Sumerian and Indo-European

arvistro · Sep 23, 2015

IE signs is specific topic. Tbh I dont know if there is a Baltic sign not present in earlier Vinča simbols.
Are there authentic IE signs at all?

Taranis · Sep 23, 2015

Goga said:
" Indo-European before the Indo-Europeans? - new evidence from Mesopotamia

Fresh evidence from the Land of the Two Rivers suggests otherwise. For many decades now, leading Assyriologists have speculated on the existence of an early population in the 4th millennium B.C. that preceded the Sumerians, hitherto generally regarded as the first settlers of the region. Evidence for such a population comes from place names, the names of deities, technical vocabulary and even from environmental terms

... in a number of recent publications data have been presented that suggest that one such linguistic group is indeed comparable -- the Indo-European family of languages. Polysyllabic terms lacking a Sumerian etymology can be demonstrated to resemble segmentable Indo-European words with comparable meanings. Furthermore, the cuneiform writing system can be shown to preserve traces of Indo-European influence in its sign values and in its sign composition. "

http://rootsofeurope.ku.dk/english/calendar/archive_2009/euphratic/

SUMERO-INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGE CONTACTS

http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/~asahala/asahala_sumerian_and_pie.pdf

I'm not convinced. For starters, Aleksi Sahala also brings up what I did mention earlier in this thread, namely the ambiguity of Sumerian. Even if you completely disregard that (which I find to be a huge assumption), some examples he mentions I feel are outright retarted:

(1) Sum. anše 'equid; donkey; ass' ~ Hitt. (ANŠE) /?/; HLuw. (ASINUS)-na 'donkey; mule'; Arm. ēs11 'donkey'; Lat. asinus; PCelt. *assin 'ass'; Lith. asilas; OCS osl; OE. assa; → Finn. aasi 'donkey'

Donkeys were unknown in northern Europe until the Roman period, and all language families of northern Europe (Insular Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, Baltic and Uralic) have the word originally borrowed from Latin, which as the article actually suggests, in turn borrowed the word probably from ancient Egyptian. This is not the evidence for an ancient Indo-European/Sumerian contact (or Uralic/Sumerian), its a word that was borrowed by Indo-Europeans and by Sumerians independently.

Goga · Sep 23, 2015

LeBrok said:
Theoretical they all, farmers, should have spoken First Farmer language, or at least belong to it's family, because by far they were the dominant force and population of known ancient world. However there were few dominant languages among ancient farming societies, Sumerian, Semitic and IE as the main ones. In this case some of them had to be picked up by farmers from blending with hunter gatherers and herders, I'm assuming.

Sumerians were not really native to the Mesopotamia and in their time they were immigrants from the mountains. First Sumerians were also not the only people in the region. At the time when Sumerians already settled down in Mesopotamia, they mentioned Gutians as their neighbors. It's possible that those Gutians were in Mesopotamia before the Sumerians and the Sumerians (or Sumerian language) replaced those so called Gutians.

I'm sure that Proto-Indo-Europeans speakers were from the south of the Caspian Sea. Around the Leyla-Tepe, areas between Gilan, Talysh, Mazandaran -and - Kurdistan. On the Iranian Plateau. I think that Sumerians were neighbours of those PIE folks who livedon the Southern shore of the Caspian Sea. It's possible that those PIE folks (known as Gutians in Mesopotamia) from Leyla-Tepe were in the Mesopotamia first even before the Sumerians.

Goga · Sep 23, 2015

The Gutians practiced hit-and-run tactics, and would belong gone by the time regular troops could arrive to deal with the situation. Their raids crippled the economy of Sumer. Travel became unsafe, as did work in the fields, resulting in famine. The Sumerian king list indicates that king Ur-Utu of Uruk was defeated by the barbarian Guti, perhaps around 2150 BC. The Guti swept down, defeated the demoralized Akkadian army, took Akkad, anddestroyed it around 2115 BC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutian_people

The Gutian language (/ˈɡuːtiən/; alsoQutian) was spoken by the Gutian people, who briefly ruled over Sumer during the Gutian dynasty of Sumer around 2100 BCE. The Gutians lived in the territory between the Zagros and the Tigris in present-day Iranian and Iraqi Kurdistan. Nothing is known about the language except its existence and a list of Gutian rulers names in the Sumerian king list. The existence is attested by a list of languages spoken in the region, found in a clay tablet from the Middle Babylonian period presumably originating from the city of Emar ... ... However, according to Tamaz V. Gamkrelidze and Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov, Gutian language was close to Tocharian languages of the Indo-European family.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutian_language

