it through
>your head that languages and people are two different things, even if
>some of the same names happen to be used for them?
So, society, in general, doesnt have these misconceptions THAT SHOULD BE
CORRECTED!!!!!!!
>> And referring to *languages* as IA isn't in the least
>> >similar to referring to *people* as Celtic.
>
>> Would you like to show me 'Celtic' people living in Britain?
>
>Irrelevant: 'Indo-Aryan' refers to LANGUAGES. And I'll be happy to show
>you Celtic LANGUAGES in Britain.
You'll have to show me 'Celts' or people who called themselves 'Celts' prior
to a few hundred years ago. And what is all this crap about 'Europeans'
making it all the way to Urumchi? Since when did Tocharians become Europeans
and who said these mummies spoke Tocharian anyway? Did the mummies say so?
Brian M. Scott
> >NAME OF A FAMILY OF LANGUAGES. When are you going to get it through
> >your head that languages and people are two different things, even if
> >some of the same names happen to be used for them?
> So, society, in general, doesnt have these misconceptions THAT SHOULD BE
> CORRECTED!!!!!!!
I'd be satisfied if you'd manage to purge yourself of these
misconceptions; that seems to be a Herculean undertaking as it is.
> >> And referring to *languages* as IA isn't in the least
> >> >similar to referring to *people* as Celtic.
> >> Would you like to show me 'Celtic' people living in Britain?
> >Irrelevant: 'Indo-Aryan' refers to LANGUAGES. And I'll be happy to show
> >you Celtic LANGUAGES in Britain.
> You'll have to show me 'Celts' or people who called themselves 'Celts' prior
> to a few hundred years ago.
Are you deliberately playing the fool? The linguistic designation is
not an ethnic designation.
[more of same]
Brian M. Scott
Brian M. Scott
> On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 04:14:43 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"
> <BMS...@stratos.net> wrote:
> >ADR wrote:
[...]
> >> >> By the way, where can I
> >> >> find the earliest Greek for 'sun'?
> >> >I have no idea.
> >> The earliest reference? 8th C BCE? 4th? 2nd? It's very important to this
> >> debate.
> >It's of very little importance, as the word is common IE and therefore
> >ancient. However, I have now verified what I suspected before: it's in
> >Homer.
> Surely that can only be the earliest **known** Greek for 'sun'?
> Unless of course you or ADR are arguing that the Greeks had not
> identified the concept of 'sun' as an object requiring a name prior to
> Homer.
I have no idea what ADR may be arguing, though he apparently wants to
claim some sort of Egyptian influence. You may rest assured that I
don't confuse attestation with existence. I did not even use wording
suggesting such confusion: I merely noted that the word is in Homer.
(My 'common IE' comment should have told you that I consider the word in
some form likely to be as old as the Greek language!)
Brian M. Scott
Eric Stevens
<BMS...@stratos.net> wrote:
>ADR wrote:
>
>> >Several concepts of nobility are not inseparable from that of kingship.
>
>> You're missing the point. There were not even concepts of nobility.
>
>You offer no evidence for this assertion. In any case, 'noble' is a
>very loose translation of the word used as a self-name by the
>Indo-Iranians.
>
>[...]
>
>> >> By the way, where can I
>> >> find the earliest Greek for 'sun'?
>
>> >I have no idea.
>
>> The earliest reference? 8th C BCE? 4th? 2nd? It's very important to this
>> debate.
>
>It's of very little importance, as the word is common IE and therefore
>ancient. However, I have now verified what I suspected before: it's in
>Homer.
Surely that can only be the earliest **known** Greek for 'sun'?
Unless of course you or ADR are arguing that the Greeks had not
identified the concept of 'sun' as an object requiring a name prior to
Homer.
Eric Stevens
There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes, and those who don't. I belong to the second class.
ADR
>Are you deliberately playing the fool? The linguistic designation is
>not an ethnic designation.
>
The designation is insulting to say the least.
ADR
>identified the concept of 'sun' as an object requiring a name prior to
>Homer.
They had another name for the Sun closer to what you just saw in this
sentence, but 'helios' and 'suryah' are related to Egyptian
'Aria/Ria(depending on the regional accent).
So, I was saying earlier, how did this Egyptian word and a title denoting
'Sunking', used typically at the beginning of royal cartouches, become
associated with IE speaking people? The evidence to me is simple:
1. Transmission via the kings who wrote and recieved letters from Egyptian
kings, ie. the Amarna Letters.
2. When the Assyrians sacked Egypt, they took Egyptian captives and deported
them to the opposite side of the Middle East, where later many of them had
no choixe but to enter India (Arrival of Arya and a good reason why the
Brahmanas match Egyptian theology more than the Vedas. Also the arrival of
Buddhism via the Cults of Nebmaatre and the Ramses legends embodied in the
Ramayana).
3. The Persians themselves became Sunkings in Egypt and thus became Arya and
transmitted the 'name' across their empire which spanned from Egypt to
India.
4. The name 'Arya' was then mistaken to mean 'king', 'sir' or 'noble' and
inserted into Indian scripture.
There is also a story of Darius I, executing an Egyptian administrator for
over stepping his office. The gentleman's name is transliterated,
'Aryandes'.
