The Origin of the Sumerians

[Grim Reaper 6]

4 hours ago, rashore said:

All righty folks, putting in a friendly reminder to not discuss each other or egos, and just discuss the topic. 

Sorry about that, I was out of line.

[seasmith]

Manwon Lender wrote:

Origin of Sumerians...haplogroup R1b "Arbins" ...

 

≈≈≈

 

Genetic profiling is certainly a burgeoning branch of study, and for determining "origins", it's a bit like using
helio-seismology (yes there is such an art) to determine the origin of the sun.

R1b is a Huge group, and because Ubaidian villagers or Anau herders carried a lot it doesn't mean they gave birth to the Sumerian Renaissance.  It only indicates those cultures were around when Sumerian civilization flowered, 
and then disappeared like so many other cultures have over time.

 

 

≈≈≈

 

 

" " The oldest forms of R1b (M343, P25, L389) are found dispersed at very low frequencies from Western Europe to India, a vastregion where could have roamed the nomadic R1b hunter-gatherers during the Ice Age. The three main branches of R1b1 (R1b1a,R1b1b, R1b1c) all seem to have stemmed from the Middle East. The southern branch, R1b1c (V88), is found mostly in the Levantand Africa. The northern branch, R1b1a (P297), seems to have originated around the Caucasus, eastern Anatolia or northernMesopotamia, then to have crossed over the Caucasus, from where they would have invaded Europe and Central Asia. R1b1b(M335) has only been found in Anatolia. ""

 

 

 

https://www.academia.edu/5965973/Origins_and_history_of_Haplogroup_R1b_Y_DNA_

 

 

 

Who knows what is Under the mud at the bottom of Persian-Arabian Gulf ?  I dove there a lot, and the sediment is Deep .

Edited April 26, 2021 by seasmith
url

[seasmith]

From the OP article:

 

""  

Specifically, why did the Sumerians adopt the lapis lazuli stone as sacred and associate it with their original shamanistic beliefs regarding the celestial objects of the sky gods (the sun, the moon and venus) of central Asia’s original nomads, “the wanderers of steps” who established agriculture and domes- ticated animals. There is no question that the godly celestial objects they believed in for thousands of years came to be associated with lapis lazuli rather than lapis lazuli coming to represent the celestial objects. In other words, “the people must see with their own eyes the miracle” that their sacred celestial objects are “rising from” the top of the mountains where the lapis lazuli mines were located. (The blue metamorphic stone looks like the sky with yellow pyrite and white marble lines representing clouds). ""

 

No question ??

 

 

 

https://www.scirp.org/pdf/AA20120400005_99344435.pdf

[Harte]

11 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

@Kenemet @cormac mac airt @Sir Wearer of Hats @Earl.Of.Trumps@Abramelin @Hanslune @Tatetopa@docyabut2 @ted hughes

Thank you very much for your help, by reposting those links I really appreciate, however, they dont open up into full articles. So here are the original links I posted, I dont know why they stopped working the first time.

µ-XRF Analysis of Trace Elements in Lapis Lazuli-Forming Minerals for a Provenance Study

CUP_MAM_1500015 526..533 (d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net)

APPROPRIATING INNOVATIONS ENTANGLED KNOWLEDGE IN EURASIA, 5000–1500 BCE

Chapter 18. Gonur Depe (Turkmenistan) and its Role in the Middle Asian Interaction Sphere Federica Lume Pereira 

Appropriating Innovations.indb (d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net)

 

I bet you have as much to offer as I do, I am also here to learn. I believe the topic will be constructive and that the arguing can be prevented, it really all about Ego, and someone just dont have great people skills. So if worst come to worst they can be ignored, but hopefully that isn't necessary. So please jump right in with both feet, and we can both then together my Friend.

 

Once again, your links don't work.

However, the first link I provided in my post concerning these two papers DOES work, and DOES provide the full paper in pdf. But you have to join Academia.com to open it.

It's free.

My second link actually works as well, but as your link shows, that paper is not freely available - only the abstract, as I stated.

Harte

[Grim Reaper 6]

2 hours ago, Harte said:

Once again, your links don't work.

However, the first link I provided in my post concerning these two papers DOES work, and DOES provide the full paper in pdf. But you have to join Academia.com to open it.

