Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

where did the "sumerians" come from?


  • Please log in to reply
243 replies to this topic

#91    SlimJim22

SlimJim22

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,682 posts
  • Joined:10 Dec 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wales

  • "As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." Carl Jung

Posted 30 August 2010 - 08:19 PM

Was this the sort of thing Abe?


“14000 BP. Deep in the Altai Mountains of Southern Siberia, about this date, a wall of water 1,500 feet high surged down the ChujaRiverValley at 90 miles per hour. How does one deduce such a hydrological cataclysm? A. Rudoy, a Geologist at Tomsky State Pedagogical Institute, points to giant gravel bars along the ChujaRiverValley. These are not the inch-sized ripples we see on the floors of today’s rivers; these are giants measuring tens of yards from crest to crest. Only a catastrophic flood could have piled up these ridges of debris. Rudoy postulates that, during the Ice Ages, a huge Ice Dam upstream held back a lake 3,000 feet deep, containing 200 cubic metres of water. When the Ice Dam suddenly ruptured, all life and land downstream was devastated. (folger, tim, “The Biggest Flood”, Discover, 15:36, January 1994.) But other thoughts intrude: were the heaps of Mammoth Carcasses, the Siberian “IvoryIslands;” and those anomalous Stone tools mentioned earlier under Archaeology the consequences of similar Siberian Floods?” (Science Frontiers #92, March-April 1994. William R Corliss.)


So there I am trying to hunt down the Sumerian homeland of which I think there is more tan one but anyway, I come across this quite bozarre site where I found the excerpt. The first claim they make is that the welsh came from Siberia 30,000BP. Are the kidding or what? Wales only has a population of 3 mil so how they can deduce such a genetic relationship I do not know. I understand they can but I see it of no real relevance.

http://www.goetia-gi...articles_f.html

On agglutinative languages.

It can be shown that the distribution of many typological features of languages is not random but geographically (relatively) restricted. E.g., ergative-absolutive languages show up basically in the Caucasus, in North America, Mesoamerica, Australia: Basque, Berber, Dyirbal, Eskimo-Aleut, Kurdish, Mayan, Mixe-Zoque, Samoan, Tagalog and many other Austronesian languages, Sumerian, Tibetan, Caucasian without Kartvelian. Since agglutination is inheritable, we may thus ask if the agglutinative languages are also concentrated in certain regions of the world. Unfortunately, since there is no complete list of agglutinative languages (but cf. Shibatani/Bynon 1999), the following overview may be
incomplete:

Uralic (Collinder 1957)
Altaic (Turkic, Mongolian, Manchu, Korean, Japanese) (Ramstedt 1966; Poppe 1960; Sohn 2001; Miller 1971 [with review Menges 1974])
Eskimo-Aleut (Mithun 1999)
Paleo-Siberian (Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Yukaghir, Yeniseian, Gilyak) (Comrie 1981)
Ainu (Tamura 2000)
Tibeto-Burman (van Driem 2001; also some Chinese languages like Wu; Old Chinese?Clauson?)
Basque (Hualde/Ortiz de Urbino 2003)
Caucasian Languages (Klimov 1980)
Punjabi (Bhatia 1993)
Ossetic (Thordarson 1989)
Kurdish (Wurzel 1997)
Cushitic Languages (Saeed 1993)
Bantu Languages (Guthrie 1971)
Dravidian (Kirshnamurti 2003)
North American Indian Languages (von Sadovszky 1996; Kroeber 1999)
Mesoamerican Indian Languages (Campbell 1997)
South American Indian Languages (Derbyshire/Pullum 1986)
Malaysian (Lynch/Ross/Crowley 2002)
The following ancient languages were also agglutinative:

Pre-Indo-European (Lehmann 2002; Greenberg 2000)
Proto-Indo-European (Brunner 1969)
Etruscan (Pfiffig 1969)
Tocharian (Krause/Thomas 1960)
Sumerian (Thomsen 1984; Edzard 2003)
Elamite (Khacikjan 1998)
Hurrian (Wegner 2000)
Urartian (Diakonoff 1971)
Hattic (Girbal 1986)
Kassite (Balkan 1954)
Gutian (Hallo 1957)
Lullubi (Speiser 1931)
From this brief list, we can conclude:

All known Mesopotamian languages (excluded the later Semitic languages like Akkadian, Rhaetic, Amoritic, Ugaritic, etc.) were agglutinative.
The geographical distribution of the agglutinative languages is more or less identical with the languages that have been suspected in the past to be related to Hungarian and thus have been researched in my “Etymological Dictionary of Hungarian” (Tóth 2007b): Roughly speaking, they extend from the Ice Sea to the Southern Seas leaving huge “gaps” only in certain parts of India (e.g., no member of the Mon-Khmer family is according to my knowledge agglutinative).
Therefore, agglutination is not only inheritable, but agglutinative languages seem to cover a more or less coherent territory with a huge extension both in space and in time. Although not all languages are sufficiently documented, it is possible to show the genetic relationship of typologically related languages with Bouda’s concept of “Brückensprachen” (“bridging languages”) (cf. Bouda 1963). These are languages that connect both genetically and typologically related languages that are geographically (nowadays) distant. The concept of bridging languages is the more useful because, as already stated, languages can change their typological structure during their evolution. E.g., Old Chinese was agglutinative (as, e.g., Wu Chinese still is), while it is now isolating. The same may be true for the Mon-Khmer languages (cf. Shorto/Sidwell/ Bauer 2006, p. 590ss.). The special problem with India is that many of the hundreds of languages are not even researched yet.


http://www.szabir.co...to-one-another/

The notable language that is not agglutinative is the Mon Khmer family. I don't really know what this could support other than how I have little chance of understanding all this.