ADR
>from the root for "Horse", which would be related to the Arryans because
they
Arya' is not related to 'Asvan'
Dragonblaze
I've no doubt they were transported in troop carriers just like the
other Egyptian troops.
You claimed they were expert mariners and that a mention of the Nubian
sailors is to be found in the Amarna Letters (I will cut and paste
that, if need be). Now, care to give me the reference?
Urninlil
"ADR" <a.dall...@virgin.net> wrote:
> >Unless of course you or ADR are arguing that the Greeks had not
> >identified the concept of 'sun' as an object requiring a name prior
to
> >Homer.
>
> They had another name for the Sun closer to what you just saw in this
> sentence, but 'helios' and 'suryah' are related to Egyptian
> 'Aria/Ria(depending on the regional accent).
They are not, they are Indo-European words, related to Latin 'sol',
English 'sun', Russian 'solnce' etc. Greek l does not come from r, but
Sanskrit r comes often from l, as surely in this case.
How come the word Arya is found already in the Vedas?
UR
--
- Able was I ere I saw Ebla. -
ADR
> How come the word Arya is found already in the Vedas?
>
>UR
The Vedas, and it depends which one you're talking about, were not put
together until at least 600-500 BCE. Thought the Rig Veda is based on an
older but much shorter tradition, it consists of 10800 verses in a script
that never occured prior to the date above and it's length suggests it was
never written in cuneiform but only in the cursive script that derived from
any earlier cuneiform version( somewhat related to Old Persian script). It's
use of Brahmi numerals also suggest that the above dating is correct.
So the oldest Veda, the Rig, is from 600 BCE, at the latest. The Brahmanas
take off immediately after along with the three other Vedas, these dating
from 550-400 BCE and overlap with the Buddhist period. The Buddhist period
lasts from 450-250 BCE, again overlapping with the Classical period which
sees the Ramayana legend and the Mahabharata.
ADR
>I've no doubt they were transported in troop carriers just like the
>other Egyptian troops.
>
>You claimed they were expert mariners and that a mention of the Nubian
>sailors is to be found in the Amarna Letters (I will cut and paste
>that, if need be). Now, care to give me the reference?
There are references to Egyptian boats being grounded because of the war
against the Apiru and that this grounding of the ships had something to do
with the delay of Meluhha (and of course Egyptians) to the region. There are
a handful of letters that suggest this.
Urninlil
European word would be even partially Egyptian.
In article <7risdk$164$1...@nclient13-gui.server.virgin.net>,
"ADR" <a.dall...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> > How come the word Arya is found already in the Vedas?
> >
> >UR
>
> The Vedas, and it depends which one you're talking about, were not put
> together until at least 600-500 BCE. Thought the Rig Veda is based on
an
> older but much shorter tradition, it consists of 10800 verses in a
script
> that never occured prior to the date above and it's length suggests
it was
> never written in cuneiform
Why on earth would they have been?
> but only in the cursive script that derived from
> any earlier cuneiform version( somewhat related to Old Persian
script).
Surely you have evidence for this claim, because it is usually thought
that Brahmi (from which eg. Devanagari is derived) has a West Semitic
origin, though there was also an earlier theory deriving it from the
Indus script.
> It's
> use of Brahmi numerals also suggest that the above dating is correct.
>
> So the oldest Veda, the Rig, is from 600 BCE, at the latest. The
Brahmanas
> take off immediately after along with the three other Vedas, these
dating
> from 550-400 BCE and overlap with the Buddhist period. The Buddhist
period
> lasts from 450-250 BCE, again overlapping with the Classical period
which
> sees the Ramayana legend and the Mahabharata.
>
This is still a little bit early for your theory that the word would
have been borrowed from Egyptian during Achaemenid Empire. And why
would only Indo-Iranians take it as a self-designation?
BTW, though I haven't had time to check the etymology of 'arya', but it
could be related to the English word 'earl'. It is phonetically
possible and semantically close. I'll check it, when I have time.
Urninlil
Urninlil <urni...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> BTW, though I haven't had time to check the etymology of 'arya', but
it
> could be related to the English word 'earl'. It is phonetically
> possible and semantically close. I'll check it, when I have time.
>
related to German 'Ehre' and Irish 'Erin', so it would seem to be an IE
word. Maybe some Indo-Europeanist could tell, if it is also related to
'earl'.
ADR
Urninlil wrote in message <7rjcc9$umq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>OK, seemingly you're not claiming anymore that an undoubtedly Indo-
>European word would be even partially Egyptian.
>
'Arya' is without doubt an Egpytian title. The problem with some of you
might be this. You're pronouncing the word wrong. The 'a' at the beginning
of 'arya' is hardly vocalised in Sanskrit (or by modern Indians). When the
British Empire got hold of this word, and later the Germans, they pronounced
it completely wrong and even fed people the idea that IE speaking tribes
which came into Europe were also 'Aryans', though they themselves never
claimed to be. The 'a' is not like the 'a' in 'apple'. It is more pronounced
'r - ia'.
ADR
> OK, I have checked. An online Sanskrit dictionary tells us that it is
>related to German 'Ehre' and Irish 'Erin', so it would seem to be an IE
>word. Maybe some Indo-Europeanist could tell, if it is also related to
>'earl'.