It's free.

My second link actually works as well, but as your link shows, that paper is not freely available - only the abstract, as I stated.

Harte

Thanks very much for the information, but my links work just fine for me. I really dont understand what is going on with the links. I suspect it make be your location, because they work here. Here in another suggestion, my information came from Google Scholar you may be able to take the titles I posted above the links and go to Google Scholar and open them up. After this PM I am going to go to Academic.com and sign up, that sounds like some real good advise and appreciate you sharing it with me very much. Also if have any other Academic sites that you would like to recommend I would appreciate it, having to pay a fee to use them is absolutely fine.

Your are mostly aware of Google Scholar, anyway here is a link to that page: Google Scholar

Have a great day my friend.

[Grim Reaper 6]

7 hours ago, Kenemet said:

....which was exactly what I was discussing.

Yes, and the comments about linguistic isolates was exactly about that issue.

Again, this is what the linguistics isolate and the suggestion that better clues are from art and specifically might trace a migration history addresses.  That's why I took that approach. Genetics would only give a broad picture of movements, but art styles and use of material could refine that more.

The "under the sea" bit was less plausible because that area filled in slowly... so people would have simply moved their settlements away from the rising waters.  While some older villages might be down there, the oldest sequence would be from those moving into the area from Africa and then the ones back along the shorelines (as they moved up from flooding valleys.

In other words, Bob and his family arrive from Africa.  Bob's son Bobby moves into the big river valley.  Bob's grandson Bobby-Bob finds that the land Bobby owns is getting flooded and Bobby-Bob takes his family north away from there.  In the end, we've got Bob living on one side of the rift, Bobby's abandoned farm underwater, and Bobby-Bob and his family living on the other side of the water.

So the origins of the Sumerians isn't "under the water" but it is from Africa.

Now, it might be that in the "under the water area" that there's a huge trading center and that's where the main markers of the culture developed.  However, that doesn't explain the odd and unrelated language (not talking about cuneiform, here, but the actual language.)

 

 

Sorry about the confusion linguistics, my comments about Sumerian language situation, I some how thought you were speaking and the written language Cuneiform. I do understand what you were referring to concern linguist language isolates, and I certainly do agree with you on the subject that combining art, and linguistics combined with DNA analysis would give a much more complete over all picture.

Thanks for your participation in this thread.

[Thanos5150]

On 4/25/2021 at 9:12 AM, Thanos5150 said:

This is not "peer review". It is an open access "journal" which the author has to pay to be published with the goal being to trick gullible people into thinking they are legitimate. A tip off might have been the credential listed under his name is "retired physician". Not exactly the first thing one looks for in a historian/Assyriologist. Another is the fact it is very poorly written on several levels and reads more like a high school term paper.  

Your other 2 links are dead.

And a "diplomate ABEM" is just a voluntary certification one pays for if they qualify and pass tests. I assume Dr Gündüz is fine fine person and doctor and in the grand scheme of things it does not matter if this is peer reviewed or what this person's qualifications are as the paper rests and falls on its own merits, but let's be honest at least and not make this out to be more than it is the least of which "Peer Reviewed". 

Regarding his paper, the DNA stuff he cites comes from here: Ancient History of the Arbins, Bearers of Haplogroup R1b, from Central Asia to Europe, 16,000 to 1500 Years before Present. Also a pay to publish paper from SRP. Regardless, Gunduz's takeaway from this is "Sumerians obviously belonged to R1b haplogroup.", a reasonable assumption given all Eurasians/Near Easterners have at least some lineage leading back to R1b, with the purpose being to place the origins of the Sumerians somewhere within the R1b geographical sphere which we later learn is to connect these people to the area where Lapis Lazuli comes from, a specific variety no less, which is only found in modern day Turkmenistan. A little confusing as to why he puts Turkmenistan as this homeland as he says:

Quote

In other words if one argues that the lapis lazuli of Sumerians originated somewhere other than the Sar-e-Sangh mines of the Hindu Kush Mountains east of Turkmenistan, where Gonur Tepe and other Neolithic and Bronze age settlements were located, it can easily be proved that the famous UR standard of the Sumerians found at the British Museum’s LAPIS LAZULI collection is actually mined from the Hindu Kush Mountains at the Sar-e-Sang lapis mines in Badakhshan, Afghanistan, but nowhere else, (Moorey, 1999).