Goga · Sep 23, 2015

Prominence of the Irano-Afghan Race in Mesopotamia since Sumerian Times. The Iranic or Irano-Afghan race has dominated the plains of Mesopotamia since Sumerian times, as the learned American anthropologist Prof. C. S. Coon notes,

"The Irano-Afghan race, prominent since Sumerian times in Mesopotamia, is the chief population element in the entire highland territory from the western border of Iran to northern India. " (Coon 1939, "The Mediterranean World: (4) - The Irano-Afghan Race", p.415)

http://iranian.com/History/2005/March/Gutians/

Twilight · Sep 23, 2015

Goga said:
Sumerians were not really native to the Mesopotamia and in their time they were immigrants from the mountains. First Sumerians were also not the only people in the region. At the time when Sumerians already settled down in Mesopotamia, they mentioned Gutians as their neighbors. It's possible that those Gutians were in Mesopotamia before the Sumerians and the Sumerians (or Sumerian language) replaced those so called Gutians.

I'm sure that Proto-Indo-Europeans speakers were from the south of the Caspian Sea. Around the Leyla-Tepe, areas between Gilan, Talysh, Mazandaran -and - Kurdistan. On the Iranian Plateau. I think that Sumerians were neighbours of those PIE folks who livedon the Southern shore of the Caspian Sea. It's possible that those PIE folks (known as Gutians in Mesopotamia) from Leyla-Tepe were in the Mesopotamia first even before the Sumerians.

The Gutian language is currently classified however there's is some Hypothasis stating that the Gutian language is similar to the Indo-European Tocharian language in Central Asia; although the Indo-European/Gutish connection is not fact yet, some linguists are considering the possibility.

Source: Гамкрелидзе Т. В., Иванов Вяч. Вс. Первые индоевропейцы на арене истории: прототохары в Передней Азии // Вестник древней истории. 1989. № 1.

Although I see where you are coming from, geography speaking the Indo-Iranian/Aryan language seems to be in close proximity to Gutish territory making the Gutish R1a as well; Hypothetically speaking.

Perhaps archeological Dna testing on Gutish remains are called for to solve the Indo-European/Gutish hypothesis mystery.

Tomenable · Sep 23, 2015

There is a publication (in Russian) about links between Proto-Indo-European language and languages of the Caucasus:

Link: http://mudrac.ffzg.unizg.hr/~rmatasov/Moscow.pdf

Goga · Sep 23, 2015

Twilight said:
Although I see where you are coming from, geography speaking the Indo-Iranian/Aryan language seems to be in close proximity to Gutish territory making the Gutish R1a as well; Hypothetically speaking.

Perhaps archeological Dna testing on Gutish remains are called for to solve the Indo-European/Gutish hypothesis mystery.

Northern Sumerians / Gutians gave birth to Mitanni & Kassites. Those folks in turn gave birth to Medes & Persians. Kurds are from the Medes.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't think Gutians were exclusively R1a, but also R1b, J2a, R2a, T, G and maybe even J1, since they have descovered Sarmatian J1.

Personally, I'm much more interested in Mitanni/Kassites than Gutians.

Taranis · Sep 23, 2015

Goga said:
Northern Sumerians / Gutians gave birth to Mitanni &Kassites. Those folks in turn gave birth to Medes & Persians. Kurds are fromthe Medes.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't think Gutianswere exclusively R1a, but also R1b, J2a, R2a, T, G and maybe even J1, since they have descovere Sarmatian J1.

Personally, I'm much more interested in Mitanni/Kassites than Gutians.

And you're trying to convince us you believe all that not because you have the pre-fabricated dogma (that Kurds are the navel of the Indo-European-speaking world), because you yourself are Kurdish, and you try to make everything fit to that to that dogma?