Edited by SlimJim22, 30 August 2010 - 08:20 PM.

"I belive no thing, I follow the Law of One. I am a Man-O'-Sion under construction."

#92    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 10,457 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 31 August 2010 - 12:23 AM

View PostAbramelin, on 30 August 2010 - 06:47 PM, said:

Well, it should be easy then: the people from the Caucasus are genetically linked to the Sumerians.

Is there any proof of that being true?

And 'damn cold' is not the same as frozen up.

We Dutch don't flee our country as soon as the snow falls, lol.

Well, some pussies do, but most just stay at home.
Not at all sure we got any Sumerian DNA.

I mean, they were absorbed by Akkadians that spoke a language from a different family (semitic) so I doubt we can backtrack from present DNA.  But maybe.

Harte

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Anybody like Coleridge?

#93    MissionAtlantis

MissionAtlantis

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 41 posts
  • Joined:22 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cebu, Philippines

  • Only very old stars can harbor mature planets. Only in their midst are we likely to find life or civilization.

Posted 31 August 2010 - 07:20 AM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 28 August 2010 - 04:27 PM, said:

I have to wonder. Where is the evidence for "a single culture behind all these that was predisposed toward civilization because their ancestors had already been there" as you put it? Also to add, why even bring Atlantis into the discussion as the Black Sea Theory has nothing to do with what Plato said, either in time or location. Seems everyone wants to equate EVERY flood story with Atlantis, IMO.

Was the Black Sea catastrophically flooded in the early Holocene?

cormac

Single Culture

First of all, I don't "believe" in Atlantis. I think it is a possibility, but I have no direct proof of its existence. I do have three pieces of scientific evidence, each from a different discipline, which indicate an Atlantis-like event occurred 9620 BCE -- a veritable bulls-eye for Plato's date. If Atlantis existed and it was technologically advanced, then it remains a strong possibility that such a culture, as it migrated across Eurasia over the next 6000-9000 years carried with it stories of the past which remained inspiration for future creativity. The fact that some of the cultures that I hypothesize may have been children of Atlantis were also sources of civilization's advancement locally may indicate the possibility of a single original source. The Etruscans were constructing roads and stone buildings when the Romans were still simple dirt farmers. The Sumerians gave us writing. The Mon-Khmer built an amazing city and empire in the middle of the Cambodian jungle. And the people of Colchis (Georgians?) had two artifacts which may have been items of Atlantean technology, if there is any truth to the myth (personally, I think dragons were technological not biological, if they existed at all).

Why Bring Up Atlantis?

First of all, the thread is about the source of the Sumerians. The Black Sea Theory was brought up in that context. The subject of the Children of Atlantis was also brought up in the context of Sumer, not the Black Sea flooding.

You say, "Seems everyone wants to equate EVERY flood story with Atlantis, IMO." Now, that's a lot of jumping to conclusions in one sentence. First of all, I'm not "everyone." I don't remember reading of anyone equating "every" flood story with Atlantis. Even in the Atlantis dialog, Timaeus, the Egyptian priest mentioned several floods after the Atlantis one. None of them were equated to Atlantis. In my own research, it seems Noah's Flood (if it really happened) likely occurred about 18,000 years earlier (27,970 BCE) than the Atlantis subsidence (9620 BCE). The Noah date is based on years of exegetical research and a code I found in Genesis which reveals not only a biblical timeline compatible with those of science, but also the Kabbalah's "Tree of Life" embedded in Genesis 4 and 5.

Even with the Black Sea flooding occurring 7400 BCE as opposed to 5500 BCE, that's still thousands of years after the putative subsidence of Atlantis. If Atlantis existed, then it likely had some refugees and separated colonists. Discussing these children of Atlantis thousands of years after the subsidence of Atlantis is not the same thing as equating "Atlantis" (the subsidence event itself?) with the Black Sea flooding. Like any other culture with a history, it does not exist in one static moment in time, but across many hundreds or thousands of years.


#94    MissionAtlantis

MissionAtlantis

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 41 posts
  • Joined:22 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cebu, Philippines

  • Only very old stars can harbor mature planets. Only in their midst are we likely to find life or civilization.

Posted 31 August 2010 - 07:51 AM

View PostEssan, on 28 August 2010 - 08:58 PM, said:

As for Atlantis - in myth it was a bronze age society identical in term of technology with Greece at the time of Plato.  And was subsequently destroyed.  Greece then spent the next 6,000 odd years making no cultural or technological advancements whatsoever.   I'm inclined to think Plato made Atlantis up. There is no evidence to the contrary.

Plato's Atlantis

In myth, Atlantis was not "bronze age," but thousands of years before the Bronze Age -- ending roughly 9000 years before Solon's visit to Egypt (600 BCE => 9600 BCE).