So on the one hand he says the source of Sumerian lapis lazuli is the Sar-e-Sangh mines of the Hindu Kush Mountains east of Turkmenistan yet on the other notes the Lapis Lazuli found in the Standard of UR [c. 2600 BC] comes from the mines in Afghanistan. Reading on I do not see any reason the "homeland" should be one location or the other which he concludes nonetheless:

Quote

This conclusion is obvious; because the location of the lapis mines is unique the “people should be unique” as well, and only the people who created and believed the mythology associated with lapis lazuli would live generations to the west of the lapis lazuli mines. (They should see the lapis mines at the eastern side!) So the sacred celestial objects will rise from their palaces in the east. Therefore the original homeland of the Sumerians was Gönür Tepe, Anau and similar Neolithic and Bronze Age settlements in Turkmenistan before they migrated to Mesopotamia due to its better climate and standard of living.

The last few paragraphs he gives his "fourth piece of evidence" saying the "The cultural similarities between the Sumerians and the so-called Margiana people of Turkmenistan, is striking". He must mean the BMAC (Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex)/Oxus Civilization as the Margiana proper did not appear until the 1st millennium BC, but regardless the BMAC  are dated to c. 2400-1900BC. This would be some 1400 years after the Sumerians supposedly came to Mesopotamia and at a time when Sumerian trade with the region had been going on for at least several centuries so unfortunately the "similarities" between the two do not originate with the "Margiana people" but rather the other way around. And the fact is nearly all cultures of the region during this period eventually adopted some/many things Sumerian so such "similarities" in one form or another are not uncommon. 

To follow Gunduz's logic path we have the belief Sumerians belong to R1b. R1b is found in the Turkmenistan region [implied]. The Sumerians really liked lapis lazuli. Lapis lazuli is mined in Turkmenistan which there are some BMAC bronze age sites sites like Gonur Tepe, though tragically ignored is the fact these sites date to the mid 3rd millennium at best well after the arrival and establishment of Sumerian civilization. Not exactly clear, but he chooses Turkmenistan over Afghanistan and voila-there you have the "homeland of the Sumerians". 

There are cultures that predate the BMAC in Turkmenistan and also the Sumerian arrival in Mesopotamia, like for example the Jeitun culture c 7000-4500BC. They were followed by the Anau culture c.4000 BC, which Gorduz does reference, though given they are contemporary with the arrival of the Sumerians in Mesopotamia it is hard to reconcile the latter originating from the former when the similarities, Sumerian not the other way around, only become evident long after this supposedly occurred.

Regarding lapis lazuli, the rub is that trade in Mesopotamia began before the arrival of the Sumerians dating to the Late Ubaid Period and is first found in northern Mesopotamia. It is followed sometime after by its appearance in the south at Uruk (Warka) in the later Jemdet Nasr Period. It would appear that the trade of lapis lazuli, though relatively limited, was controlled in the north and later taken over by the south which became increasingly more robust. To play along and accept the premise this is where the Sumerians came from it may have been this very trade with the Ubaid that brought them to Mesopotamia in the first place. It should be noted, however, that while lapis lazuli was certainly a commodity in moderation to at times rarity, it should be no surprise that it did not reach its height until the mid 3rd millennium, Early Dynastic III, namely in Ur, around the same time the BMAC become prominent which further suggests it was this later trade that helped establish the BMAC culture and not the other way around. 

This dovetails to the writings and myth cited by Gorduz, like the Epic of Gilgamesh, which were written centuries after EDIII and the lapis lazuli trade had reached its peak. The point being that whatever mythical significance later Sumerians of the mid 3rd millennium may have given lapis lazuli there is no evidence this was the case in the 4th millennium. Also of note is lapis lazuli was prized by several cultures, like the Mehrgarh of Pakistan, which Jeitun mentioned above shares some interesting similarities, not to mention Egypt first dating to the Naqada II period and later found again in the 1st and 2nd Dynasties. 

Moral is, this paper is poor with the connections ranging from superficial at best to incorrect. With that being said, Neolithic Central Asia is very fascinating and may well have many interesting discoveries yet in store. I am not saying no this could not be the "homeland" of the Sumerians (not to be confused with the Ubaid), though personally I do not think so, but this paper does not make the case in any meaningful way. . 