Maybe you're just treating that dictionary like the Word of God now. I can
tell you for sure, whoever wrote that was human and did not study the period
I mentioned and the transference of the term from Egypt to the east.
ADR
>3. The Persians themselves became Sunkings in Egypt and thus became Arya
and
>transmitted the 'name' across their empire which spanned from Egypt to
>India.
Just to confirm the above, the first two Persian pharaohs took Egyptian
names based on the Sungod. The names were:
1/ Cambyses II/Mesutire (Mesutiria)
2. Darius II/Setutre (Setutiria)
Brian M. Scott
The designation in question is 'Celtic'. What's insulting about it?
(And if it is so insulting, why do so many people get excited about
their 'Celtic roots', real or imagined?)
Brian M. Scott
Brian M. Scott
> 'Arya' is without doubt an Egpytian title.
The word that gave rise to English <Aryan> isn't.
> The problem with some of you
> might be this. You're pronouncing the word wrong. The 'a' at the beginning
> of 'arya' is hardly vocalised in Sanskrit (or by modern Indians). [...]
There are two related words. One is <arya>; the other, <a:rya>. The
latter is the self-name. It has /a:/, a long vowel. (And modern Indian
pronunciation is irrelevant.)
Brian M. Scott
ADR
>The designation in question is 'Celtic'. What's insulting about it?
>(And if it is so insulting, why do so many people get excited about
>their 'Celtic roots', real or imagined?)
Do you actually know or are you aware of how and why that designation was
made and by whom? I'll give you a clue - Northern Ireland.
Are you aware of what the Greek 'Keltoi' stood for (I'm sure one of those
dictionaries next to you will help)?
ADR
>(And if it is so insulting, why do so many people get excited about
>their 'Celtic roots', real or imagined?)
>
The creation of the Celt by the English in the early 18th century was the
same as the creation of every false identity. Examples are:
1. Yugoslavian by Tito
2. Nazi by Hitler
3. Jew by Cyrus
4. Muslim by Hitler
5. Indo-Aryan ....probably by a man like General Dier.
Brian M. Scott
> In article <7rjcc9$umq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Urninlil <urni...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > BTW, though I haven't had time to check the etymology of 'arya', but
> > it could be related to the English word 'earl'. It is phonetically
> > possible and semantically close. I'll check it, when I have time.
> OK, I have checked. An online Sanskrit dictionary tells us that it is
> related to German 'Ehre' and Irish 'Erin', so it would seem to be an IE
> word.
For 'honor' (subst.) C.D. Buck gives OE <a:r>, OHG <e:ra> and a number
of younger Gmc. cognates; he appears to suggest a connection with Goth.
<aistan> 'to stand in awe of, to esteem' and Gk. <aido:'s> 'shame'. I'm
not sure what's going on with the Gk. /d/, but overall the forms suggest
something like PIE *<H2eis->. If that's even close, I don't think that
Skt. <a:rya-> can belong here. I have seen opinions both ways on a
possible connection between <Eriu> and <a:rya->; I don't think that it
is generally accepted, but I don't know for sure.
> Maybe some Indo-Europeanist could tell, if it is also related to
> 'earl'.
PGmc. *<erlaz>; I seem to remember that this one is strictly Gmc., but I
could be wrong.
Brian M. Scott
Brian M. Scott
> >latter is the self-name. It has /a:/, a long vowel. (And modern Indian
> >pronunciation is irrelevant.)
> The long vowel. I've come across it and it's wrong. [...]
Nope. There are two related words, <arya> and <a:rya>.
Brian M. Scott
ADR
>latter is the self-name. It has /a:/, a long vowel. (And modern Indian
>pronunciation is irrelevant.)
>
The long vowel. I've come across it and it's wrong. It's a British invention
based on their own pronunciation that didn't exist prior to 200 years ago.
The Hindi pronunciation is correct (and if you suggest the British is
correct I can recommend that you join the BNP). Also, look at the same word
when it relates to females. Both the a's become short vowels.
Brian M. Scott
> >The designation in question is 'Celtic'. What's insulting about it?
> >(And if it is so insulting, why do so many people get excited about
> >their 'Celtic roots', real or imagined?)
> Do you actually know or are you aware of how and why that designation was
> made and by whom? I'll give you a clue - Northern Ireland.
The word was borrowed from the French (<Celtique>, attested 1495, almost
a century before the English word). The French applied it to the
Bretons and their language, and the meaning was later extended as the
linguistic affinity of Breton to the other Celtic languages became
clear.
[...]
Brian M. Scott
ADR
>Nope. There are two related words, <arya> and <a:rya>.
>
>Brian M. Scott
I've come across three or four. But the pronunciation of the word in
question is not with a long 'a' as in apple. And there is certainly no 'n'
on the end.
Dragonblaze
"ADR" <a.dall...@virgin.net> wrote:
> There are references to Egyptian boats being grounded because of the
war
> against the Apiru and that this grounding of the ships had something
to do
> with the delay of Meluhha (and of course Egyptians) to the region.
There are
> a handful of letters that suggest this.
May I have the reference numbers of the letters?
Dragonblaze
--
- God? I'm no God. God has mercy. -
Urninlil
"word of God", which I of course don't do. It would seem that the only
on-line Sanskrit dictionary with etymologies I could find wasn't as
reliable as it should be. At least the OE 'a:r' shows clearly that it
must have had 'air-' or 'aiz-' in Proto-Germanic.