I might add, if Gamkrelidze is actually correct, and Gutian is actually related with Tocharian (questionable, and I might add that Gamkrelidze is an adherent of the Glottalic Theory, and places the Indo-European homeland in the Caucasus), that this would invalidate your own ideas: inside Indo-European, the Tocharian languages are not closely related with the Indo-Iranic languages, instead they are much more similar to the Italic and Celtic languages in particular.

Also on the Mitanni, I have a few remarks to make, too: the Mitanni loanwords in Hurrian are from an Indo-Iranic source, yes, but not an Iranic one. They preserve *s- (shifted to *h- in Proto-Iranic), so we're talking about a language that was either closer with Proto-Indo-Iranic, or closer with the Indic languages.

Yetos · Sep 23, 2015

wrong post

Twilight · Sep 23, 2015

Taranis said:
And you're trying to convince us you believe all that not because you have the pre-fabricated dogma (that Kurds are the navel of the Indo-European-speaking world), because you yourself are Kurdish, and you try to make everything fit to that to that dogma?

I might add, if Gamkrelidze is actually correct, and Gutian is actually related with Tocharian (questionable, and I might add that Gamkrelidze is an adherent of the Glottalic Theory, and places the Indo-European homeland in the Caucasus), that this would invalidate your own ideas: inside Indo-European, the Tocharian languages are not closely related with the Indo-Iranic languages, instead they are much more similar to the Italic and Celtic languages in particular.

Also on the Mitanni, I have a few remarks to make, too: the Mitanni loanwords in Urartian are from an Indo-Iranic source, yes, but not an Iranic one. They preserve *s- (shifted to *h- in Proto-Iranic), so we're talking about a language that was either closer with Proto-Indo-Iranic, or closer with the Indic languages.

Like I said, perhaps we need to DNA test the Gutish archeological remains, we only have Gutish king' s passed down to us and that's not enough. But thank you for mentioning the Celtics-Italic-Tochrian connection

.

Twilight · Sep 23, 2015

Goga said:
Northern Sumerians / Gutians gave birth to Mitanni & Kassites. Those folks in turn gave birth to Medes & Persians. Kurds are from the Medes.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't think Gutians were exclusively R1a, but also R1b, J2a, R2a, T, G and maybe even J1, since they have descovered Sarmatian J1.

Personally, I'm much more interested in Mitanni/Kassites than Gutians.

According to the "Ydna by countries graph", the Kurds are 17%R1b and 11%R1a making ydna R1 a minority Ydna lineage among Kurds. It's still not impossible that I do-Europeans were involved in the Gutian language via conquest or close contact with PIE. However let's just say that Indo-Europeans are only a small contributor of the Kurdish ethogenesis.

Goga · Sep 23, 2015

Taranis said:
And you're trying to convince us you believe all that not because you have the pre-fabricated dogma (that Kurds are the navel of the Indo-European-speaking world), because you yourself are Kurdish, and you try to make everything fit to that to that dogma?

I might add, if Gamkrelidze is actually correct, and Gutian is actually related with Tocharian (questionable, and I might add that Gamkrelidze is an adherent of the Glottalic Theory, and places the Indo-European homeland in the Caucasus), that this would invalidate your own ideas: inside Indo-European, the Tocharian languages are not closely related with the Indo-Iranic languages, instead they are much more similar to the Italic and Celtic languages in particular.

Also on the Mitanni, I have a few remarks to make, too: the Mitanni loanwords in Urartian are from an Indo-Iranic source, yes, but not an Iranic one. They preserve *s- (shifted to *h- in Proto-Iranic), so we're talking about a language that was either closer with Proto-Indo-Iranic, or closer with the Indic languages.

Why have you deleted my post? Oh, never mind, it was LeBrok AGAIN!!!

In my previous post I wrote that I'm as much biased as Polish, German, Baltic and other Eurocentric folks on such kind of sites who believe that their folks are the navel of the Indo-European-speaking world.

Gamkrelidze doesn't place Proto-Indo-European homeland in the Caucasus, but not far from Caucaus on the Iranian Plateau, between Gilan and Kurdistan.

Mitanni spoke proto-Iranic, ancestral to Avestan and Sanskrit. Later on Sanskrit mixed heavily with Dravidian and evolved into Indic languages.
Kurdish language is still very very close to Avestan.