[Grim Reaper 6]

49 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

And a "diplomate ABEM" is just a voluntary certification one pays for if they qualify and pass tests. I assume Dr Gündüz is fine fine person and doctor and in the grand scheme of things it does not matter if this is peer reviewed or what this person's qualifications are as the paper rests and falls on its own merits, but let's be honest at least and not make this out to be more than it is the least of which "Peer Reviewed". 

Regarding his paper, the DNA stuff he cites comes from here: Ancient History of the Arbins, Bearers of Haplogroup R1b, from Central Asia to Europe, 16,000 to 1500 Years before Present. Also a pay to publish paper from SRP. Regardless, Gunduz's takeaway from this is "Sumerians obviously belonged to R1b haplogroup.", a reasonable assumption given all Eurasians/Near Easterners have at least some lineage leading back to R1b, with the purpose being to place the origins of the Sumerians somewhere within the R1b geographical sphere which we later learn is to connect these people to the area where Lapis Lazuli comes from, a specific variety no less, which is only found in modern day Turkmenistan. A little confusing as to why he puts Turkmenistan as this homeland as he says:

So on the one hand he says the source of Sumerian lapis lazuli is the Sar-e-Sangh mines of the Hindu Kush Mountains east of Turkmenistan yet on the other notes the Lapis Lazuli found in the Standard of UR [c. 2600 BC] comes from the mines in Afghanistan. Reading on I do not see any reason the "homeland" should be one location or the other which he concludes nonetheless:

The last few paragraphs he gives his "fourth piece of evidence" saying the "The cultural similarities between the Sumerians and the so-called Margiana people of Turkmenistan, is striking". He must mean the BMAC (Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex)/Oxus Civilization as the Margiana proper did not appear until the 1st millennium BC, but regardless the BMAC  are dated to c. 2400-1900BC. This would be some 1400 years after the Sumerians supposedly came to Mesopotamia and at a time when Sumerian trade with the region had been going on for at least several centuries so unfortunately the "similarities" between the two do not originate with the "Margiana people" but rather the other way around. And the fact is nearly all cultures of the region during this period eventually adopted some/many things Sumerian so such "similarities" in one form or another are not uncommon. 

To follow Gunduz's logic path we have the belief Sumerians belong to R1b. R1b is found in the Turkmenistan region [implied]. The Sumerians really liked lapis lazuli. Lapis lazuli is mined in Turkmenistan which there are some BMAC bronze age sites sites like Gonur Tepe, though tragically ignored is the fact these sites date to the mid 3rd millennium at best well after the arrival and establishment of Sumerian civilization. Not exactly clear, but he chooses Turkmenistan over Afghanistan and voila-there you have the "homeland of the Sumerians". 

There are cultures that predate the BMAC in Turkmenistan and also the Sumerian arrival in Mesopotamia, like for example the Jeitun culture c 7000-4500BC. They were followed by the Anau culture c.4000 BC, which Gorduz does reference, though given they are contemporary with the arrival of the Sumerians in Mesopotamia it is hard to reconcile the latter originating from the former when the similarities, Sumerian not the other way around, only become evident long after this supposedly occurred.

Regarding lapis lazuli, the rub is that trade in Mesopotamia began before the arrival of the Sumerians dating to the Late Ubaid Period and is first found in northern Mesopotamia. It is followed sometime after by its appearance in the south at Uruk (Warka) in the later Jemdet Nasr Period. It would appear that the trade of lapis lazuli, though relatively limited, was controlled in the north and later taken over by the south which became increasingly more robust. To play along and accept the premise this is where the Sumerians came from it may have been this very trade with the Ubaid that brought them to Mesopotamia in the first place. It should be noted, however, that while lapis lazuli was certainly a commodity in moderation to at times rarity, it should be no surprise that it did not reach its height until the mid 3rd millennium, Early Dynastic III, namely in Ur, around the same time the BMAC become prominent which further suggests it was this later trade that helped establish the BMAC culture and not the other way around. 