Have you ever seen science fiction movies from the '30's and '40's? Rocket ships with vacuum tubes and similar technology from that era. Highly anachronistic. The vibrations from a rocket launch could easily break every vacuum tube, rendering them useless. Plato mentions Atlantis possessing chariots and triremes. That's part of the story teller's art, using what you know to talk about something unknown. To use the highest technology of your own era to discussing something about which you can only guess or may not entirely understand. You see this kind of modification in many of the early myths (Egyptian, Greek, etc). When Isis survives having her head cut off and later returned to her, isn't the myth really talking about the Isis (Asett) group losing its kidnapped leader? When Zeus swallows Metis whole and Athena is born full grown from her father's head, are these merely things impossible for a primitive to understand because they've never experienced "island empire," "technology," "mature refugee civilization," and the like?

Greece

You say, "Greece then spent the next 6,000 odd years,..." but how is it Greece we're suddenly talking about? The homeland of Greece was wiped out by earthquakes and floods. All of the rich topsoil was washed away from Attica.

For many years, archaeologists thumbed their noses at the Atlantis story saying that there is no evidence of a civilization existing that far back. Well, duh! Most of it sank into the Atlantic, if it existed at all. Try "digging" two miles under the sea. And the recent find at Gobekli Tepe, dated at 9500 BCE, proves two things: (1) There are plenty of places yet to dig that may reveal the needed evidence; and (2) the lack of evidence does not disprove a thesis (to think it does is a logical fallacy -- argument to ignorance).

Made Up?

You say, "I'm inclined to think Plato made Atlantis up." And that's great. That's definitely one possibility.

No Evidence to the Contrary?

You also say, "There is no evidence to the contrary."

On the contrary, there is a great deal of evidence in support for the past possible existence of Atlantis. That's what makes the subject so intriguing.


If Atlantis existed, then there remains a possibility that their ancestors ("children of Atlantis") influenced or were the Sumerians.


#95    Essan

Essan

    Recruitment Agent for the 'B' Ark

  • Member
  • 2,352 posts
  • Joined:18 Mar 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The other side

  • Stop Climate Change: Plant a Rain Forest Today!

Posted 31 August 2010 - 08:05 AM

View PostMissionAtlantis, on 31 August 2010 - 07:51 AM, said:

Plato's Atlantis

In myth, Atlantis was not "bronze age," but thousands of years before the Bronze Age -- ending roughly 9000 years before Solon's visit to Egypt (600 BCE => 9600 BCE).

The only description we have of Atlantis comes from Plato.  There is no other evidence for its existance whatseover - only conjection, supposition and wild imagination.

Without Plato we would not be having this discussion.

Plato described a bronze age society identical in technology to that of his own.  The only reason to suppose the events he described occurred more than 10 years before we wrote them down is because of his 8,000 years comment.  Artistic licence?

The Atlantean army was defeated by Athens.  There is no reason to suppose Athens then vanished.  Indeed, it seems quite clear that Plato meant the ancestors of the Athenians of his own time, implying the same city on the same place inhabited by the same people.


Back to other comments above ...

... there is a danger in trying to trace ancestory through language.  In 100 years time all Japanese might speak English.  Does that mean their ancestors came from America?  Were Philippinos all of Spanish ancestry, only to be wiped out and replaced by English settlers?  Languages change.  The British spoke Gaelic, then Anglo Saxon, then French, then English - yet genetically the peoples speaking these languages were virtually unchanged.  It may only take a change in trading patterns or the ruling class to lead to a complete change in written language and, in time, spoken language.

Andy

Weather & Earth Science News
The independent climate blog

#96    MissionAtlantis

MissionAtlantis

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 41 posts
  • Joined:22 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cebu, Philippines

  • Only very old stars can harbor mature planets. Only in their midst are we likely to find life or civilization.

Posted 31 August 2010 - 08:44 AM

View PostSlimJim22, on 30 August 2010 - 08:19 PM, said:

The notable language that is not agglutinative is the Mon Khmer family. I don't really know what this could support other than how I have little chance of understanding all this.

Thanks, SlimJim22. When I did my original research on agglutinative languages, my sources said otherwise, but hey, I'm no linguistics expert.

Just a couple that currently say Mon-Khmer languages are agglutinative:

http://www.answers.com/topic/mon-khmer

http://www.infopleas...y/A0861217.html

Yet, I see that Wikipedia excludes Mon-Khmer languages from its list of agglutinative languages. Curious. I suppose the only way to know for certain if Mon-Khmer languages are related (or not) to Sumerian is to invent time travel and investigate the pathways of each language. Short of that, we may never know for certain, one way or the other. But now, I need an authoritative source on agglutinative languages and on Mon-Khmer.

I suppose, if we want to discuss this idea further, though, we might start a new thread, so we don't get too far from Sumer on this one.


#97    The Puzzler

The Puzzler

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,890 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

  • I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious. ~ Einstein

Posted 31 August 2010 - 11:31 AM

View PostMissionAtlantis, on 31 August 2010 - 07:51 AM, said:

Plato's Atlantis

In myth, Atlantis was not "bronze age," but thousands of years before the Bronze Age -- ending roughly 9000 years before Solon's visit to Egypt (600 BCE => 9600 BCE).