Unfortunately I do not have an immense heap of etymological
dictionaries, so to find only one with defective etymologies is most
disappointing.
At least I think that the 'a:rya' - 'Eriu' connexion, even if
questionable, is much more plausible than ADR's connexion with 'Ra'.
UR
--
- Able was I ere I saw Ebla. -
Urninlil
Anyway Darius I already calls himself 'an Aryan of Aryan descent' (I
don't have it in the original, but the word must be 'arya' or some
derivative). It is nothing 'iria'.
All Egyptian kings had long time had one name ending in '-Ra', so there
is nothing special when the Persians as kings of Egypt take such a
name. I haven't ever heard that these Egyptian names were used outside
of Egypt.
ADR
>questionable, is much more plausible than ADR's connexion with 'Ra'.
'Ra' is completely hypothetical. Richard Parkinson, keeper of Egyptian
Antiquities at the British Museum, says that the vowel/s after the 'r' are
said deep in the back of the throat. So it is also for 'arya'. Coupled with
the evidence I have already shown, I'm convinced that it should be 'Ria' and
'aRia' (Both could of have been used depending on regional accents). The
Amarna letters, the use of the term by Persians, the deportations of
Canaanite and Egypts past Elam by the Assyrians and Babylonians and so on,
are all evidence that I am right. But hey, you want to believe maybe that
you're descendants of some 'Aryan' European tribes so who am I to argue. You
might gas me next for having a drop of Jewish blood.
ADR
>May I have the reference numbers of the letters?
>
>Dragonblaze
I'll get them for you later on today. For now, I came across the modern name
used in Egypt for the ships that they use for Nile cruises and it is
Felukka. If this is at all related to an older word as such as 'Meluhha'
then it is possible that Meluhha might have something to do with 'sea
faring' and not race. By the way, you must have noticed those large Olmec
heads, Nubians? Could the word 'Olmec' be related to 'Meluhha'? Look at the
consonants.
Urninlil
"ADR" <a.dall...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> > OK, I have checked. An online Sanskrit dictionary tells us that it
is
> >related to German 'Ehre' and Irish 'Erin', so it would seem to be an
IE
to
> >'earl'.
>
> Maybe you're just treating that dictionary like the Word of God now.
I can
> tell you for sure, whoever wrote that was human and did not study the
period
> I mentioned and the transference of the term from Egypt to the east.
>
and its cognates are found in Vedic, Avestan and Old Persian, not to
speak of the modern Iranian languages, so even if it's not IE, you
should have some pretty hard evidence to prove that it isn't Indo-
Iranian.
And what about your claim that Brahmi evolved from Old Persian
cuneiform? I'm still waiting for the evidence.
You are like so many people, who find some casual similarity between
two languages and start to make complicated theories, without trying to
check, if there are any other explanations and if the similarity could
be purely by chance.
UR
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
a.dall...@virgin.net (ADR) wrote:
> Do you actually know or are you aware of how and why that
> designation was
> made and by whom? I'll give you a clue - Northern Ireland.
Yes by the Romans they differentiated Celts from Germans and noted
that Britain was considered by Caesar to be inhabited by Celts.
If you are going to bring up Greek I would like to point out that
barbarian is defined as a non Greek speaker.
Celts existed as a cultural group before the Roman Empire. They
occupied Britain, Gaul, Ireland and parts of Spain. Some tribes of
Celts were important enough to have their own name such as the Scoti
who invaded what is now known as Scotland.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
ADR
> Yes by the Romans they differentiated Celts from Germans and noted
>that Britain was considered by Caesar to be inhabited by Celts.
Incorrect. Caesar called some groups in Gaul 'Celtae' but non in Britain. In
Britain he noticed indigenous groups, many who have disappeared and the only
major classifications he made were the Brittani, of the south, and
Brittones, of the north. Caeser actually differentiated between the both of
them.
> Celts existed as a cultural group before the Roman Empire. They
>occupied Britain, Gaul, Ireland and parts of Spain.
Read The Atlantic Celts by Simon James. Celts never 'invaded' Britain, just
as 'Aryans' never invaded India. Prior to 1707, not one single person in
Britain actually thought of themselves as 'Celts' and only a few historians
had ever heard of the Celts mentioned by the Romans and Greeks (both of whom
were not talking about Brits).
ADR
>> 1/ Cambyses II/Mesutire (Mesutiria)
>> 2. Darius II/Setutre (Setutiria)
> Shouldn't that have been Darius I? Darius II was much later.
Yes, sorry.
>Anyway Darius I already calls himself 'an Aryan of Aryan descent'
If he did he is only referring to Egyptian kings. One story goes that
Cambyses was Cyrus' bastard son by an Egyptian princess Nitetis. So there
was Egyptian noble blood flowing through the first Persian kings of Egypt.
>name. I haven't ever heard that these Egyptian names were used outside
>of Egypt.
When Cambyses and Darius took Egyptian titular names, they were not ruling
from Egypt anyway. Both of them lived, ruled from and died in Iran.
Brian M. Scott
> >Nope. There are two related words, <arya> and <a:rya>.
> I've come across three or four. But the pronunciation of the word in
> question is not with a long 'a' as in apple.