This dovetails to the writings and myth cited by Gorduz, like the Epic of Gilgamesh, which were written centuries after EDIII and the lapis lazuli trade had reached its peak. The point being that whatever mythical significance later Sumerians of the mid 3rd millennium may have given lapis lazuli there is no evidence this was the case in the 4th millennium. Also of note is lapis lazuli was prized by several cultures, like the Mehrgarh of Pakistan, which Jeitun mentioned above shares some interesting similarities, not to mention Egypt first dating to the Naqada II period and later found again in the 1st and 2nd Dynasties. 

Moral is, this paper is poor with the connections ranging from superficial at best to incorrect. With that being said, Neolithic Central Asia is very fascinating and may well have many interesting discoveries yet in store. I am not saying no this could not be the "homeland" of the Sumerians (not to be confused with the Ubaid), though personally I do not think so, but this paper does not make the case in any meaningful way. . 

Thanks for the great break and review of the paper, I appreciate the time it took you to do so. 

Have a great day

Edited April 27, 2021 by Manwon Lender

[Abramelin]

7 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

I think it more likely someone was trying to force-fit an otherwise unevidenced impactor into their narrative. 
 

cormac

That's what I also thought, but I could not find anything that indicated that the writers knew of the OLB. But I will keep searching.

[Abramelin]

13 hours ago, Abramelin said:

That's what I also thought, but I could not find anything that indicated that the writers knew of the OLB. But I will keep searching.

The only things the writers have in common is that they are (very probably) both Germans, and this project.

But now google "2193 bc" together with "impact". You'll be amazed how many times that combination shows up.

If the OLB is the cause of this (including the monster thread about it on this site), then they should have known that the actual date should have been 2194 bc.

[Harte]

21 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Thanks very much for the information, but my links work just fine for me. I really dont understand what is going on with the links. I suspect it make be your location, because they work here. Here in another suggestion, my information came from Google Scholar you may be able to take the titles I posted above the links and go to Google Scholar and open them up. After this PM I am going to go to Academic.com and sign up, that sounds like some real good advise and appreciate you sharing it with me very much. Also if have any other Academic sites that you would like to recommend I would appreciate it, having to pay a fee to use them is absolutely fine.

Your are mostly aware of Google Scholar, anyway here is a link to that page: Google Scholar

Have a great day my friend.

Well, watch out.

Academia.com isn't technically academic. You can find a whole bunch of total BS in their collection. Lots of well-known fringe authors there.

And there's no platform to argue against them. Just note the author. Maybe look him up.

Don't get me wrong, Plenty of academic papers there as well.

Harte

[Grim Reaper 6]

19 minutes ago, Harte said:

Well, watch out.

Academia.com isn't technically academic. You can find a whole bunch of total BS in their collection. Lots of well-known fringe authors there.

And there's no platform to argue against them. Just note the author. Maybe look him up.

Don't get me wrong, Plenty of academic papers there as well.

Harte

Like I previously said, I am grateful for another site to use as reference material, and I will follow your advise and research the authors credentials. If you have any other sites you could recommend I would appreciate it, money isn't anything I am concerned with if is a good site I dont at all paying to use at all.

Thanks again for the help and any future recommendations you may be able to make. 

[Grim Reaper 6]

On 4/27/2021 at 1:59 AM, Kenemet said:

....which was exactly what I was discussing.

Yes, and the comments about linguistic isolates was exactly about that issue.

Again, this is what the linguistics isolate and the suggestion that better clues are from art and specifically might trace a migration history addresses.  That's why I took that approach. Genetics would only give a broad picture of movements, but art styles and use of material could refine that more.

The "under the sea" bit was less plausible because that area filled in slowly... so people would have simply moved their settlements away from the rising waters.  While some older villages might be down there, the oldest sequence would be from those moving into the area from Africa and then the ones back along the shorelines (as they moved up from flooding valleys.

In other words, Bob and his family arrive from Africa.  Bob's son Bobby moves into the big river valley.  Bob's grandson Bobby-Bob finds that the land Bobby owns is getting flooded and Bobby-Bob takes his family north away from there.  In the end, we've got Bob living on one side of the rift, Bobby's abandoned farm underwater, and Bobby-Bob and his family living on the other side of the water.

So the origins of the Sumerians isn't "under the water" but it is from Africa.

