Archaeologica.org

You can't be serious bringing Jacobovici into any reasonable discussion.

The guy is a showman and a clown.

http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=60

To try to connect the Tempest Stela with the ten plagues story as a whole, one must suppose either that the Tempest Stela (whose inscription dates within Ahmose’s twenty-five-year reign, as does the catastrophe itself) presents an exaggerated version of only one of ten catastrophes, or perhaps a mangled conflation of two of them, or that the biblical version (whose linguistic properties are characteristic of an era hundreds of years later than any proposed time frame for the exodus) presents a vastly expanded list of plagues based on a single, albeit devastating, thunderstorm. Neither of these scenarios, though, is what Jacobovici proposes. What it boils down to is simply this: The story of a devastating thunderstorm is just not the same as the story of the ten plagues. There is no compelling link between the text of Ahmose’s Tempest Stela and the biblical story of the exodus.

marduk wrote:you may find this helpful
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/8331/dates.htm

Hold on, just checked this reference and it I can't accept it. A. who wrote it? B. The preface is full of unsubstantiated claims which now causes me to question everything else stated.

Please! I do check these references.
I will update myself on the state of the art of biblical scholarship later.

btw - for all we know, your prism could have been a sumerian schoolboy's homework assignment (and he may have flunked!)

Minimalist wrote:You can't be serious bringing Jacobovici into any reasonable discussion.

The guy is a showman and a clown.

I couldn't find an emoticon with its tongue in it's cheek when I wrote that!

Ref: Post #5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargon_of_Akkad
Sargon (yes I know he is not in the Hebrew texts, some lesser known scholars have attempted to equate him to Nimrod and made him contemporary with Abraham (the one who did not exist according to Marduk) – but I digress)

A small overlap may be present depending on the interpretation of the Sumerian texts:
“whose father was a gardener, the cupbearer of Ur-Zababa”
If Sargon’s father was the cupbearer, no problem, but he claims not to have known him (insert the infamous, baby in the tar basket, floating down the river story here). So I loosely conclude (the Sargon Legend supports this) it was Sargon who was cupbearer to Ur-Zababa, the king of Kish IV. The odd thing about this, is Sargon ascended 40 years after Ur-Zababa was overthrown by Lugal-zagesi. Another possible overlap with Sargon being possibly contemporary with Ur-Zababa and probably concurrent with Lugal-zagesi whom he later defeated.

There are other unusal things to note about this time. According to your list, Marduk, Ur Zababa was the only Sumerian king amid a sea of Semites (admittedly his rule was relatively short and he very paranoid of Sargon). He actually seems out of place in this sequence of kings. Which brings up a question.

Ref: Post #5a
What exactly may have been going on in 3100bce which essentially spelled the end of Sumerian dominance. While Ur I was Sumerian, we suddenly see Ur II emerge less than a hundred years later as a Semite dynasty and so the mighty Sumerians essentially loose all military/political power for the rest of time.

Ref: Post #6

No overlap - just a simple question.
Have the Gutian Hordes been identified as any particular group i.e. Aryans?

Note: after this things get a little sticky because Ur III introduces a whole lot of alternate chronolgies based on omen texts and eclipse data. The question is - should we explore it or do you just want to blow it off as mythological crap? Think about it because I need to figure out a concise way to present it if we continue.

Forum Monk wrote:

Minimalist wrote:You can't be serious bringing Jacobovici into any reasonable discussion.

The guy is a showman and a clown.

I couldn't find an emoticon with its tongue in it's cheek when I wrote that!

Then permit me to supply you with one.

What exactly may have been going on in 3100bce which essentially spelled the end of Sumerian dominance. While Ur I was Sumerian, we suddenly see Ur II emerge less than a hundred years later as a Semite dynasty and so the mighty Sumerians essentially loose all military/political power for the rest of time.

the sumerians saw themselves as gods
they thought that their blood was from the gods
they saw everyone else as men and as a resource
it was for this reason that during sumerian rule semites were not placed in positions of power
this also explains the idea that the sumerian gods made man from the blood of a defeated god and clay
clay in the context of "local building material"
the local building material available for making humans in mesopotamia was the conquered semitic ubaidians

but you can see the problem
the sumerians came from the north in small numbers and settled in a land of semites who had large numbers
this neccesitated them creating a slave race to build their monuments for them
eventually the semites outbred them as the sumerians had rules about who was worthy for marriage and making babies
even Enlil was banished to the underworld for a while for raping a human (Ninlil)
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/et ... p1#t121.p1

the fact that the Sumerians regarded themselves as godly is well attested
the fact that the semites regarded them as gods has been hidden behind millenia of religious redaction

but at the end of the day
the great flood was sent in the earliest stories by Enlil
the Hebrews calls him YWHW
the Christians call him Jehova
the Moslems call him Allah
but he is the same deity all the way through from the beginning
how can you argue with that
i dont see anyone arguing that Jehova and the Christian bible is not based on the hebrew version with YHWH
you have to be very naieve not to see this simple fact
or you have to have faith to ignore it

Have the Gutian Hordes been identified as any particular group

i heard that they were the proto Elamites

the aryans were not a racial group
they were a religious group
Hitler seems to have clouded that issue quite badly
as did early colonialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_Inva ... roversies)

marduk wrote:but at the end of the day
the great flood was sent in the earliest stories by Enlil
the Hebrews calls him YWHW
the Christians call him Jehova
the Moslems call him Allah
but he is the same deity all the way through from the beginning
how can you argue with that
i dont see anyone arguing that Jehova and the Christian bible is not based on the hebrew version with YHWH
you have to be very naieve not to see this simple fact
or you have to have faith to ignore it

You should thank Enlil you live in a time and place where you can write this without getting beheaded.