Have you ever seen science fiction movies from the '30's and '40's? Rocket ships with vacuum tubes and similar technology from that era. Highly anachronistic. The vibrations from a rocket launch could easily break every vacuum tube, rendering them useless. Plato mentions Atlantis possessing chariots and triremes. That's part of the story teller's art, using what you know to talk about something unknown. To use the highest technology of your own era to discussing something about which you can only guess or may not entirely understand. You see this kind of modification in many of the early myths (Egyptian, Greek, etc). When Isis survives having her head cut off and later returned to her, isn't the myth really talking about the Isis (Asett) group losing its kidnapped leader? When Zeus swallows Metis whole and Athena is born full grown from her father's head, are these merely things impossible for a primitive to understand because they've never experienced "island empire," "technology," "mature refugee civilization," and the like?

Greece

You say, "Greece then spent the next 6,000 odd years,..." but how is it Greece we're suddenly talking about? The homeland of Greece was wiped out by earthquakes and floods. All of the rich topsoil was washed away from Attica.

For many years, archaeologists thumbed their noses at the Atlantis story saying that there is no evidence of a civilization existing that far back. Well, duh! Most of it sank into the Atlantic, if it existed at all. Try "digging" two miles under the sea. And the recent find at Gobekli Tepe, dated at 9500 BCE, proves two things: (1) There are plenty of places yet to dig that may reveal the needed evidence; and (2) the lack of evidence does not disprove a thesis (to think it does is a logical fallacy -- argument to ignorance).

Made Up?

You say, "I'm inclined to think Plato made Atlantis up." And that's great. That's definitely one possibility.

No Evidence to the Contrary?

You also say, "There is no evidence to the contrary."

On the contrary, there is a great deal of evidence in support for the past possible existence of Atlantis. That's what makes the subject so intriguing.


If Atlantis existed, then there remains a possibility that their ancestors ("children of Atlantis") influenced or were the Sumerians.
Hello and welcome to UM, I think I'm on your ship, my destination is definitely Atlantis. I'm intrigued, it's what I do, be intrigued by Atlantis.

Why don't you start a thread on your ideas, everyone here is sick of my Atlantis threads and I promised no more, but YOU, well....you sound like you have something to listen to.

"The agony and the irony, they're killing me"
Flagpole Sitta - Harvey Danger

#98    MissionAtlantis

MissionAtlantis

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 41 posts
  • Joined:22 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cebu, Philippines

  • Only very old stars can harbor mature planets. Only in their midst are we likely to find life or civilization.

Posted 31 August 2010 - 11:32 AM

View PostEssan, on 31 August 2010 - 08:05 AM, said:

The only description we have of Atlantis comes from Plato.  There is no other evidence for its existance whatseover - only conjection, supposition and wild imagination.

I agree. Plato is our source for the subject of "Atlantis." He defines what "Atlantis" means.

Now, I guess you mean "conjecture" when you say "conjection." And I disagree. Certainly we have lots of each of these (conjecture, supposition and wild imagination), but we also have evidence strongly suggestive of the possible past reality of Atlantis. Did you read the material in my last post, or did you merely discount it without investigating?

On the genetic evidence, we have a number of possibilities. For one, the progenitor group could have spread across Eurasia and into North America, but subsequently lost all Eurasian traces except those in Western Europe. We could also have had something like the Solutreans migrating by boat across the Atlantic. Or we could have Atlantean refugees. I hold each of these to have been possible. The last two of these seem the most likely, given the current evidence.

On the three items of scientific evidence of an Atlantis-like event, one of those pieces of evidence, if proven to be a proxy for a real event, would prove that a large, Atlantis-sized landmass (island or part of a continent) subsided right when Plato said Atlantis subsided. Even if this was proven to have happened (that a 2-meter drop in worldwide sea levels actually occurred at the end of the Younger Dryas), we still wouldn't have direct evidence of Atlantis. We would have no way of knowing where on Earth such a subsidence occurred. But such an event would be far more than mere conjecture. The fact that the date "coincides" with that given to us by Plato, makes Atlantis the likeliest suspect.

The other two pieces of evidence, though they could have been caused by something other than a major tectonic slump, could also have been caused by such a subsidence. A major, abrupt change in climate worldwide (end of the Younger Dryas, circa 9620 BCE), and a moderately large volcanic event (GISP2 survey, dated at 9620.77 BCE).

Wild imagination? Hardly. Scientific evidence published in respected, peer-reviewed journals. Unconventional interpretations? You betcha. But do you think scientists would stick their neck out if anything even remotely smelled like the "A" word? Don't hold your breath. Let me give you an example. There are a number of potential archaeological sites just off the coast of Bimini Island which are going ignored by professional archaeologists because they're afraid of losing funding and their reputations. Why? Because "Bimini" is associated with the "A" word.

Not too many years ago, North American anthropologists were ridiculed if they said anything to rock the "Clovis first dogma" boat. Many anthropologists were afraid to dig below the Clovis horizon for fear that anything they might find there could jeopardize their careers. If no one digs below the Clovis horizon, then no evidence would ever be found to conflict with Clovis. How conveniently unscientific. This kind of gray area misconduct tends to make the search for fact (relative truth) more difficult than it should.

