91 replies to this topic

[kmt_sesh]

Thanks for writing that excerpt from Kemp's book in the earlier post, Atentutankh. That you have the book makes me quite envious because I checked Amazon and another source again and it still hasn't been released. I aim to buy it, as well as another new one called The Pharaoh: Life at Court and on Campaign, by Garry Shaw.

Atentutankh-pasheri, on 12 October 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

Sesh will answer for himself of course, but timezones sometimes work badly. I read this page and draw attention to the section "Links with ancient Egypt". Here it only mentions Ptolemaic Egypt. Certainly Ptolemy I Soter had been to India, as one of Alexander's generals, though Ptolemaic Egypt is not ancient Egypt as is generally understood, it is Greek ruled Egypt. The hope of that site is to join India to pharaohic Egypt, and they do not show any realistic proof. Besides, all know that civilisation came from what is now southern Russia and spread out to the barbarians. That is why some cultures seem linked, it is because they come from the original culture situated in a wide area around Rostov on Don. So speaketh the Aten's living image (junior) who will not be moved from his position of truth

Unfortunately things got a little heated earlier in the day. It's regrettable. I must admit, however, the bolded portion jumped out at me as it did at cormac. Is it possible your comment was misconstrued? The oldest civilization by the criteria of historical studies is still Sumer, in southern Iraq. The Sumerians rose in the Uruk period in the fourth millennium BCE. It must be admitted that the exact ethnicity of the Sumerians is still obscure, and the fact that their tongue was a language isolate only adds to the mystery. However, there is nothing linguistically or culturally to connect them with prehistoric peoples of southern Russia, of which I'm aware. There is a working linguistic theory that the Sumerians originated from the east and were perhaps of some relation to peoples of ancient India, but it is only a theory and has not been developed much yet.

Cormac can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there's also something in the genetic record to suggest as eastward origin for Sumerians. I recall some discussion about that a long time ago here at UM but can't recall the particulars. It may have been more to do with the general population of that whole region.

The next civilization to emerge was the Egyptians, and there is no doubt that theirs was an African origin. While the people who created dynastic Egypt were a mixture of ethnicities, I know of no research connecting them with any sort of European origin.

All the others were asking for was a source for your information. It's something I frequently ask of posters, too. It's good to defend your position and share your source for evaluation by other posters. If the source is flawed, so be it. If it turns out to be of some veracity, it will do us all good to evaluate. Was it perhaps one of those Russian websites about which I issued a cautionary note?

I tell ya, for all the Russians have contributed to science and historical studies, they seem to unleash a lot of wackos on the internet. Like I said, I've seen quite a few nut-job Russian web pages posters have sourced at UM. Methinks they imbibed in too much vodka (the Russians, not the posters, although who can tell?).

[cormac mac airt]

kmt_sesh, on 13 October 2012 - 02:49 AM, said:

Thanks for writing that excerpt from Kemp's book in the earlier post, Atentutankh. That you have the book makes me quite envious because I checked Amazon and another source again and it still hasn't been released. I aim to buy it, as well as another new one called The Pharaoh: Life at Court and on Campaign, by Garry Shaw.



Unfortunately things got a little heated earlier in the day. It's regrettable. I must admit, however, the bolded portion jumped out at me as it did at cormac. Is it possible your comment was misconstrued? The oldest civilization by the criteria of historical studies is still Sumer, in southern Iraq. The Sumerians rose in the Uruk period in the fourth millennium BCE. It must be admitted that the exact ethnicity of the Sumerians is still obscure, and the fact that their tongue was a language isolate only adds to the mystery. However, there is nothing linguistically or culturally to connect them with prehistoric peoples of southern Russia, of which I'm aware. There is a working linguistic theory that the Sumerians originated from the east and were perhaps of some relation to peoples of ancient India, but it is only a theory and has not been developed much yet.

