Showing posts with label sumerian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sumerian. Show all posts

Origin of Hungarians

Who are hungarians?
Sumerians, Hurrians, Mitanni, Habiru, Hyksos, Kassites, Chaldeans, Medes, Khwarezmians, Scythians, Massagetas, Alans, Sabirs, Avars, Huns, Magyars, OnOgurs, Khazars, Uyghurs, Kushitic, Semitic and Japhetic , who are they?

Let us see Hungarian history for some view.

Early Hungarian History
Hungary is located in the heart of Europe, in the Carpathian Basin, surrounded by the Carpathian mountain chain, the Alps and the southern Slav mountains. This area has, since the dawn of civilization, been inhabited by human beings, a meeting point where cultures blended together. From the first century B.C. people on horseback - the Scythes - of Iranian extraction, and Indo-European tribes /Celtic, Illyrian and Thracian/ that pursued a more or less settled existence constantly replaced one another. In the final stages of the expansion of the Roman empire, for a short while the Carpathian Basin fell into the sphere of the Mediterranean, Greco-Roman civilization - town centers, paved roads, and written sources were all part of the advances to which the Migration of Peoples put an end. Germanic and Turkish /Hun and Avar/ tribes attacking from the east then appeared in the region. From the beginning of the 3rd century onwards Rome was gradually forced onto the defensive, and around the year 430 AD, bowing to Hun sieges, it ultimately surrendered its Carpathian Basin province of Pannonia.The famous Hun king, Attila, operated his powerful but short-lived empire from the River Tisza. Upon his death the Hun empire disintegrated and Germanic tribes again split up the region. However, their hegemony was soon smashed by the advent of the Avars. Their empire, established by the end of the 6th century, was destroyed by the wars launched by Charlemagne /around 790/ and Bulgarian attacks from the Danube. Transdanubia marked the eastern province of the declining Frankish empire. Bulgarians ruled the Hungarian Great Plain and Transylvania, while in the north there was the state of the Morvas, these peoples formed the status quo in the Carpathian Basin at the time of the arrival of the Magyars.

Magyar Migration Theory
The first temporary raids of ancient proto-Magyars in this territory occurred in the 860s. It was only in 895/896 that the Magyars decided to cross the Carpathians permanently. The chieftain Árpád is traditionally said to be the person who led the seven proto-Magyar tribes (including the Magyars proper) out of the steppes of Ukraine and into the Carpathian basin. These seven tribes later became the nucleus of the Kingdom of Hungary under Árpád's great-great-grandson, Stephen I of Hungary. Although Christianization of this territory began as early as in the 4th century AD, the newly-arrived Magyars were Christianized only at the end of the 10th century under Géza: this task was finished by Stephen I of Hungary, who was officially crowned king by the pope in 1000 AD.

By the end of the 11th century Hungary, which had risen to become a Central European power, acted as conqueror in the east and south. Campaigns launched into what is Galicia and Ukraine today were without success, but Croatia recognized the supremacy of the Árpád dynasty in 1091.

The relatively steady progress was interrupted in 1240 and 1242 by the dramatic incursion and ruthless ransacking of the country by Tartar /Mongol/ forces, who swept across the country scorching the land and forcing the king and his court to flee to the Adriatic. One third of the country's population was killed during the single year of the Tartar invasion.
King Béla IV /1235-1270/ was, with some justifications, dubbed the "second home founder" as he had to rebuild the scorched country practically from scratch. By establishing a series of stone castles he created a strong defensive system, he invited settlers to unsettled parts of the country, and reorganized life in the country by pursuing tolerant and persistent policies.

Theory of Gyula László Theory
The Hungarian archaeologist Gyula László has proposed a very controversial theory, also known as "theory of double conquest”, in recent decades. He has argued that the Magyars arrived in two separate waves, centuries apart, a notion which is still controversial. The theory argues that around 670 a new ethnic group moved into the Carpathian Basin, representing the late-Avar culture with a griffin-creeper pattern on their belt-clasp. The theory says that these latter Avars were actually Magyars and that they survived the centuries until the Árpád's Magyars arrival.