In the 1948-49 Woods Hole expedition to the Mid Atlantic Ridge, Dr. Ewing reported evidence of subaerial phenomena and beach-like terraces. These support the idea that some parts of the MAR were above sea level as recently as 12,000 years ago (end of Atlantis). A review of the expedition literature published ten years later omitted all of the controversial material. Conspiracy? Hardly. But unconscious bias? Perhaps. The "A" word is perhaps one of the favorite "blasphemies" in modern science. So, if evidence was ever found, would it be re-buried to protect someone's career? That possibility has occurred to me more than once.

View PostEssan, on 31 August 2010 - 08:05 AM, said:

Without Plato we would not be having this discussion.

Absolutely! It makes me wonder how many other mysteries of prehistory have been completely lost because the trail of documentation withered and died. Many of the ancient writings we only get second or third hand from later writers who read from those earlier authors. If Plato had not written his dialogs, then the trail of Atlantis (if it was a real place) would have been lost, likely forever.

View PostEssan, on 31 August 2010 - 08:05 AM, said:

Plato described a bronze age society identical in technology to that of his own.  The only reason to suppose the events he described occurred more than 10 years before we wrote them down is because of his 8,000 years comment.  Artistic licence?

Artistic license? Perhaps. That's certainly a possibility, but you have not proven this. No one has. And I've read some pretty fancy arguments in support of the "Atlantis was made up" hypothesis. None of them have been proven.

And no, the "8000 years" that you mention is NOT the "only reason" to suppose the events happened a long time ago. There are a number of clues in Timaeus and Critias that point to a very remote event. The priest of Sais said his civilization (the then current Egyptian) was born 8000 years earlier, but he also said that the battle between Athenians and Atlanteans occurred 9000 years earlier. The Egyptian priest said that there had been many floods between the demise of Atlantis and his "modern" times, all of them lost in the dim myth of Grecian prehistory. Plato also mentions more than once that the story of Atlantis is a true one (non-fiction). Is it possible Plato was telling the truth about telling the truth? Perhaps.

View PostEssan, on 31 August 2010 - 08:05 AM, said:

The Atlantean army was defeated by Athens.  There is no reason to suppose Athens then vanished.  Indeed, it seems quite clear that Plato meant the ancestors of the Athenians of his own time, implying the same city on the same place inhabited by the same people.

Now, you're jumping to some wild conclusions. Your conclusions are one possibility, but not the only one.

"No reason to suppose Athens then vanished?" I don't know where you get this? Plato makes it very clear in his dialogs that the "Athens" of that time was destroyed by floods and earthquakes. He said that the rich topsoil the Athenians once enjoyed was washed away by the flooding. That would have to have been some pretty massive flooding. Plato said that the army that had defended Athens was destroyed by that flood.

When someone says that something was "quite clear," I become immediately suspicious. I can think of other possibilities that diminish your "quite clear" to merely "one possibility." For example, Americans used to find food with spear and bow and arrow. They used to eat mastodon. But we're not talking about modern "Americans," are we? By the same token, Plato could merely have been talking about the people who happened to inhabit the location known to him as Athens. Genetically, the people may not have been at all related to the Athenians of his day. And according to Plato there was massive flooding and earthquakes. Could anything of the earlier "Athens" have survived? And Plato (and the Egyptian priest) likely called it "Athens" because the location was the same. Who knows what prehistoric Americans called their home back then. It is quite likely the Athenians who fought Atlantis did not call their city "Athens." In fact, it was likely that Cecrops (who helped establish the name, "Athens") came long after Atlantis, and yet long before Solon.

View PostEssan, on 31 August 2010 - 08:05 AM, said:

... there is a danger in trying to trace ancestory through language.  In 100 years time all Japanese might speak English.  Does that mean their ancestors came from America?  Were Philippinos all of Spanish ancestry, only to be wiped out and replaced by English settlers?  Languages change.  The British spoke Gaelic, then Anglo Saxon, then French, then English - yet genetically the peoples speaking these languages were virtually unchanged.  It may only take a change in trading patterns or the ruling class to lead to a complete change in written language and, in time, spoken language.

You make some very good points here. Tracing by linguistics alone is highly problematic. In less than 2000 years the name of one city went from Roman, Caesar Augusta, to Spanish Zaragossa. Notice the similarities?

But using linguistics as one clue along with cultural and genetic clues provides us with an interesting pattern. The matriarchal clue and the study of mtDNA that is related to that of the Basques shows a pattern that stretches across Eurasia. Is the pattern valuable? I really don't know. All I know is that the pattern is interesting. And the possibility that an ancient, technological society migrated across Eurasia thousands of years before our own history began is a very interesting possibility indeed.

Conjecture

Could some of the myths of old be about the children of Atlantis possessing technology that they might not have even understood? I doubt if they could duplicate their technological artifacts. Once they stopped working, they would remain merely interesting trinkets with a long history. The Helvetians (elves) of Central Europe may have had devices which only seemed magical to the neighboring primitives. The old hag of Slavic myth, Baba Yaga, supposedly flew around in a mortar and pestle. In some interpretations, the pestle was a rudder, but could it have been the pilot's joystick?