Now, it might be that in the "under the water area" that there's a huge trading center and that's where the main markers of the culture developed.  However, that doesn't explain the odd and unrelated language (not talking about cuneiform, here, but the actual language.)

 

 

Good Morning Kenemet, I think I have found a few papers that may help with the subject of  linguistic isolates concerning the Sumerian language. Before doing a little research I did not realize how little is known about the Sumerian spoken language or that it is also considered a linguistic isolate. I completely understand now the importance of exploring this further, and how this exploration may help identify the Proto-Sumerian land of origin. Below I am going to link a paper to this post, that may be helpful in the above area, please take a look at it and tell me what you think.

@Thanos5150 I again apologize for my actions and comments in the past, I hope this can be put behind us from this point forward I will keep my Ego in check. I wish you would offer you thoughts on this subject, I think you have a lot that you could offer. Kenemet outlined the importance of not only using DNA studies to trace the Sumerian lineage, but that language, art, and other cultural characteristics of these people may contribute much more to tracing this their lineage. Below I offer few papers that may add some interesting to this topic. I would like you to look at them if you have time and give you honest opinion, concerning there value to this discussion.

@Harte I dont know if you have any interest in this subject, but I have a feeling that you can certainly add something very important to it if you choose to do so. So, if you have time I am asking you to please participate in this discussion, I have read many of your posts and I like your unique ( in my opinion ) way of looking at things so I hope you will consider doing so.

  @Abramelin Here are few new papers that are discussing linguistic isolates that may offer a partial answer to the Sumerian language which is also a linguistic isolate itself and where it may have come from. When you have time please read them and give me your thoughts concerning them.

@seasmith Thanks for the information you have supplied, I would be grateful if you would considered continuing to participate in this thread. I think your help could make this a much better conversation, and thanks for your comments above. Below I offer some papers concerning the possible origin of the Sumerian Language, if you have time you may choose to read them.

@cormac mac airt Here is are some papers that identify the linguistic isolates that may help identify the roots of the  Sumerian Language, please tell me what you think.

Sumerian and its Tamil Connection - A Review: Sumerian_and_its_Tamil_Connection_A_Revi.pdf

Whether Sumerian language is related to Munda? : Whether_Sumerian_language_is_related_to.pdf

Clausal Syntax in the Sumerian Language: Clausal_Syntax_in_the_Sumerian_Language.pdf

Thank you all very much for your participation in this thread

 

[cormac mac airt]

24 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Good Morning Kenemet, I think I have found a few papers that may help with the subject of  linguistic isolates concerning the Sumerian language. Before doing a little research I did not realize how little is known about the Sumerian spoken language or that it is also considered a linguistic isolate. I completely understand now the importance of exploring this further, and how this exploration may help identify the Proto-Sumerian land of origin. Below I am going to link a paper to this post, that may be helpful in the above area, please take a look at it and tell me what you think.

@Thanos5150 I again apologize for my actions and comments in the past, I hope this can be put behind us from this point forward I will keep my Ego in check. I wish you would offer you thoughts on this subject, I think you have a lot that you could offer. Kenemet outlined the importance of not only using DNA studies to trace the Sumerian lineage, but that language, art, and other cultural characteristics of these people may contribute much more to tracing this their lineage. Below I offer few papers that may add some interesting to this topic. I would like you to look at them if you have time and give you honest opinion, concerning there value to this discussion.

@Harte I dont know if you have any interest in this subject, but I have a feeling that you can certainly add something very important to it if you choose to do so. So, if you have time I am asking you to please participate in this discussion, I have read many of your posts and I like your unique ( in my opinion ) way of looking at things so I hope you will consider doing so.

  @Abramelin Here are few new papers that are discussing linguistic isolates that may offer a partial answer to the Sumerian language which is also a linguistic isolate itself and where it may have come from. When you have time please read them and give me your thoughts concerning them.

@seasmith Thanks for the information you have supplied, I would be grateful if you would considered continuing to participate in this thread. I think your help could make this a much better conversation, and thanks for your comments above. Below I offer some papers concerning the possible origin of the Sumerian Language, if you have time you may choose to read them.

@cormac mac airt Here is are some papers that identify the linguistic isolates that may help identify the roots of the  Sumerian Language, please tell me what you think.