Cormac can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there's also something in the genetic record to suggest as eastward origin for Sumerians. I recall some discussion about that a long time ago here at UM but can't recall the particulars. It may have been more to do with the general population of that whole region.

The next civilization to emerge was the Egyptians, and there is no doubt that theirs was an African origin. While the people who created dynastic Egypt were a mixture of ethnicities, I know of no research connecting them with any sort of European origin.

All the others were asking for was a source for your information. It's something I frequently ask of posters, too. It's good to defend your position and share your source for evaluation by other posters. If the source is flawed, so be it. If it turns out to be of some veracity, it will do us all good to evaluate. Was it perhaps one of those Russian websites about which I issued a cautionary note?

I tell ya, for all the Russians have contributed to science and historical studies, they seem to unleash a lot of wackos on the internet. Like I said, I've seen quite a few nut-job Russian web pages posters have sourced at UM. Methinks they imbibed in too much vodka (the Russians, not the posters, although who can tell?).

This would tend to be more suggestive of the later Gutians, who are believed to originate in the area of the Zagros Mountains just to the East of the Tigris River. There are AFAIK two different but equally plausible theories for the Sumerian origin. The first, based on similarities in pottery, etcetra, suggests an origin in or around the city of Samarra/Tell es-Sawwan some 260 miles north northwest of Eridu along the Tigris. The second, based on tales of the land of Dilmun and supported in part by the fact that the Persian Gulf was predominantly dry between c.14,000 and 5500 BC, would be somewhere along the dry plain of the gulf in or near Bahrain. As far as genetics, there has never been any testing of Sumerian remains on which to base a claim. However, it is known that the area of Mesopotamia and much of the Levant falls under Y Chromosome haplogroup J and is mainly J2, which would most likely include Sumerian DNA as well, from either area.

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

Harsh86_Patel, on 12 October 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

I found a interesting link that highlights similarities between Vedic culture and Egypt/monotheism/tutenkhamen and Sun God though i am highly skeptical but would surely like your opinion on it Sesh.

http://www.hinduwisd...a_and_Egypt.htm

Do you buy any of this this?

I agree with Atentutankh's comments in Post 28 about Ptolemaic Egypt. This was really the first point in dynastic history when Egypt might have had connections with and an awareness of India.

Many posters through the years have posited some contact between Egypt and India going far back in time. I disagree. I believe most historians would, too. It must be remembered that prior to the eastern campaigns of Alexander, most people in the Mediterranean world did not really even possess a working knowledge of India. The territory encompassed by the modern nation of India was largely unknown to peoples living farther to the west. An exception might be made with the Persian empire, which encroached on the Hindu Kush in the sixth century BCE and managed to institute some administrative control of the area; but it did not last, and was in fact long gone by the time Alexander came on the scene. Even to the Greeks, "India" was not the modern nation we think of but basically more of the Hindu Kush.

Tutankhamun lived in Dynasty 18, late in the second millennium BCE. While India was experiencing a vibrant culture and civilization at the same time, I cannot think of any extant evidence that might imply the two knew of each other.

[kmt_sesh]

cormac mac airt, on 13 October 2012 - 03:17 AM, said:

This would tend to be more suggestive of the later Gutians, who are believed to originate in the area of the Zagros Mountains just to the East of the Tigris River. There are AFAIK two different but equally plausible theories for the Sumerian origin. The first, based on similarities in pottery, etcetra, suggests an origin in or around the city of Samarra/Tell es-Sawwan some 260 miles north northwest of Eridu along the Tigris. The second, based on tales of the land of Dilmun and supported in part by the fact that the Persian Gulf was predominantly dry between c.14,000 and 5500 BC, would be somewhere along the dry plain of the gulf in or near Bahrain. As far as genetics, there has never been any testing of Sumerian remains on which to base a claim. However, it is known that the area of Mesopotamia and much of the Levant falls under Y Chromosome haplogroup J and is mainly J2, which would most likely include Sumerian DNA as well, from either area.

cormac

Thanks, cormac. Not surprisingly my memory has failed me and I was thinking of something else. Perhaps it was genetic information about people of the Levant (who would eventually become the Hebrews) in some discussion where we were trying to shed some light on an afrocentric topic. That seems familiar...but again, I could be mistaken.