Theory of Grover Krantz:

In his book Geographical Development of the European Languages, anthropologist Grover Krantz argues that the Hungarian language must have been present in the Carpathian basin when the Indo-European languages diffused into Europe. His theory is based on the development of early forms of agriculture, to which the spread of the Proto-Indo-European language was tied. These agricultural developments and tools were such that the people relying on them were not able to penetrate the Carpathian basin, as a result the Indo-European languages avoided that region as they were diffusing.

Theory of Mario Alinei:

As part of his "theory of continuity", Mario Alinei, linguist at the University of Utrecht, sees the Etruscan language as an archaic form of Hungarian. The basis of the connection is the extraordinary resemblance of Etruscan and ancient Magyar magistrature names and other similarities: typologies, lexicon and historical grammar. This theory also contradicts the view that Magyars arrived in the Carpathian basin in 900 AD.

Let us see the legends of origins

Legend of White Stag.
The Legend of the White Stag ascribes the origin of the Hungarians to the merging of three peoples: Huns, Magyars and Alans. Since the Alans, together with the Yazyg and Roxlans are classified as Massagetas in early records and as Sarmatians in later ones, henceforth the terms "Alan", "Yazyg", "Roxlan" and "Massageta" will be mentioned as "Sarmatian" in order to make this essay more intelligible, avoiding synonymous or quasi-synonymous terms (unless specification is required). They are identified with the Moshkhi of the Assyrian chronicles and Meshekh of the Bible.

Sumerian Legend
This legend starts with Tana, that is undoubtedly the same as the Sumerian Etana of the city of Kish (Kush) and who is equivalent with the Biblical Kush, the father of Nimrod – The Kushan Scythians also had an ancestor called Kush-Tana. The Sumerian Etana was the first mighty one on earth who wanted to visit heaven, and did. This story coincides with the Biblical account concerning Nimrod, though it is feasible that Nimrod set up the construction of the Tower of Bavel on behalf of his father, being coherent with the Babylonian myth in which the founder of Babylon was Bel, the father of Ninus (Nimrud), that was the first king. In the Hungarian account, the son of Tana is Ménrót or Nemere (Nimrod), who had twin sons called Magor and Hunor. Also Nimrud's wife, Anuta/Bau, has similar names in the Hungarian version, Eneth/Boldog-asszony. The Assyrian accounts refer that Nimrud had twin sons, one of whose names was Magor, confirming the Hungarian myth.

Scythian Legend
The legend says that Hunor and Magor were pursuing a female stag that led them into a foreign land and there she vanished without leaving any trace. The disappointed hunters however, met there two sisters, princesses of the Sarmatians, kidnapped and married them, becoming the forefathers of the Huns and Magyars. The stag is also relevant in Scythian mythology.

Nimrod Legend
Hungarian legend the sons of Ménrót/Nemere were hunters, and Nimrod in the Bible is described as a "mighty hunter". His Sumerian name – or better, his title – was Nimb-ur-shag, meaning "Lord of the Panthers", which in Hungarian is translated "Parduc-Uraság", conveying the same meaning of the Hebrew name quoted in the Bible, related with the word "nimra", that means "panther, leopard", combined with the verb "rad", that is "to subdue". Therefore, the first part of the Sumerian name resembles the Hebrew one, but the second component is definitely quite similar to Hungarian. It is relevant that Nimrod had to "subdue" panthers in order to become a "mighty" hunter: this title is often misinterpreted as he being a leopard-hunter – because it was the most dangerous animal in those times – but the actual meaning is another; in fact, the "lord" or "subduer" of the panther, implies that he was able to tame these animals in order to use them as a valuable aid in hunting other wild beasts. Indeed, also the kings and notables of Central Asia (from where the Hungarians departed towards Europe) trained the panthers to employ them in hunting. Panther skin has traditionally been the most precious garment among Hungarian kings and leaders, recalling the very fashion in which Nimrod himself was portrayed. The historian Yosef ben-Gorion ha-Kohen, also known as Yosippon, thought that Ménrót was to be identified with the first Egyptian king Menes, later merged with the Mesopotamian Nimrod, and his wife Eneth with the Egyptian female deity Neith.