Sumerian and its Tamil Connection - A Review: Sumerian_and_its_Tamil_Connection_A_Revi.pdf

Whether Sumerian language is related to Munda? : Whether_Sumerian_language_is_related_to.pdf

Clausal Syntax in the Sumerian Language: Clausal_Syntax_in_the_Sumerian_Language.pdf

Thank you all very much for your participation in this thread

 

Besides the fact that your links are not working for me if, as is traditionally believed, Marsh Arabs are descended from Sumerians there is no way Sumerians are related to Tamil or Munda. There is also a theory that Sumerians originated from the Samarra Culture which is also NOT Tamil or Munda. 
 

cormac

[Harte]

I only know what everyone else that's interested knows. This "mystery," though not what I'd call an extreme mystery, has yet to be solved.

I mean, obviously they came from somewhere. I'm not that interested in from where.

To me, the historic era is far too boring to hold my interest. I specialize in fringe claims, not history.

I prefer to learn about earlier humans.

Harte

[Harte]

2 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Like I previously said, I am grateful for another site to use as reference material, and I will follow your advise and research the authors credentials. If you have any other sites you could recommend I would appreciate it, money isn't anything I am concerned with if is a good site I dont at all paying to use at all.

Thanks again for the help and any future recommendations you may be able to make. 

I won't use a site I have to pay for. I'm not a professional (in this field, anyway.)

I like Jason Colavito's blog. I read a lot (sometimes) at sacred-texts.com.

If you like Sumer, the ETCSL has a fairly extensive catalogue of translated Sumerian Literature https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/edition2/etcslbycat.php

Academia.com has several of Protzen's papers concerning Inca architecture and construction.

Harte

[Grim Reaper 6]

5 minutes ago, Harte said:

I won't use a site I have to pay for. I'm not a professional (in this field, anyway.)

I like Jason Colavito's blog. I read a lot (sometimes) at sacred-texts.com.

If you like Sumer, the ETCSL has a fairly extensive catalogue of translated Sumerian Literature https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/edition2/etcslbycat.php

Academia.com has several of Protzen's papers concerning Inca architecture and construction.

Harte

Thanks very much for the additional information, but for me I just don't mind paying for a good product. I will also examine the other leads you have provided above, and again I appreciate all you are doing for me very much.

Take Care 

[Grim Reaper 6]

2 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Besides the fact that your links are not working for me if, as is traditionally believed, Marsh Arabs are descended from Sumerians there is no way Sumerians are related to Tamil or Munda. There is also a theory that Sumerians originated from the Samarra Culture which is also NOT Tamil or Munda. 
 

cormac

I am not saying that they are directly related to the Tamil or the Munda only that the Linguistic language Isolate that the Sumerians used as their language could be related to their languages. Also thanks for letting me know about the links, some of the new academic sites I am using have a different method for sharing links to papers. 

Sumerian-Ural-Altaic Affinities : sumerianuralaltaicresponse.pdf (azargoshnasp.net)

Whether Sumerian language is related to Munda? : Akulov_Sumerian_Munda.pdf (d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net)

Clausal Syntax in the Sumerian Language : thesis.pdf (d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net)

Yet Another Suggestion about the Origins of the Sumerian Language : Microsoft Word - pp.30-44.4107 (d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net)

ON THE ALLEGED "PRE-SUMERIAN SUBSTRATUM : On the Alleged "Pre-Sumerian Substratum" (d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net)

The State of Decipherment of Proto-Elamite : TEXT20010821_MPIFW HOME (mpg.de)

 Sorry I dont know what is happening today, but my links do not want to support me, Above I have downloaded links hopefully they will work this time.

@Kenemet  @Thanos5150    @Abramelin @seasmith 

Edited April 28, 2021 by Manwon Lender

[cormac mac airt]

2 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

I am not saying that they are directly related to the Tamil or the Munda only that the Linguistic language Isolate that the Sumerians used as their language could be related to their languages. Also thanks for letting me know about the links, some of the new academic sites I am using have a different method for sharing links to papers. 

