quote:I would be interested in seeing the script. There is a relation between the Indians and Puntitess which results from the early rule of Indians by the Naga, who originated in Puntland.
Originally posted by Arwa:
^^ in fact, Somali ancient script looked like the Indian script. I think I posted here before.
code:This comparison of Ge'ez and Devanagari suggest a stronger influence of Ge'ez on Devanagari than Brahmi.Deavanagari …………..Ge'ez
Ka………………………k'a, k'e
Þa…………………….ta
Þha……………….ta
Ya…………………ye
^Jha ……………he
Ha………………he
Va………………wa
Ra……………..rä
Dha………….da
Ba…………….be
Ra…………….rä
Da………………dä
Œa…………..ze
Sa…………..zu
Vowels
u………….u
e…………ä
u………..a
It is clear fron this comparison of Devanagari and Ge'ez we see the following consonantal patterns:
K/k
Þ/t
D/d
S/z
Œ/z
Vowel pattern
A/ä
U/ u
U/a
A/e
quote:I have Kramer's book. While he does use a reference to Meluhha as a place of "black men" to back up his assertion that Meluhha was Ethiopia, he doesn't attribute the reference specifically to the Akkadians. He simply says that it comes from the post-Sumerian period, which is a broad range of time that doesn't only include Akkadian rule. Besides, more likely than not, the Akkadians were black themselves, so why would they point out the blackness of Meluhha's inhabitants?
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The Akkadians, according to Kramer said that Meluhha was “the place of black men” (see p.277).
quote:Maybe it is. Kramer's book dates back to the 1960s, so it's probably outdated.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Wasn't Meluhha southern Arabia? This is suggested by all the sources I've read and mentioned most recently here by Dana.
quote:Although the consensus is that Meluhha was an eastern country the evidence points to the fact that prior to 1500 BC Meluhha = Kush , just as it designated this empire after 1500.
Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Maybe it is. Kramer's book dates back to the 1960s, so it's probably outdated.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Wasn't Meluhha southern Arabia? This is suggested by all the sources I've read and mentioned most recently here by Dana.
This source suggests that Meluhha may have been India.
quote:
Subject: Desperately Seeking Dilmun (sans Magan and Meluhha)
I posted this response to the Athena list by mistake and am forwarding
it to ANE.
My earlier post to this thread was prompted by Tony Sagrillo's response
to Clyde Winters, which implied that no intelligent person could review
the archaeological evidence concerning the location of Dilmun and
not agree with Mr. Sagrillo:
<Apparently you have missed out on the bulk of the literature for
_at least_ the past 25 yrs regarding Arabian Gulf archaeology.
Secondly, as for the ID of Dilmun=Bahrayn/NE Saudi not
fitting the archaelogical data, you are _seriously_ mistaken. . >
etc.
I am pleased that Sagrillo has provided us with specific citations in
his followup so that we can concentrate on the evidence.
I would not go as far as to maintain that it is established beyond all
doubt that Magan is Oman and Meluhha the Indus Valley, but I agree with
Sagrillo that the archaeological and literary evidence tends to support
these identifications, at least in the early periods.
My comments focus on Dilmun. Note that I did not side with Winters in
identifying Dilmun as the Indus Valley (nor do I agree with his
theories on Sumerian origins!). My comments were limited to
demonstrating that Sagrillo's castigation was excessive because the
"bulk of the archaeological literature for at least 25 yrs" does not
establish that Dilmun MUST be Bahrain/NE Saudi.
I have rearranged Sagrillo's nine points in chronological order:
1. the Dilmun sign appears in archaic lists [3200 BC]
2. archaeological evidence of fourth and third m.
3. a Kassite period inscription found on a foundation stone on
Bahrain (~1400-1200)
4. a reference in a text from the court of Sargon II (Neo-Assyrian
king, 721-705)
5. interpretation of a reference to 30 berus from source #2.
6. a second Sargon II reference
7. an inscription by Assurbanipal (NeoAssyrian king, 668-627)
8. linguistic analysis of Greek and Syriac names of Bahrain
9. dates grow in NE Saudi
Seven of Sagrillo's citations refer to literary evidence. Of course
the literary evidence must be considered, and Sagrillo is quite right
that some of the texts suggest an island location in the gulf.
But literary evidence is not archaeological evidence. Sagrillo
attacked Winters for stating that "your identification of Dilmun with
the Arabian gulf does not fit the archaeological data," and my previous
post cited specific archaeological findings. Sagrillo responded by
listing _literary_ evidence and vaguely asserting that Kitchen
maintains that archaaeological evidence has been found on Bahrain and
Saudi:
“Archaeological evidence from 3rd/2nd mill. shows links between
Saudi and Bahrayn. Before 3rd mill., no evidence of major
civilization on Bahrayn, but lots in Saudi going back to 4th mill.
(with connections to Mesop.) Implication is that Dilmun was
originally located on the Saudi mainland and latter applied to
Bahrayn as well.”
Let's look at this statement more closely. What specifically is the
archaeological evidence that "a major civilization" _ever_ extended to
the small, mostly barren island of Bahrain? I am not aware of anything
found on Bahrain before the 2nd m. other than a few dozen stone
cottages. And assigning a 2100 BC date to these is stretching the
evidence because artifacts found in association with these huts are
more indicative of a later date (see my previous post for citations).
Later in the 2nd m. there are modest provincial settlements, evidence
of copper mining, burials with no trace of luxury goods, a few isolated
imports, weights conforming to the Harappan standard, a temple
sequence.
The material culture of Bahrain displays affinities with the mainland
coastal areas of Oman and Saudi. The archaeological record shows that
the Arabian Gulf areas had contact with each other and with
Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley, and that they mined and exported
copper and stone. But the provincial nature of the material culture of
the Arabian Gulf does not support the contention that the
Arabian littoral was ever a major international hub, a flourishing
emporium of exotic and precious merchandise.
Sagrillo states that Bahrain is a source of pearls -- but the texts
that list Dilmun pearls are mid-3rd m. economic texts from Ur, and
there is nothing on Bahrain at this time. The Ur texts also mention
Dilmun ivory, Dilmun gold, Dilmun furniture, Dilmun lapis, Dilmun
semi-precious stones, Dilmun wood -- but none of these items come from
Bahrain, or from Saudi for that matter. We also hear about Dilmun
dates, and as he points out, dates grow in SE Saudi. They also grow
just about everywhere else in the Middle East.
People want to get around the embarrassing fact that comprehensive and
sustained excavations revealed no evidence that Bahrain had a major
port or that it was involved in the production or trade of luxury goods
at any time. Now we hear that Dilmun is Saudi (five years ago it was
Falaika, ten years ago Oman). Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But "the
bulk of the literature on the Gulf archaeology during the past 25
years" hasn't established diddly about Dilmun as far as I can see. If
there is evidence to the contrary, please bring it to my attention and
supply the names of the excavators, sites, and a description of finds
over the past 25 years.
One last note . . . I wonder if intellectual exhaustion is the real
reason we cling to the Bahrain equation, despite the underwhelming
evidence. The Dilmun debates raged for years, and it must have been a
great relief to set the problem aside with the assurance that everyone
who mattered agreed that it was Bahrain.
Kate
http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/library/ane/digest/v03/v03.n153