??? No one said that it was. In English (at least as taught in the
U.S.), the vowel of <apple> is called 'short <a>'; 'long <a>' refers to
the vowel of <mate>. Here, however, we are talking about vowel length
in the linguistic sense, and the distinction is roughly that between the
vowels of German <Mann> and <mahnen>, i.e., /a/ and /a:/.
> And there is certainly no 'n'
> on the end.
Of course not: that's an English addition to form an adjective according
to a standard English pattern.
Brian M. Scott
Brian M. Scott
> But hey, you want to believe maybe that
> you're descendants of some 'Aryan' European tribes so who am I to argue.
The suggestion is both gratuitous and offensive. YOU are the only one
in this discussion who seems to be hung up on 'race'.
Brian M. Scott
Brian M. Scott
[...]
> It would seem that the only
> on-line Sanskrit dictionary with etymologies I could find wasn't as
> reliable as it should be.
I don't think that I've run across this one. Even if it's a bit
unreliable, it might be interesting; do you still have the URL?
Brian M. Scott
Brian M. Scott
> One story goes that
> Cambyses was Cyrus' bastard son by an Egyptian princess Nitetis. So there
> was Egyptian noble blood flowing through the first Persian kings of Egypt.
I love the way that we jump from '[o]ne story goes' to the flat
statement that 'there was Egyptian noble blood flowing through the first
Persian kings of Egypt'.
> >I haven't ever heard that these Egyptian names were used outside
> >of Egypt.
> When Cambyses and Darius took Egyptian titular names, they were not ruling
> from Egypt anyway. Both of them lived, ruled from and died in Iran.
Irrelevant. The question is whether the names were *used* outside of
Egypt. They look to me more like a nod to Egyptian tradition.
Brian M. Scott
ADR
>Of course not: that's an English addition to form an adjective according
>to a standard English pattern.
>
>Brian M. Scott
Ahh, by the way Brian. I found one of the culprits for this mispronunciation
of Arya. His name was Maharishi Swami Dayanand Saraswati. He was the founder
of the Arya Samaj (Aryan Understanding) movement back in 1875. He was
actually a puppet of the British who was paid to change Indian society which
had been corrupted by Moghul rule for hundreds of years. He was told to
start a religious movement that would take 'Hindus' back to their 'Aryan'
and 'Vedic' roots (Already the language here seems like the propaganda of an
empire). He said that the people should go back to their Vedic roots (like
the British Tories' Back to Basics policy that failed dismally). He was
against pantheism and polytheism. Thsi shows clearly that he didn't know the
Vedas himself and that his British tutors hardly understood anything about
'arya' or the 'vedas'. And it is through this Maharishi, that this great
'Aryan' myth evolved and reached it's climax with Hitler.
Arya Samaj is still a very popular movement amongst Brahmin or upper class
Indians and if you observe these Indians, they speak English most of the
time, their family life is based on the Victorian model, a cup of 'cha'
never goes amiss, their children are given an education based on the British
system and generally aim to become doctors and lawyers. The great 'Aryan'
myth is British in origin. Originally it was simply an Egyptian title which
was transmitted as far as India via the Persians.
ADR
> And what about your claim that Brahmi evolved from Old Persian
>cuneiform? I'm still waiting for the evidence.
I said related to. Check for yourself by comparing Dev Nagari script with
Old Persian script. By turning the consonants and syllables around 90
degrees, you can see a few similiarites there (And I know for sure I'm going
to get a daft response from you). The same thing happens between Ugaritic
and Hebrew. The relation is evident.
Brian M. Scott
[snip squink]
> The great 'Aryan'
> myth is British in origin. Originally it was simply an Egyptian title which
> was transmitted as far as India via the Persians.
Bollocks. Repetitious display of wilful ignorance.
Brian M. Scott
Brian M. Scott
'In all probability, Bra:hmi: was developed at some indeterminate time,
perhaps as late as the third century B.C.E., as a loose adaptation of
Aramaic to Indic languages.' The same origin is undoubted in the case
of Kharos.t.hi:. (Richard G. Salomon, 'Brahmi and Kharoshthi', in _The
World's Writing Systems_, ed. by William Bright and Peter T. Daniels,
Oxford, 1996.) Some would suggest derivation from a different Semitic
prototype, and a few hold that it is an indigenous invention. There's
certainly very little similarity with Old Persian cuneiform.
Brian M. Scott
ADR
>prototype, and a few hold that it is an indigenous invention. There's
>certainly very little similarity with Old Persian cuneiform.
>
>Brian M. Scott
There's a handful of similiar syllables and that's close enough.
ADR
>> The great 'Aryan'
>> myth is British in origin. Originally it was simply an Egyptian title
which
>> was transmitted as far as India via the Persians.
>
>Bollocks. Repetitious display of wilful ignorance.
>
>Brian M. Scott
Sadly this is what you have been reduced to no matter how much evidence I
turn up. Zieg heil Brian.
Urninlil
Sure, the URL is here:
http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil.fak/indologie/tamil/mwd_search.html
Here's a link-list of other on-line dictionaries, including that one:
http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/rbeard/diction.html
UR
--
Dragonblaze
"ADR" <a.dall...@virgin.net> wrote:
[snip]
> I came across the modern name
> used in Egypt for the ships that they use for Nile cruises and it is
> Felukka. If this is at all related to an older word as such as
'Meluhha'
> then it is possible that Meluhha might have something to do with 'sea
> faring' and not race.