Have the Gutian Hordes been identified as any particular group

i heard that they were the proto Elamites

the aryans were not a racial group
they were a religious group
Hitler seems to have clouded that issue quite badly
as did early colonialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_Inva ... roversies)

I never bought the 'master race' thing but always visualized a large, non-politically aligned group of 'proto barbarians' for lack of a better description; eeking out an existance north of the zagros mtns and across that entire region above the euphrates valley. At various times through history they organized and broke out in sweeping invasions. Maybe aryans (thanks to the 3rd reich) has a totally different conotation today.

Maybe aryans (thanks to the 3rd reich) has a totally different conotation today.

Ar.aya.an is a Sumerian phrase

http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e428.html
http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e562.html
http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e347.html

marduk wrote:

Maybe aryans (thanks to the 3rd reich) has a totally different conotation today.

Ar.aya.an is a Sumerian phrase

http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e428.html
http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e562.html
http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e347.html

oops! spell check woulda missed it too.

marduk wrote:http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e428.html
http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e562.html
http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e347.html

ar.aya.an
'praise father of heaven'

did I pass my language test? (please don't start writing in ancient script - I never learned elvin either like some Lord of the Rings fanatics).

yup praise father of heaven
points to the fact that the Arayans were a religious group who followed a patriarchal system
that was quite uncommon at the time they are supposed to have existed
the fact that they appear linguistically and have no other record in archaeology tends to lead me to the belief that they were never one seperate group
more a wave that swept through areas as people turned from worshipping Goddesses to worshipping Gods
this would account for them being everywhere from India to Africa and later in Germany
though I don't believe that last bit is really relevant (actung)

heres the dictionary definition
Aryan

1601, as a term in classical history, from L. Ariana, from Gk. Aria name applied to various parts of western Asia, ult. from Skt. Arya-s "noble, honorable, respectable," the name Sanskrit-speaking invaders of India gave themselves in the ancient texts, originally "belonging to the hospitable," from arya-s "lord, hospitable lord," originally "protecting the stranger," from ari-s "stranger." Ancient Persians gave themselves the same name (O.Pers. Ariya-), hence Iran (from Iranian eran, from Avestan gen. pl. airyanam). Aryan also was used (1861) by Ger. philologist Max Müller (1823-1900) to refer to "worshippers of the gods of the Brahmans," which he took to be the original sense. In comparative philology, Aryan was applied (by Pritchard, Whitney, etc.) to "the original Aryan language" (1847; Arian was used in this sense from 1839, but this spelling caused confusion with Arian, the term in ecclesiastical history), the presumed ancestor of a group of related, inflected languages mostly found in Europe but also including Sanskrit and Persian. In this sense it gradually was replaced by Indo-European (q.v.) or Indo-Germanic, except when used to distinguish I.E. languages of India from non-I.E. ones. It came to be applied, however, to the speakers of this group of languages (1851), on the presumption that a race corresponded to the language, especially in racist writings of French diplomat and man of letters J.A. de Gobineau (1816–82), e.g. "Essai sur l’inégalité des races humaines," 1853–55, and thence it was taken up in Nazi ideology to mean "member of a Caucasian Gentile race of Nordic type." As an ethnic designation, however, it is properly limited to Indo-Iranians, and most justly to the latter.

To add a little footnote, i read "The Last Sorcerer" a life
of I. Newton, particularly about his alchemical work.
The author stated that Newton was a heretic, not subscribing to the holy trinity, thus keeping secret his "aryanism" which meant, as I recall, that he did not accept the divinity of Christ.
I think this meaning of the term is not included in Marduk's dictionary definition.

Yeah but is the whole idea of a group of caucasians sweeping into India plausable or baloney? I never really thought of caucasians in India and other southern asian regions as realistic. I had the impression that the race advocates were making stuff up in order to justify their ideology.

(side note: is race real? which is the race gene?)

stan wrote:To add a little footnote, i read "The Last Sorcerer" a life
of I. Newton, particularly about his alchemical work.
The author stated that Newton was a heretic, not subscribing to the holy trinity, thus keeping secret his "aryanism" which meant, as I recall, that he did not accept the divinity of Christ.
I think this meaning of the term is not included in Marduk's dictionary definition.

Stan, I. Newton is a sort of hero of mine. Heretic? perhaps, unothodox? definitately; aryan? doubtful.