The myths of dragons, especially those of the Egyptian merchant prince, of Cadmus and of Medea, talk of flying, golden dragons. And even Cecrops, who was said to be half man and half snake (dragon) could have been merely the pilot of a dragon ship popping the hatch so that the primitives of the area could see only the top half of a man and the body of the serpent ship giving rise to the legend as we receive it.

Colchis was a real place (just a hop, skip and a jump north of Sumer) in modern Georgia. Was Medea a real person? We now know that the Amazons were real (women warriors buried with their weapons and armor, while the men were buried separately with the children). Will someone someday find Medea's dragon (the one she put to sleep for her Greek lover, Jason, and the one on which she flew away from Athens, years later)?

And could Medea's frustration with the men in her life have led her to found a group of women warriors? In several of these agglutinative languages, "ama" is the word for mother. And if Medea's people were children of Atlantis, then what more appropriate name to give her new band of women warriors, than "Ama-Atlan" (mother Atlantis, or "Amazon" to the Greek ear)?

Edited by MissionAtlantis, 31 August 2010 - 12:04 PM.


#99    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 10,457 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 31 August 2010 - 12:07 PM

Problems,

If Solon actually did hear the tale of Atlantis from the Egyptians, why does there exist no record whatsoever of this story in the Egyptian mythos?

Solon lived in the 500's BC.  That's not long enough ago for this tale to have been erased, given that we are aware of Egyptian tales that predate Solon by two thousand years or more.

Egypt holds no such story.  Nor is there any comparable myth in Egypt nor, indeed, in any other culture.

A civilization as described by Plato could not have possibly existed without leaving traces.  The Atlanteans conquered the virtually every country along the shores of the Med.  Why not a single trace of them?  Did they do all this with no trade activities at all?

Unlikely, to say the least.

Where then did Plato get his tale?  There exists no myth, as I said, in any culture on Earth that is comparable.

Harte

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Anybody like Coleridge?

#100    MissionAtlantis

MissionAtlantis

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 41 posts
  • Joined:22 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cebu, Philippines

  • Only very old stars can harbor mature planets. Only in their midst are we likely to find life or civilization.

Posted 31 August 2010 - 12:16 PM

View PostThe Puzzler, on 31 August 2010 - 11:31 AM, said:

Hello and welcome to UM, I think I'm on your ship, my destination is definitely Atlantis. I'm intrigued, it's what I do, be intrigued by Atlantis.

Why don't you start a thread on your ideas, everyone here is sick of my Atlantis threads and I promised no more, but YOU, well....you sound like you have something to listen to.

Thanks, Puzzler. Glad to be here.  :D

Clearly my "innocent"  :innocent: comment relating Sumerians to Atlantis has hijacked this thread.  :hmm:  Any future reply on this subject and on this thread I will forward to another thread.  :tu:


#101    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 17,143 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 31 August 2010 - 01:10 PM

I found this an interesting read...

Quote

For decades the question of the origin of Sumerian was predicated on the notion that the ancestors of the people who spoke the first attested language of southern Mesopotamia had to have come from somewhere else and were intruders in the area. The isolated position of Sumerian, tucked away in a corner at the end of the Semitic spreads, suggests a very different scenario. On comparative grounds, it is more probable that this language represents but a remnant of a much broader linguistic continuum, areal if not genetic, that had occupied much of Western Asia before the Semitic spreads. Even when a language belongs to an extensive family, the issues of how to identify a "language" and the moment of its very beginning an imposing if not an impossible task (Seebold 1996); to speculate about the origins and prehistories of ancient isolates may be somewhat foolhardy. Nevertheless, one could suggest that Sumerian and Hattic occupied a historical niche analogous to Basque and Etruscan in Europe�not that there is any agreement on the historical status of those languages. The isolated nature of Sumerian is further brought into relief when we take a look at certain typological features of the language. In contrast to all the surrounding languages, Sumerian has ergative argument marking and, as Nichols (1994) has shown, ergativity is relatively stable in areal terms and ergative languages tend to cluster together. On a very large scale her arguments are convincing, although once one begins to look more closely at the history of individual languages, problems do arise.

source

...and it would seem to put paid to the "dissemination from Atlantis" theory in this paragraph...

Quote

"These spreads seem to have driven an accusative wedge into a continental interior that would otherwise be heavily ergative, for the languages all round the periphery are ergative: counterclockwise from the west they are Basque; three families of the Caucasus; Elamite (stative-active on an ergative base), Sumerian, and Hurro-Urartean of the ancient Near East; Burushaski and Tibeto-Burman languages to the south; Chukchi-Kamchatkan and Eskimoan on the northeast; Ket (stative-active on an ergative base) to the north. Only to the southeast are there accusative languages: Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Ainu, Nivkh (Gilak)."

...as one would expect such a dissemination to occur from a periphery through the continental interior, yet this is shown not to be the case. The peripheral languages remain intact in their ergative form.