M -> F and H -> K is impossible in Arabic. 'Felukka' is actually in
Arabic 'fulk', and comes possibly from Greek 'epholkion', 'sloop'.
> By the way, you must have noticed those large Olmec
> heads, Nubians? Could the word 'Olmec' be related to 'Meluhha'? Look
at the
> consonants.
I've seen those heads - and a lady from that area who looked like she
could have sat as a model for one of them - but, despite some claims, I
cannot see any African features in either of them.
Hell, _I_ have a flat nose, curly hair and thickish lips, but am still
not of African descent, being a Finn.
Getting LMK (substituting K for C, it's pronounced that way) from MLH
is also an impossibility. Moreover, -ec is a Nahuan suffix that
indicates a nationality, so you're left with only LM.
Dragonblaze
--
- God? I'm no God. God has mercy. -
Dragonblaze
"ADR" <a.dall...@virgin.net> wrote:
[snip]
> Zieg heil Brian.
Ummm... What does 'Hail Goat' actually mean? :)
Closest German word I came up with was 'Ziege', 'Goat'.
Urninlil
"ADR" <a.dall...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> >questionable, is much more plausible than ADR's connexion with 'Ra'.
>
> 'Ra' is completely hypothetical.
This is completely irrelevant. I'm using 'Ra' only because it is the
popular form, more scientific transliteration 'r3' would be confusing
to most.
> Richard Parkinson, keeper of Egyptian
> Antiquities at the British Museum, says that the vowel/s after the
'r' are
> said deep in the back of the throat. So it is also for 'arya'.
In 'arya' there is the consonant y immediately after r, and it
certainly isn't said deep in the back of the throat. I don't think that
the last vowel a is in any way exceptional.
> Coupled with
> the evidence I have already shown, I'm convinced that it should be
'Ria' and
> 'aRia' (Both could of have been used depending on regional accents).
You have already the difficulty of getting the Indo-Iranian consonant
y from the vowel i (in this case it would be harder than usually), and
if the vowel were pronounced far back (like yery in Russian), it would
be really difficult.
>The
>Amarna letters, the use of the term by Persians, the deportations of
> Canaanite and Egypts past Elam by the Assyrians and Babylonians and
so on,
> are all evidence that I am right.
Past Elam! Get real!
> But hey, you want to believe maybe that
> you're descendants of some 'Aryan' European tribes so who am I to
argue. You
> might gas me next for having a drop of Jewish blood.
>
You don't know the first thing about me and my ancestors. Am I an
Iranian? I'm not a native speaker of any Indo-Iranian or even Indo-
European language, so this is again totally irrelevant.
Your evidence is nothing but wishful thinking based on wild guesses.
But think of this: Darius I wrote:
"I am Darius the great king, ... son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenid, a
Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage."
And at another place:
"Says Darius the king: By the favor of Ahuramazda this is the
inscription which I made. Besides it was in Aryan, and on clay
tablets..."
From this it is quite clear that for Darius Aryan meant both language
and a people. It would be quite odd, if the word were a recent Egyptian
loan.
UR
--
- Able was I ere I saw Ebla. -
Urninlil
"ADR" <a.dall...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> >> 1/ Cambyses II/Mesutire (Mesutiria)
> >> 2. Darius II/Setutre (Setutiria)
>
> > Shouldn't that have been Darius I? Darius II was much later.
>
> Yes, sorry.
>
> >Anyway Darius I already calls himself 'an Aryan of Aryan descent'
>
> If he did he is only referring to Egyptian kings.
It is in the Old Persian texts, as you can surely see in one of my
other posts. If you have ever read the inscriptions of Persian kings in
Egyptian, they are stylistically quite different from the texts in Old
Persian or Akkadian.
> One story goes that
> Cambyses was Cyrus' bastard son by an Egyptian princess Nitetis. So
there
> was Egyptian noble blood flowing through the first Persian kings of
Egypt.
Darius was at best distantly related to Cambyses. Even if the story
were true, which is extremely unlikely, that wouldn't make Darius into
an Egyptian, he was "a Persian, son of a Persian".
> >name. I haven't ever heard that these Egyptian names were used
outside
> >of Egypt.
>
> When Cambyses and Darius took Egyptian titular names, they were not
ruling
> from Egypt anyway. Both of them lived, ruled from and died in Iran.
This is irrelevant, for the Egyptian names were used only in Egyptian
inscriptions. That seems to have been an Egyptian custom, as can be
seen from the Egyptian titular names of the Roman emperors.
For all that it is worth, you're wrong about Cambyses. In the latter
part of his reign he was almost constantly in Egypt, and he died in
Syria on the way from Egypt to Persia.
Urninlil
"ADR" <a.dall...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> Urninlil wrote in message <7rjcc9$umq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >OK, seemingly you're not claiming anymore that an undoubtedly Indo-
> >European word would be even partially Egyptian.
> >
I was of course referring to your ridiculous claim that He:lios and
Su:rya would come from Egyptian.
> 'Arya' is without doubt an Egpytian title. The problem with some of
you
> might be this. You're pronouncing the word wrong.