Goga · Sep 23, 2015

Twilight said:
According to the "Ydna by countries graph", the Kurds are 17%R1b and 11%R1a making ydna R1 a minority Ydna lineage among Kurds. It's still not impossible that I do-Europeans were involved in the Gutian language via conquest or close contact with PIE. However let's just say that Indo-Europeans are only a small contributor of the Kurdish ethogenesis.

I don't think Gutians were proto-Indo-European speakers. They were maybe one of the many Indo-European speakers in their region. The homeland of PIE was NorthWest Iranian Plateau, Leyla Tepe. From there Indo-European folks migrated into the Mesopotmia and the Maykop from where they (R1b folks) later migrated into the Yamnaya.

And I do strongly believe that PIEans were for a HUGE part J2a folks.

There were various migration waves out of West Asia into Europe and not vice versa.

R1b IEans from Iranian Plateau -> Maykop -> Yamnaya, European PIE -> Europe.

So, R1b folks from the Iranian Plateau (West Asia) Indo-Europized Yamnaya Horizon and later Yamnaya Indo-Europized the Europe. So let's just say that proto-Indo-Europeans from the Iranian Plateau eventualy were only a small contributor of the European ethogenesis. They have still some of that ancient PIE Gedrosia auDNA in them...

Tomenable · Sep 23, 2015

Goga said:
In my previous post I wrote that I'm as much biased as Polish, German, Baltic and other Eurocentric folks on such kind of sites

Well - unlike you, I have never claimed that Indo-Europeans originated in my own homeland.

I just think that they originated in the Eurasian steppe. It isn't as "self-centric" as your claims.

============================================

But some Polish bloggers in the internet indeed pursue a theory that Kuyavia / Cuiavia - a region in north-central Poland - was the cradle of PIE, and that the original PIE culture was GAC, Globular Amphora Culture (which is closely related to CWC, Corded Ware Culture).

For example this guy:

http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?t=1529

http://www.tropie.tarnow.opoka.org.pl/polacy1.htm

Here is a good publication about the Globular Amphora Culture in English (you can download a PDF for free):

"Between West and East. People of the Globular Amphora Culture in Eastern Europe":

https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/jspui/handle/10593/3819

If I remember correctly, there is also some aDNA from this culture, but only mtDNA samples, no Y-DNA.

Tomenable · Sep 23, 2015

One Russian scholar had a theory that Proto-Indo-Europeans originated in Çatalhöyük and Göbekli Tepe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Çatalhöyük

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göbekli_Tepe

Twilight · Sep 24, 2015

Tomenable said:
Well - unlike you, I have never claimed that Indo-Europeans originated in my own homeland.

I just think that they originated in the Eurasian steppe. It isn't as "self-centric" as your claims.

============================================

But some Polish bloggers in the internet indeed pursue a theory that Kuyavia / Cuiavia - a region in north-central Poland - was the cradle of PIE, and that the original PIE culture was GAC, Globular Amphora Culture (which is closely related to CWC, Corded Ware Culture).

For example this guy:

http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?t=1529

http://www.tropie.tarnow.opoka.org.pl/polacy1.htm

Here is a good publication about the Globular Amphora Culture in English (you can download a PDF for free):

"Between West and East. People of the Globular Amphora Culture in Eastern Europe":

https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/jspui/handle/10593/3819

If I remember correctly, there is also some aDNA from this culture, but only mtDNA samples, no Y-DNA.

Hold on there dude, Goga is not too far off of Maciamo's map http://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolithic_europe_map.shtml#early_neolithic

There is something out of date with Maciamo's Neolithic maps.

Twilight · Sep 24, 2015

Tomenable said:
Well - unlike you, I have never claimed that Indo-Europeans originated in my own homeland.

I just think that they originated in the Eurasian steppe. It isn't as "self-centric" as your claims.

============================================

But some Polish bloggers in the internet indeed pursue a theory that Kuyavia / Cuiavia - a region in north-central Poland - was the cradle of PIE, and that the original PIE culture was GAC, Globular Amphora Culture (which is closely related to CWC, Corded Ware Culture).

For example this guy:

http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?t=1529

http://www.tropie.tarnow.opoka.org.pl/polacy1.htm

Here is a good publication about the Globular Amphora Culture in English (you can download a PDF for free):

"Between West and East. People of the Globular Amphora Culture in Eastern Europe":

https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/jspui/handle/10593/3819

If I remember correctly, there is also some aDNA from this culture, but only mtDNA samples, no Y-DNA.