Edited by Leonardo, 31 August 2010 - 02:00 PM.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#102    The Puzzler

The Puzzler

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,890 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

  • I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious. ~ Einstein

Posted 31 August 2010 - 01:12 PM

View PostMissionAtlantis, on 31 August 2010 - 12:16 PM, said:

Thanks, Puzzler. Glad to be here.  :D

Clearly my "innocent"  :innocent: comment relating Sumerians to Atlantis has hijacked this thread.  :hmm:  Any future reply on this subject and on this thread I will forward to another thread.  :tu:
Yep, that's fine but I want to comment on this:

Quote

"No reason to suppose Athens then vanished?" I don't know where you get this? Plato makes it very clear in his dialogs that the "Athens" of that time was destroyed by floods and earthquakes. He said that the rich topsoil the Athenians once enjoyed was washed away by the flooding. That would have to have been some pretty massive flooding. Plato said that the army that had defended Athens was destroyed by that flood.

When someone says that something was "quite clear," I become immediately suspicious. I can think of other possibilities that diminish your "quite clear" to merely "one possibility." For example, Americans used to find food with spear and bow and arrow. They used to eat mastodon. But we're not talking about modern "Americans," are we? By the same token, Plato could merely have been talking about the people who happened to inhabit the location known to him as Athens. Genetically, the people may not have been at all related to the Athenians of his day. And according to Plato there was massive flooding and earthquakes. Could anything of the earlier "Athens" have survived? And Plato (and the Egyptian priest) likely called it "Athens" because the location was the same. Who knows what prehistoric Americans called their home back then. It is quite likely the Athenians who fought Atlantis did not call their city "Athens." In fact, it was likely that Cecrops (who helped establish the name, "Athens") came long after Atlantis, and yet long before Solon.

Yes, maybe there was sailing but it is spoken of in another name, how about Golden Cup of Helios that Heracles sailed in or other objects like that, hmmm, food for thought. Even a glider would have travelled quite far given the right conditions.

I also have read that there was a previous Athens actually, possibly near Eleusis. It is mentioned also by...? been a while now since I read it, that Sais survived the deluge that wiped out Athens.


Egypt does have there Kings going back over 10,000 years and have a record of each generation by wooden effigies Herodotus has written.
I think it's 330 odd kings at a 30 year generation each.

He also tells us Dionysus is the youngest God in Greek and he is at least 6000 years old, in Herodotus time.

I think it can possibly fit into the time frame Plato gives if looked at carefully enough.

"The agony and the irony, they're killing me"
Flagpole Sitta - Harvey Danger

#103    The Puzzler

The Puzzler

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,890 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

  • I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious. ~ Einstein

Posted 31 August 2010 - 01:44 PM

View PostHarte, on 31 August 2010 - 12:07 PM, said:

Problems,

If Solon actually did hear the tale of Atlantis from the Egyptians, why does there exist no record whatsoever of this story in the Egyptian mythos?

Solon lived in the 500's BC.  That's not long enough ago for this tale to have been erased, given that we are aware of Egyptian tales that predate Solon by two thousand years or more.

Egypt holds no such story.  Nor is there any comparable myth in Egypt nor, indeed, in any other culture.

A civilization as described by Plato could not have possibly existed without leaving traces.  The Atlanteans conquered the virtually every country along the shores of the Med.  Why not a single trace of them?  Did they do all this with no trade activities at all?

Unlikely, to say the least.

Where then did Plato get his tale?  There exists no myth, as I said, in any culture on Earth that is comparable.

Harte
Harte, you got your recorded message out again I see.... B)

This is a recording..."there is no comparable Egyptian myth...."

Mate, you should check out the Mission: Atlantis link website, we could sign up for an Atlantis Tour!!

You do know I am indebted to you for life for telling me to read the actual dialogues (so long ago now), don't you?

So, my shout.  :tu:



OK, so where did the Sumerians come from? Obviously the answer is Atlantis, duh. :devil:

Edited by The Puzzler, 31 August 2010 - 01:46 PM.

"The agony and the irony, they're killing me"
Flagpole Sitta - Harvey Danger

#104    The Puzzler

The Puzzler

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,890 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

  • I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious. ~ Einstein

Posted 31 August 2010 - 01:57 PM

With Gobekli Tepe dated to the timeframe Plato speaks of, we should be wary about denying people were capable of much bigger things.

We don't even know who built Stonehenge...

The flood of Noah might even connect since we do have Noah in Armenia, which is nearish to Turkey and Gobekli.

Sumerians did sail we know that as they had contact with the people of Harappa.

How hard is it to build a boat for God's sakes? Do we really need the Lord to tell us how to build one or is that giving us the clue to boat building occurred even before a GIANT FLOOD occurred.

"The agony and the irony, they're killing me"
Flagpole Sitta - Harvey Danger

#105    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,127 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 31 August 2010 - 02:21 PM

View PostSlimJim22, on 30 August 2010 - 08:19 PM, said:

Was this the sort of thing Abe?