It sucks getting old.

[cormac mac airt]

kmt_sesh, on 13 October 2012 - 03:24 AM, said:

Thanks, cormac. Not surprisingly my memory has failed me and I was thinking of something else. Perhaps it was genetic information about people of the Levant (who would eventually become the Hebrews) in some discussion where we were trying to shed some light on an afrocentric topic. That seems familiar...but again, I could be mistaken.

It sucks getting old.

Says the kid with dessicated skin and no hair. I told you to use more moisturizer.

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

cormac mac airt, on 13 October 2012 - 03:27 AM, said:

Says the kid with dessicated skin and no hair. I told you to use more moisturizer.

cormac

Too late. The damage is done. Besides—do I have to say this again?—that is not a photo of me!

I don't look that good.

[cormac mac airt]

kmt_sesh, on 13 October 2012 - 03:24 AM, said:

Thanks, cormac. Not surprisingly my memory has failed me and I was thinking of something else. Perhaps it was genetic information about people of the Levant (who would eventually become the Hebrews) in some discussion where we were trying to shed some light on an afrocentric topic. That seems familiar...but again, I could be mistaken.

It sucks getting old.

Maybe you were thinking of the claim that Tutankhamun's paternal haplogroup is Western European in origin, when we know that R1b does not originate in Western Europe.

Edit to add that it can be found in the Levant and to a lesser degree in North Africa.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt, 13 October 2012 - 04:03 AM.

[kmt_sesh]

cormac mac airt, on 13 October 2012 - 04:00 AM, said:

Maybe you were thinking of the claim that Tutankhamun's paternal haplogroup is Western European in origin, when we know that R1b does not originate in Western Europe.

Edit to add that it can be found in the Levant and to a lesser degree in North Africa.

cormac

That wasn't it. I remember having that particular discussion quite a few times at UM. It always start with some drivel like "Tut was European!"

It's not important. But while you're at it, why don't you find some Sumerian human remains and do some genetic testing for us!

[Harsh86_Patel]

kmt_sesh, on 13 October 2012 - 04:12 AM, said:

That wasn't it. I remember having that particular discussion quite a few times at UM. It always start with some drivel like "Tut was European!"

It's not important. But while you're at it, why don't you find some Sumerian human remains and do some genetic testing for us!

Queen Puabi can be tested.Sitchin died asking for it.Can kill a lot of birds with one stone.Don't know why they are still delaying it.Though not exactly Sumerian.

[Harsh86_Patel]

kmt_sesh, on 13 October 2012 - 03:21 AM, said:

I agree with Atentutankh's comments in Post 28 about Ptolemaic Egypt. This was really the first point in dynastic history when Egypt might have had connections with and an awareness of India.

Many posters through the years have posited some contact between Egypt and India going far back in time. I disagree. I believe most historians would, too. It must be remembered that prior to the eastern campaigns of Alexander, most people in the Mediterranean world did not really even possess a working knowledge of India. The territory encompassed by the modern nation of India was largely unknown to peoples living farther to the west. An exception might be made with the Persian empire, which encroached on the Hindu Kush in the sixth century BCE and managed to institute some administrative control of the area; but it did not last, and was in fact long gone by the time Alexander came on the scene. Even to the Greeks, "India" was not the modern nation we think of but basically more of the Hindu Kush.

Tutankhamun lived in Dynasty 18, late in the second millennium BCE. While India was experiencing a vibrant culture and civilization at the same time, I cannot think of any extant evidence that might imply the two knew of each other.

