|
Post by hjernespiser on Jan 31, 2012 7:26:53 GMT 3
I saw the line. What I mean is that the transcription does not follow modern conventions so it is not clear which signs are used in the original text. Do you have a name for the actual tablet the text can be found on? Maybe an image of it can be found online in one of the website collections.
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jan 31, 2012 8:43:29 GMT 3
I managed to dig up this: cdli.ucla.edu/tools/yearnames/GLOSSAR/T12K06Y57.htmtu-ru-uk-kum{ki} Which lead me to some other texts online which have 'tu-ru-uk-kum' or 'tu-ru-uk-ki' that happen to be in Akkadian and not Sumerian. Which would explain why I couldn't find much in ePSD.
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Feb 9, 2012 8:21:13 GMT 3
I saw the line. What I mean is that the transcription does not follow modern conventions so it is not clear which signs are used in the original text. Do you have a name for the actual tablet the text can be found on? Maybe an image of it can be found online in one of the website collections. The name is like I said: Shartamhari
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Feb 9, 2012 9:09:55 GMT 3
The story should exist on one or several tablets and I was inquiring as to whether you know which tablets. There's some websites that show images and drawings of the signs on the actual tablets, but you have to know their catalog names. Apparently the text was in Assyrian anyway.
|
|
|
Post by us4he2gal2 on Feb 23, 2012 1:08:48 GMT 3
Hello I'm new here. I'm a student studying ANE in Toronto, and just noticed your discussion on Sumerian language and so on. It's nice to see some people really dwelling on such an unpopular topic! About the question at hand, the occurrence of URUtúr-ki in that Güterbock volume, you have mentioned that this city is listed among the "17 cities that fought against the Akkadians" - by which I suppose we are talking about the Great Revolt of Naram-Sin. I'm not sure what text Güterbock is treating, and I don't know much about these cities, but I happen to have a copy of Joan Westenholz' "Legends of the Kings of Akkade" (1997) , in which she treats a body of later Old Babylonian literary versions of that Akkadian Great Revolt event. The historicity of these literary versions is somewhat affirmed by copies of Akkadian royal monument texts which contain what could be considered corroborating details. In Westenholz text 17 (museum number BM 79987 - No CDLI entry unfortunately) a mention of Turukkum occurs. In most texts the protagonist, the king risen against Naram-sin and who leads a coalition of cities against him, is Ipḫur-Kiši of Kiš (in Northern Mesopotamia). In the Old Babylonian text 17, however, the protagonist is instead Gula-AN king of Gutium, which I think was somewhere in or over the east mountain range (?). "Under Gula-AN are seventeen kings, whose territories extend from Kaniš in the northwest to Elam in the southeast." Text 17 line 6 reads: 6'. [... l]i-i-AN LUGAL Tu-ru-uk-ku-um.KI 6'. [... l]i-i-AN, king of Turukkum. So the name of the king is broken. It would seem Turukkum was known at least in Babylonian times, though earlier it may have been Tukriš ? . Westenholz' footnote on this line is interesting. She writes: "With Turukkû, an Old Babylonian toponymm compare Tukru of "Sargon Geography" line 38: the land of Amurrû from Lebanon to Tukru. This toponym has also been compared with Tukriš; see A. Kammenhuber (Or [1976] 141 n. 28), who identifies it with the area north of Kermanshah on the eastern border of the Hurrians (idem. Acta Antiqua 26 [1978] 213). For a survey of the location of Turkriš and its gold-bearing mountain Ḫarali, see G. Komoróczy, "Das mythische Goldland Ḫarali im alten Vorderasien," Acta Or 26 [1972] 113-23; and most recently, P. Michalowski, Magan and Meluḫha Once Again," JCS 40 1988 162-63. Thus, the substitution of an original Tukriš with a later Turukkû is a possible hypothesis." *The so called "Sargon Geography" text appear to have been treated in AfO 25, 55:17. It seems to suggest that Amurrû bordered on Tukru in Akkadian times (?). If anyone is having trouble with the journal abbreviations (very understandable) let me know. **Westenholz further suggests that while some toponyms were included in the Old Babylonian telling of the tale of the Great Revolt because they reflect the actual event, others were probably added in: "the inclusion of both Kakmum and Turukkû reflects the conquest of Hammurapi in his year 37." (Westenholz 1997:248). There is probably no scholarly concensus on any relation between Turukkum, Tukru, Tukriš or Güterbock's "Túr-ki" - sounds like the thing philologists love to argue about. But the above articles would probably provide samples of that sort of dialogue. P.S. If anyone enjoys academic discussion on Sumerian topics, my board has about 5 years of exploring mostly literary topics, particular interest to Sumerian magic. Sometimes languages issues come up. We also focus on helping people outside the field find and use academic tools in exploring the subject of Mesopotamian culture, as these are often obtuse. enenuru.proboards.com/index.cgi?
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Feb 23, 2012 7:17:42 GMT 3
Welcome, us4he2gal2 and thanks for your contribution.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Feb 23, 2012 19:32:19 GMT 3
Greetings us4he2gal2, welcome aboard.
|
|
|
Post by freeuyghurs on Aug 23, 2012 21:25:34 GMT 3
There is book called Arvisura which explaines the history of the Huns ( 24 tribes) and their connection with Sumerians the connection between Manchu-Mongol-Avars-Huns-Uyghurs-Turks--Kassites.. read this but only few translations: arvisuratranslations.blogspot.hu/Point is that Huns-Avars-Kassites-Sumerians... are related for sure. for example: Avars were loaded with Sumerian-Golden artifacts but Chralemagne robbed them and they melted all those after they murderd the Avar Tudun...
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Aug 26, 2012 1:58:10 GMT 3
The more Hungarians and Turks claim that their languages are the closest to Sumerian, the more I believe that Hungarians and Turks have nothing to do with the Sumerians. That's correct. Sumerian is a different language from Turkic dialects new and old as we know them. It's evident. Either that or languages changed so much over time which is highly improbable for a language like Turkic. But since Osman Nedim Tuna proved that Sumerian borrowed many words from a language known as Proto-Tigris (which was spoken by unknown people) using regular sound correspondence method to prove that it was not a coincidence, this would mean that Turkic as a language definitely existed in lands Sumers lived and most probably their neighbors as well.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Aug 26, 2012 16:33:03 GMT 3
I don't believe that.
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Aug 26, 2012 19:28:31 GMT 3
Regardless of what we believe in, the case stands proven and nobody did anything to disprove it and the tool he used. (but maybe you know more about it and willing to share what you know with us since it has become a belief for you?)
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Aug 27, 2012 5:17:33 GMT 3
What is Proto-Tigris?
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Aug 27, 2012 11:06:53 GMT 3
Considering the wide chronological and geographical gap between the two cultures, and the lack of sufficient archaeological evidences, it is currently impossible to claim that Turkic-speakers lived in the Middle East during the time of the Sumerians.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Aug 27, 2012 11:07:36 GMT 3
Anyway, that theory was popular during the 1930s, so just get over it.
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Aug 27, 2012 20:14:26 GMT 3
Considering the wide chronological and geographical gap between the two cultures, and the lack of sufficient archaeological evidences, it is currently impossible to claim that Turkic-speakers lived in the Middle East during the time of the Sumerians. Yep, and chronology is the biggest problem with the theories that attempt to relate Sumerian to modern languages.
|
|