I'm not so sure if Goga is being Eurocentric; it does fit kind of with Maciamo's Early Neolithic map.
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolithic_europe_map.shtml#early_neolithic

Taranis · Sep 24, 2015

Goga said:
Why have you deleted my post? Oh, never mind, it was LeBrok AGAIN!!!

You know very well why one of the other moderators deleted your post. Because it included a racist remark. Such a behaviour is not tolerated here, and I would have done the same if one of the others did not beat me to doing it.

In my previous post I wrote that I'm as much biased as Polish, German, Baltic and other Eurocentric folks on such kind of sites who believe that their folks are the navel of the Indo-European-speaking world.

Have you ever seen me claim that the Proto-Germanic homeland was in southern Germany, at the edge of the Alps? That the Raetians and Vindelicians were actually Germanic? That's because that would be utter nonsense. If you support a certain theory, you should do so because of certain arguments for it (or certain arguments against more accepted theories), and not because you follow a certain agenda. For example, would you bother addressing the arguments for/against the Anatolian hypothesis, or for/against the Glottalic theory?

Mitanni spoke proto-Iranic, ancestral to Avestan and Sanskrit.

If you're talking about including Sanskrit and the Indic languages, that would be Proto-Indo-Iranic then.

Later on Sanskrit mixed heavily with Dravidian and evolved into Indic languages.
Kurdish language is still very very close to Avestan.

You're clearly wrong on the supposedly "debased" nature of Sanskrit: as attested in Kikkuli's treatise on horse training (that 14th century BC Hurrian text that includes a lot of these Mitanni loanwords), the attested Mitanni word for 'seven' is "ša-at-ta". If you compare this with the word for seven in various Indo-Iranic languages:

Sanskrit "saptan"
Modern Hindi "sāt"

Avestan "hapta"
Ossetian "avd" (from earlier *havd)
Modern Persian "haft"
Kurdish "heft"

As I said earlier, one of the key sound changes from Proto-Indo-Iranic to Proto-Iranic is the sound shift of *s- > *h-. Since they do not exhibit that sound change, the Mitanni loanwords clearly did not come from an Iranic language. As I said, Mitanni was either undifferentiated Indo-Iranic, or actually Indic.

EDIT: I also fail to see how Kurdish is supposedly "very close" to Avestan.

It should be further added that Hurrian itself was obviously a non-Indo-European language (together with Urartian they form the Hurro-Urartian languages).

Goga · Sep 24, 2015

Taranis said:
If you're talking about including Sanskrit and the Indic languages, that would be Proto-Indo-Iranic then.

As I said earlier, one of the key sound changes from Proto-Indo-Iranic to Proto-Iranic is the sound shift of *s- > *h-. Since they do not exhibit that sound change, the Mitanni loanwords clearly did not come from an Iranic language. As I said, Mitanni was either undifferentiated Indo-Iranic, or actually Indic.

EDIT: I also fail to see how Kurdish is supposedly "very close" to Avestan.

It should be further added that Hurrian itself was obviously a non-Indo-European language (together with Urartian they form the Hurro-Urartian languages).

Call it whatever you want. But the language the Mitanni spoke is ancestral to Kurdish, Persian, Sanskrit etc.
The point is that Kurdish is still very close to the roots, while Indic languages mixed too much with Dravidian.

The language which was spoken by the Mitanni is closer to Iranic than to Indic. That's why I do consider that language as Proto-Iranic.

And Kurdish is a NorthWest Iranic language (not Hurrian etc.), you like it or not.

Also, Kurdish IS very close to Avestan, what I do consider (Avestan) as almost proto-Iranic. Avestan was a very archaic Iranic language.

" It is regarded as the most archaic of the Gorani group. Several Zazaki scholars regard Hawrami as one of the oldest dialects of the Goran–Zaza languages. Some scholars claim that the name Hawrami has close links to the "Zoroastrian faith" and assert that the name actually originated from God's name in Avesta, Ahurama. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawrami_dialects

Sumerian and Indo-European

Elite member

Elite member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Elite member

Banned

Elite member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Banned

Elite member

Elite member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Elite member

Banned