Indus valley civilization is attributed to an older date and is thought of to be very vibrant and relatively advanced,so contact might have been possible in antiquity.And boundaries of IVC culture /Vedic culture may not have been geographical.
The greeks themselves talked of Heracles going down to the East probably India in antiquity and Aristotle talks of the Jews coming from India along with established trading routes between mesopotamia and India so i guess there is enough circumstantial evidence that people in the Mediterranian may have known about India since a long time.But i haven't researched much into this idea.
Alexander knew of India before he set out to conquer it i guess.And from the way his compaign progressed it seems that he was heading for India.
Though you make it clear that most Historians would disagree i find the idea interesting.How can we say that people in the mediterranean didn't know of India at that point of time?,There is an intersting theory of the Seuz canal not being silted as a potential entry of Indian traders into the mediterranean.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

kmt_sesh, on 13 October 2012 - 02:49 AM, said:

Thanks for writing that excerpt from Kemp's book in the earlier post, Atentutankh. That you have the book makes me quite envious because I checked Amazon and another source again and it still hasn't been released. I aim to buy it, as well as another new one called The Pharaoh: Life at Court and on Campaign, by Garry Shaw.



Unfortunately things got a little heated earlier in the day. It's regrettable. I must admit, however, the bolded portion jumped out at me as it did at cormac. Is it possible your comment was misconstrued? The oldest civilization by the criteria of historical studies is still Sumer, in southern Iraq. The Sumerians rose in the Uruk period in the fourth millennium BCE. It must be admitted that the exact ethnicity of the Sumerians is still obscure, and the fact that their tongue was a language isolate only adds to the mystery. However, there is nothing linguistically or culturally to connect them with prehistoric peoples of southern Russia, of which I'm aware. There is a working linguistic theory that the Sumerians originated from the east and were perhaps of some relation to peoples of ancient India, but it is only a theory and has not been developed much yet.

Cormac can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there's also something in the genetic record to suggest as eastward origin for Sumerians. I recall some discussion about that a long time ago here at UM but can't recall the particulars. It may have been more to do with the general population of that whole region.

The next civilization to emerge was the Egyptians, and there is no doubt that theirs was an African origin. While the people who created dynastic Egypt were a mixture of ethnicities, I know of no research connecting them with any sort of European origin.

All the others were asking for was a source for your information. It's something I frequently ask of posters, too. It's good to defend your position and share your source for evaluation by other posters. If the source is flawed, so be it. If it turns out to be of some veracity, it will do us all good to evaluate. Was it perhaps one of those Russian websites about which I issued a cautionary note?

I tell ya, for all the Russians have contributed to science and historical studies, they seem to unleash a lot of wackos on the internet. Like I said, I've seen quite a few nut-job Russian web pages posters have sourced at UM. Methinks they imbibed in too much vodka (the Russians, not the posters, although who can tell?).

They were not simply asking for sources, it seemed to me they were looking for an excuse to cause disruption and drive me away. The question asked was in unfriendly terms. My initial reply was polite. I am then subjected to an attack that was clearly arranged between them both, and potentially broke several forum rules. However, as I said, I've seen all this nonsense before and such people do not impress me. That comment by me was a reply to Harsh. Clearly the first part was a serious reply, the second part was clearly not meant to be taken seriously and was an allusion, that I know Harsh would understand, to the debate about the "Kurgan" culture versus "Out of India".

However, as Kemp's new book is so interesting I am now concentrating on finishing it and putting others on hold. I would hope to continue on this thread were I left of, depends if I can tear myself away from the vodka bottle

Edited by Atentutankh-pasheri, 13 October 2012 - 09:23 AM.

[cormac mac airt]

Atentutankh-pasheri, on 13 October 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

They were not simply asking for sources, it seemed to me they were looking for an excuse to cause disruption and drive me away. The question asked was in unfriendly terms. My initial reply was polite. I am then subjected to an attack that was clearly arranged between them both, and potentially broke several forum rules. However, as I said, I've seen all this nonsense before and such people do not impress me. That comment by me was a reply to Harsh. Clearly the first part was a serious reply, the second part was clearly not meant to be taken seriously and was an allusion, that I know Harsh would understand, to the debate about the "Kurgan" culture versus "Out of India".