I wasn't referring to the pronunciation at all. Where did you get that
from?
[rest of irrelevancies snipped]
ADR
Brian M. Scott wrote in message <37DEA7...@stratos.net>...
>ADR wrote:
>
>> One story goes that
>> Cambyses was Cyrus' bastard son by an Egyptian princess Nitetis. So there
>> was Egyptian noble blood flowing through the first Persian kings of
Egypt.
>
>Persian kings of Egypt'.
We can only go by what Darius and Herodotus say about it. I certainly didn't
invent anything here. you've got an axe to grind against me, and personally,
your grinding feels like a tickle.
Brant Gibbard
wrote:
>
>Sadly Aron wouldn't know evidence if a bucket of it fell on his head.
>His idea of evidence is "I Have Studied All This And I Know".
>
>Ross Clark
Have you noticed the suspicious linguistic similiarities:
Aaron
Aryan
Coincidence? I think not. ;-)
Brant Gibbard
bgib...@inforamp.net
http://home.inforamp.net/~bgibbard/gen
Toronto, Ont.
ADR
Dragonblaze wrote in message <7rob9a$g7e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <7rnj9k$kv4$1...@nclient13-gui.server.virgin.net>,
> "ADR" <a.dall...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> Zieg heil Brian.
>
>Ummm... What does 'Hail Goat' actually mean? :)
Well, how would I know? I'm not a Nazi.
ADR
'Arianism, as we know it, was the invention of the British Empire and it's
own historians.'
ADR
>I've seen those heads - and a lady from that area who looked like she
>could have sat as a model for one of them - but, despite some claims, I
>cannot see any African features in either of them.
>
>Hell, _I_ have a flat nose, curly hair and thickish lips, but am still
>not of African descent, being a Finn.
But there are no ethnic groups in that area who resemble them. You have to
chew on that. and what is the tight head gear for? Keeping the head dry from
water?
ADR
>M -> F and H -> K is impossible in Arabic. 'Felukka' is actually in
>Arabic 'fulk', and comes possibly from Greek 'epholkion', 'sloop'.
Ahh, that was it. I knew the Greek one!
ADRII
-How 'arya' was transmitted across the Persian Empire from Egypt.
-How 'arya' could very well be related to the 'ria' of the Amarna Letters.
-That the Amarna Letters demonstrate that the kings of Egypt were called
'Sun', 'Sunking' and 'Son of the Sun'.
-How the Persian kings took Egyptian Sunking names.
-That after the first two Persian kings of Egypt, Egyptian names were never
taken again because by then the term 'arya' was absorbed into Indo-Iranian
language.
-How the term 'arya' could have been misunderstood between the First and
Second Persian Periods (Egyptian rule).
-How the Egyptians ommited vowels and therefore, 'Ra' or 'Re' is not an
definite pronunciation. Another example is the Egyptian for cat, 'miu' which
is actually pronounced 'emau'.
-How Darius I actually thought of himself as an Egyptian 'arya'.
-That the term 'arya' doesn't appear in any Indic or Iranian text until
after the First Persian Period (During which the Old Persian script was
first created so that the Persians could have a script that was distinct
from that of the Chaldeans and Assyrians.)
-That Dev-Nagari script is related to the Old Persian script and thus the
Vedas were not written until during or after the First Persian Period.
-How the British Empire tried to Anglicize Indian upper classes by claiming
the same 'Aryan' pedigree and set up a religion, Arya Samaj, fronted by a
phoney Maharishi who never read the scriptures. Right up to this day, anyone
going to India will be able to see that upper class Indian families are
based on the Victorian model. It was also British Historians of the 19th
century who invented the idea that various tribes which entered Europe were
'Arians', something nobody had claimed before.
-How the Assyrians deported Egyptian captives to an area close enough to
India for them to have migrated into the sub-continent at a later time.
Assimilating captives into other, far away societies, even Assyrian, was a
policy of the Assyrians.
-How the Brahmanas are closer to Egyptian beliefs than the Vedas and even
drop many Vedic deities. Much of the Upanishads take on Egyptian theology
exactly, even the wording, some of which even turns up in Job of the Old
Testament. Example:
Mundaka Upanishad 1:4
'Fire is his head, the sun and moon his eyes. The heavens his ears, the
scriptures his voice, the air his breath, the universe his heart, and the
earth his footrest.'
Anyone acquainted with the Book of the Dead will know that passage, and yet
here it is in India. There is also knowledge of the Egyptian practise of
placing amulets on the body of the deceased:
Chandogya Upanishad 8:9
'They dress dead bodies in fine clothes and adorn them with ornaments so
that they may enjoy their life in the next world.'
The following is also Egyptian theology which differs from that of the
Vedas. The concept of Atman is not part of the Vedas.
'The Atman, small as a thumb, dwelling in the heart,
Is like the Sun shining in the sky.'
'Even as the sun shines and fills all space
With light, above, below, across, so shines
The Lord of Love, and fills the hearts of all created beings.'
'The face of truth is hidden by your disc
of gold, O sun. May you remove your disc
So that I, who adore truth, may see
The glory of truth. O nourishing sun,
solitary traveller, controller
Source of life for all creatures, spread your light
And subdue your dazzling splendour
So that I may see your blessed Atman
Even that very Atman am I!'