Sumerian-Ural-Altaic Affinities : sumerianuralaltaicresponse.pdf (azargoshnasp.net)

Whether Sumerian language is related to Munda? : Akulov_Sumerian_Munda.pdf (d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net)

Clausal Syntax in the Sumerian Language : thesis.pdf (d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net)

Yet Another Suggestion about the Origins of the Sumerian Language : Microsoft Word - pp.30-44.4107 (d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net)

ON THE ALLEGED "PRE-SUMERIAN SUBSTRATUM : On the Alleged "Pre-Sumerian Substratum" (d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net)

 Sorry I dont know what is happening today, but my links do not want to support me, Above I have downloaded links hopefully they will work this time.

@Kenemet  @Thanos5150    @Abramelin @seasmith 

I know you’re just trying to present information but as often as not you’ll find yourself coming across Indian Nationalist type websites which try to push their “Indians did it first/Indians are the origin of everything” agenda which you’ve just run across. Information wise it’s a case of garbage in/garbage out on their part. 
 

cormac

[Grim Reaper 6]

18 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

I know you’re just trying to present information but as often as not you’ll find yourself coming across Indian Nationalist type websites which try to push their “Indians did it first/Indians are the origin of everything” agenda which you’ve just run across. Information wise it’s a case of garbage in/garbage out on their part. 
 

cormac

Thanks for your advise, however, is all the information worthless and have nothing to offer. Like you said, I don't not know as much as you on the subject. The difficult part is separating the BS from what may be useful. None of the information came from Indian websites, it was all assembled from Acedemia.com and from Google Scholar. But, I suppose I am lucky in one respect, that I have people like you to help me separate what's good and bad. 

So are any of the papers I linked to useful?

[cormac mac airt]

22 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Thanks for your advise, however, is all the information worthless and have nothing to offer. Like you said, I don't not know as much as you on the subject. The difficult part is separating the BS from what may be useful. None of the information came from Indian websites, it was all assembled from Acedemia.com and from Google Scholar. But, I suppose I am lucky in one respect, that I have people like you to help me separate what's good and bad. 

So are any of the papers I linked to useful?

IIRC Harte just warned you that even Academia.com isn’t immune from its share of BS. One can look up any paper there and the authors and discover for themselves whether or not the information is useful. The papers on a Tamil or Munda origin/relationship PURPOSELY take Sumerian civilization out of geographic context using, at best, superficial similarities in language to further a local, East Indian, agenda. You can toss any such claims and their papers, based on similarities whether real or imagined away. 
 

cormac

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, cormac mac airt said:

IIRC Harte just warned you that even Academia.com isn’t immune from its share of BS.

Hi Cozrmac

That is true but what I do appreciate is the notifications of related material and have found several credible researchers there that I do follow up on the progressive research that they publish.

jmccr8

[Grim Reaper 6]

49 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Cozrmac

That is true but what I do appreciate is the notifications of related material and have found several credible researchers there that I do follow up on the progressive research that they publish.

jmccr8

Yes and I agree with you, however, like Harte said it is very important that if you are not familiar with an authors work that you check their credentials. Because what Mac makes sense, and by checking their credentials it makes it much easier to separate fact from fictional works. But, even with that said it still isn't 100% fool proof, that is where an unbiased working knowledge of the subject comes in handy.

Peace

[jmccr8]

10 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Yes and I agree with you, however, like Harte said it is very important that if you are not familiar with an authors work that you check their credentials. Because what Mac makes sense, and by checking their credentials it makes it much easier to separate fact from fictional works. But, even with that said it still isn't 100% fool proof, that is where an unbiased working knowledge of the subject comes in handy.

Peace

Hi Manwon

Yes I did agree and some of the authors papers published at Acadamia I first found at places like Jstor or other sources that were credible and am not easily led astray by controversial claims but do enjoy well founded rebuttals that demonstrate the weakness/flaws of a paper so do not really see it as a waste to spend the time to see both sides of a subject.

jmccr8

[Grim Reaper 6]

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Manwon

Yes I did agree and some of the authors papers published at Acadamia I first found at places like Jstor or other sources that were credible and am not easily led astray by controversial claims but do enjoy well founded rebuttals that demonstrate the weakness/flaws of a paper so do not really see it as a waste to spend the time to see both sides of a subject.

jmccr8

I agree with you completely but if you do not have a good working knowledge of a subject, like I dont here its difficult to separate what is good from bad. So the easiest thing for me to do is post what I think is good and let other agree of break it down.

Thanks take care