However, as Kemp's new book is so interesting I am now concentrating on finishing it and putting others on hold. I would hope to continue on this thread were I left of, depends if I can tear myself away from the vodka bottle

It's real simple. You made a claim and were asked for a citation to support it. You refused to do so. Therefore one can only conclude that your claim has no merit. And there was nothing in your wording to suggest it was a light-hearted comment, but that you were making a statement of fact. It's not. Also, contrary to your mentioning of the Kurgan debate, it is NOT seen as evidence of the origin of ALL civilizations which further negates your previous statement.

cormac

[questionmark]

Atentutankh-pasheri, on 13 October 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

They were not simply asking for sources, it seemed to me they were looking for an excuse to cause disruption and drive me away. The question asked was in unfriendly terms. My initial reply was polite. I am then subjected to an attack that was clearly arranged between them both, and potentially broke several forum rules. However, as I said, I've seen all this nonsense before and such people do not impress me. That comment by me was a reply to Harsh. Clearly the first part was a serious reply, the second part was clearly not meant to be taken seriously and was an allusion, that I know Harsh would understand, to the debate about the "Kurgan" culture versus "Out of India".

However, as Kemp's new book is so interesting I am now concentrating on finishing it and putting others on hold. I would hope to continue on this thread were I left of, depends if I can tear myself away from the vodka bottle

Naturally, we were singling you out because you look like we can hit on you.

Well, no, if you have a claim, whether right or not, you are kindly asked to provide the references. If you can't then your claim is not valid. Period.

And, just as kmt, I knew that you were at least partially right, but that is not the point. And starting to call those who ask you to back up your claim trolls is not going to get you on the most liked list either, but most of us are rather inclined to overlook rudeness than lack of sources.

[cormac mac airt]

Harsh86_Patel, on 13 October 2012 - 07:45 AM, said:

Queen Puabi can be tested.Sitchin died asking for it.Can kill a lot of birds with one stone.Don't know why they are still delaying it.Though not exactly Sumerian.

Genetics testing of Queen Puabi, being Akkadian and not Sumerian, wouldn't help answer the question of the genetics of Sumerians. And being Akkadian and therefore native to Mesopotamia would, in the least, fall under haplogroup J, probably J2.

cormac

[cormac mac airt]

Harsh86_Patel, on 13 October 2012 - 08:01 AM, said:

Indus valley civilization is attributed to an older date and is thought of to be very vibrant and relatively advanced,so contact might have been possible in antiquity.And boundaries of IVC culture /Vedic culture may not have been geographical.

The greeks themselves talked of Heracles going down to the East probably India in antiquity and Aristotle talks of the Jews coming from India along with established trading routes between mesopotamia and India so i guess there is enough circumstantial evidence that people in the Mediterranian may have known about India since a long time.But i haven't researched much into this idea.

Alexander knew of India before he set out to conquer it i guess.And from the way his compaign progressed it seems that he was heading for India.
Though you make it clear that most Historians would disagree i find the idea interesting.How can we say that people in the mediterranean didn't know of India at that point of time?,There is an intersting theory of the Seuz canal not being silted as a potential entry of Indian traders into the mediterranean.

This circumstantial evidence would be highly suspect to say the least, considering that many of the tales of Hercules and his descendants would place him (if he really existed) somewhere around the 12th century BC. There was no Indus Valley Civilization at that point in time and the IVC sites were predominantly located in Pakistan, not India.  Also, genetics studies of the Jews firmly place them within Y Chromosome haplogroup J, split between J1 and J2, which does not originate in India. Mitochondrial studies show a similar Middle Eastern origin. So Aristotle's claim is incorrect.

cormac