'As the rays of the sun, when night comes,
become one in his disc
Until they spread out again at sunrise,
Even so the senses are gathered up
In the mind, which masters them all.'
'You are the creator and destroyer,
And our protector. you shine as the sun
In the sky; you are the source of all light.'
'The wise see the Lord of Love in the sun,
Rising in all it's radiance
To give its warmth and light and life to all.'
'Some look upon the sun as our father
Who makes life possible with heat and rain
and divides time into months and seasons.'
'The Atman in man and the sun are one.
Those who understand this see through this world.'
ADRII
>> If he did he is only referring to Egyptian kings.
>>It is in the Old Persian texts, as you can surely see in one of my
>other posts. If you have ever read the inscriptions of Persian kings in
>Egyptian, they are stylistically quite different from the texts in Old
>Persian or Akkadian.
That's not possible for them to be stylistically that different. About Old
Persian, Christopher Walker says:
'It has been suggested that the Old Persian script was invented on the
instructions of the Achaemenid Persian king Darius I (521-486 BCE), in order
to give him a distinctive script, comparable to those used by the kings of
Assyria and Babylonia, with which to inscribe his royal monuments. Even the
cuneiform inscription on the stela of Cyrus is now thought to have been
placed there on the orders of Darius I.'
So if you read any Old Persian scripts, remember that they culd not have
been written until somwhere half way into Darius' reign. You will not find a
single reference to 'arya' as an Indo-Iranian word prior to that in the
scripts that the Persians used prior to Old Persian, that is, they used
either Elamite cuneiform or Aramaic.
ADR
> In 'arya' there is the consonant y immediately after r, and it
>certainly isn't said deep in the back of the throat. I don't think that
>the last vowel a is in any way exceptional.
You're telling me how to speak my second language?
>>The
>>Amarna letters, the use of the term by Persians, the deportations of
>> Canaanite and Egypts past Elam by the Assyrians and Babylonians and
>so on,
>> are all evidence that I am right.
>
> Past Elam! Get real!
It's even in the Bible itself! Exiles were taken to the two Elams.
>"I am Darius the great king, ... son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenid, a
>Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage."
Darius claimed many things to legitimise his rule, if the above is in Old
Persian, it simply didn't exist until 'arya' became part of Iranian
language.
ADR
>I was of course referring to your ridiculous claim that He:lios and
>Su:rya would come from Egyptian.
From Ria/Reya/Aria/Areya, comes the translitered 'Elijah/Elia'and that
served the basis for Helios once the Greeks had left behind their old word
for 'sun' (unrecorded). If you can find Helios in a text prior to 500 BCE,
then I'll be happy to leave that one out of the hypothesis.
Suryah is a combination of both, IE and Egyptian. It first appears in
Hurrian texts at around the same time there was correspondance with Egypt.
Anyway, I've raised so many points and shown so much evidence that it's just
pure Eurocentric ignorance I have to confront now. European scholars have
lived with Arianism for over 150 years now and it's time it died and the
Egyptians got their titles back. I can hear the Ka of the Pharaohs screaming
in my ears right now!
Doug Weller
drago...@my-deja.com said...
> In article <7rlmko$sgo$1...@nclient13-gui.server.virgin.net>,
> "ADR" <a.dall...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
[SNIP]
> > heads, Nubians? Could the word 'Olmec' be related to 'Meluhha'? Look
> at the
> > consonants.
>
> could have sat as a model for one of them - but, despite some claims, I
> cannot see any African features in either of them.
>
There are several articles on this at http://copan.bioz.unibas.ch/meso.html
Doug
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
ADR
>Do Nubians have the epicanthic folds of the heads?
>
>There are several articles on this at http://copan.bioz.unibas.ch/meso.html
Quite good. But the Olmec twins do have very suspect head gear similiar to
the Egyptian style. Also the following link could easily be the picture of
somebody from Africa or a South American who is descended from an African
brought over as a slave. So its unreliable.
Brian M. Scott
> >I was of course referring to your ridiculous claim that He:lios and
> >Su:rya would come from Egyptian.
> From Ria/Reya/Aria/Areya, comes the translitered 'Elijah/Elia'and that
> served the basis for Helios once the Greeks had left behind their old word
> for 'sun' (unrecorded).
What amazing rubbish.
> If you can find Helios in a text prior to 500 BCE,
> then I'll be happy to leave that one out of the hypothesis.
I already pointed out that it's in Homer. And the fact that your
willing to omit it shows that you've no principled basis for the
hypothesis in the first place: you've just thrown together a grab-bag of
things that you somehow think *ought* to go together.
> Suryah is a combination of both, IE and Egyptian. It first appears in
> Hurrian texts at around the same time there was correspondance with Egypt.
Sorry: sound laws beat coincidences any day of the week.
> Anyway, I've raised so many points and shown so much evidence that it's just
> pure Eurocentric ignorance I have to confront now.
Been taking lessons from Yuri, have you? Lots of points raised, little
evidence, and accusations of Eurocentrism.
> European scholars have
> lived with Arianism for over 150 years now and it's time it died and the
> Egyptians got their titles back. I can hear the Ka of the Pharaohs screaming
> in my ears right now!
Arianism was a Christian heresy; it died long ago.
Brian M. Scott