“14000 BP. Deep in the Altai Mountains of Southern Siberia, about this date, a wall of water 1,500 feet high surged down the ChujaRiverValley at 90 miles per hour. How does one deduce such a hydrological cataclysm? A. Rudoy, a Geologist at Tomsky State Pedagogical Institute, points to giant gravel bars along the ChujaRiverValley. These are not the inch-sized ripples we see on the floors of today’s rivers; these are giants measuring tens of yards from crest to crest. Only a catastrophic flood could have piled up these ridges of debris. Rudoy postulates that, during the Ice Ages, a huge Ice Dam upstream held back a lake 3,000 feet deep, containing 200 cubic metres of water. When the Ice Dam suddenly ruptured, all life and land downstream was devastated. (folger, tim, “The Biggest Flood”, Discover, 15:36, January 1994.) But other thoughts intrude: were the heaps of Mammoth Carcasses, the Siberian “IvoryIslands;” and those anomalous Stone tools mentioned earlier under Archaeology the consequences of similar Siberian Floods?” (Science Frontiers #92, March-April 1994. William R Corliss.)


So there I am trying to hunt down the Sumerian homeland of which I think there is more tan one but anyway, I come across this quite bozarre site where I found the excerpt. The first claim they make is that the welsh came from Siberia 30,000BP. Are the kidding or what? Wales only has a population of 3 mil so how they can deduce such a genetic relationship I do not know. I understand they can but I see it of no real relevance.

http://www.goetia-gi...articles_f.html

On agglutinative languages.

It can be shown that the distribution of many typological features of languages is not random but geographically (relatively) restricted. E.g., ergative-absolutive languages show up basically in the Caucasus, in North America, Mesoamerica, Australia: Basque, Berber, Dyirbal, Eskimo-Aleut, Kurdish, Mayan, Mixe-Zoque, Samoan, Tagalog and many other Austronesian languages, Sumerian, Tibetan, Caucasian without Kartvelian. Since agglutination is inheritable, we may thus ask if the agglutinative languages are also concentrated in certain regions of the world. Unfortunately, since there is no complete list of agglutinative languages (but cf. Shibatani/Bynon 1999), the following overview may be
incomplete:

Uralic (Collinder 1957)
Altaic (Turkic, Mongolian, Manchu, Korean, Japanese) (Ramstedt 1966; Poppe 1960; Sohn 2001; Miller 1971 [with review Menges 1974])
Eskimo-Aleut (Mithun 1999)
Paleo-Siberian (Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Yukaghir, Yeniseian, Gilyak) (Comrie 1981)
Ainu (Tamura 2000)
Tibeto-Burman (van Driem 2001; also some Chinese languages like Wu; Old Chinese?Clauson?)
Basque (Hualde/Ortiz de Urbino 2003)
Caucasian Languages (Klimov 1980)
Punjabi (Bhatia 1993)
Ossetic (Thordarson 1989)
Kurdish (Wurzel 1997)
Cushitic Languages (Saeed 1993)
Bantu Languages (Guthrie 1971)
Dravidian (Kirshnamurti 2003)
North American Indian Languages (von Sadovszky 1996; Kroeber 1999)
Mesoamerican Indian Languages (Campbell 1997)
South American Indian Languages (Derbyshire/Pullum 1986)
Malaysian (Lynch/Ross/Crowley 2002)
The following ancient languages were also agglutinative:

Pre-Indo-European (Lehmann 2002; Greenberg 2000)
Proto-Indo-European (Brunner 1969)
Etruscan (Pfiffig 1969)
Tocharian (Krause/Thomas 1960)
Sumerian (Thomsen 1984; Edzard 2003)
Elamite (Khacikjan 1998)
Hurrian (Wegner 2000)
Urartian (Diakonoff 1971)
Hattic (Girbal 1986)
Kassite (Balkan 1954)
Gutian (Hallo 1957)
Lullubi (Speiser 1931)
From this brief list, we can conclude:

All known Mesopotamian languages (excluded the later Semitic languages like Akkadian, Rhaetic, Amoritic, Ugaritic, etc.) were agglutinative.
The geographical distribution of the agglutinative languages is more or less identical with the languages that have been suspected in the past to be related to Hungarian and thus have been researched in my “Etymological Dictionary of Hungarian” (Tóth 2007b): Roughly speaking, they extend from the Ice Sea to the Southern Seas leaving huge “gaps” only in certain parts of India (e.g., no member of the Mon-Khmer family is according to my knowledge agglutinative).
Therefore, agglutination is not only inheritable, but agglutinative languages seem to cover a more or less coherent territory with a huge extension both in space and in time. Although not all languages are sufficiently documented, it is possible to show the genetic relationship of typologically related languages with Bouda’s concept of “Brückensprachen” (“bridging languages”) (cf. Bouda 1963). These are languages that connect both genetically and typologically related languages that are geographically (nowadays) distant. The concept of bridging languages is the more useful because, as already stated, languages can change their typological structure during their evolution. E.g., Old Chinese was agglutinative (as, e.g., Wu Chinese still is), while it is now isolating. The same may be true for the Mon-Khmer languages (cf. Shorto/Sidwell/ Bauer 2006, p. 590ss.). The special problem with India is that many of the hundreds of languages are not even researched yet.


http://www.szabir.co...to-one-another/

The notable language that is not agglutinative is the Mon Khmer family. I don't really know what this could support other than how I have little chance of understanding all this.

Yep, that is what I said in my posts I linked to: if you read one of those posts, you will see a pdf with a scientific document about these mega floods.

--


I really don't know a lot about linguistics, but from what you posted there appear to be a lot of agglutinative languages to 'choose' from.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users