Legend of the Turul Hawk
A mythical bird identical to the Sumerian "Dugud", that is the emblem of both the house of Attila the Hun and the house of Árpád. This story is about Emeshe, a Sumerian princess that was sterile until the Turul hawk came down from heaven and gave her fertility. She was married to Ügyek, the king of Scythians, of the lineage of Magog – in agreement with the Assyrian chronicles, that report Magog as the founder of the Scythian nation in northern Mesopotamia. Emeshe conceived Álmos (the same name of Árpád's father, that was a descendant of Attila the Hun), and in her dream she saw her descent as a river flowing from her womb that was growing towards the west, passing over the mountains and from which a great golden tree arose, representing a royal lineage of kings ruling in a far away land in the west. This story recalls the dream of the Mede king Ištumegu (Astyages) concerning his daughter, from whose womb he saw spring a river that flooded the earth, and in a second dream he saw a grape vine growing from her womb that became a mighty tree that covered the continent. These dreams were interpreted as a royal line from his daughter's offspring that would have built an empire, though dethroning him. The parallelism between both legends is amazing. Indeed, there is a relationship between ancient Medes and Hungarians. The characteristic aspect of this story, that credits the actual Sumerian origin of Magyars, is that Álmos is described as dark complexioned and black-eyed, namely, a Kushite. His name means "dreamer", since according to the legend he was conceived after his mother's dream.

Finno-Ugrian theory
This thesis, however respectable it may be, lacks of proofs and leaves many enigmas unsolved, as it was formulated only in the later 18th century c.e. neglecting all the previously existing historic records. Even though the process of Germanization of the Hungarian people began with King Vajk (then christened as István) by the end of the 10th century c.e., it was under the Austrian rule that the need of a sharp distinction from the rival Ottoman Empire required a new theory of origins which placed the Hungarians definitely on the European side. Besides this, the religious leadership of Rome monopolized the official history of Europe, and Hungarians had to be "cleansed" of the ugly picture of the Huns portrayed by the Romans ‒ the alleged higher degree of civilization attributed to the Romans in comparison with Attila's Huns is strongly disputable, however. Consequently, a prestigious leading monarchy as the Austro-Hungarian could not acknowledge any non-European component, and the Ugro-Finnic theory, strongly supported by German linguists, was hallowed as the only feasible one that may have made of Hungarians a fully European, western people that with time would have finally forgotten its obscure, barbaric origins and recognized the valuable contribution of Germanic civilization to their cultural development .

Hurrian Theory
The land known by Sumerians as "Subar-Ki" or "Subar-Tu" was inhabited by the Hurrians, whose language was Indo-European languages So, the Hurrians cannot be directly related with Hungarians. Yet, they were not the only people in that region, the same country was known under different names, Assyrian documents as "Sapar-da", Egyptians as "Magor", in Persian as "Sabarda" and "Matiene/Mada", while the Biblical name Haran/Charan is obviously connected with the Hurrians. Greek refer to them as "Sapir/Sabir", "Makr/Magar" and "Matiene". All these terms point out to the denomination of two Hungarian tribes: Sabirs and Magyars. This is the basis of the theory Similar sounding names of Sabirs and Magyars.

Mittani Theory
Northern Mesopotamian region was also known as "Mada/Mata/Madja". The term that may be transliterated as "mat", "madh", "madj" means "country" or "district" in Sumerian, Subarian, Parthian, and other related languages, and it was also used by the Assyrians and Egyptians with the same meaning. Notice that in those languages, the phoneme "dh" or "dj" is equal to the modern Hungarian "gy", and "megye" is still "district" or "province" in Hungarian. Therefore, if the denomination has been transferred along the generations, the Magyars might be the ancient tribe of Mitanni, Claims this theory.

Habiru are people of Meditaranean spread far and wide, they are group from which Israelites emerged. Based on the Nimrod legend links are made between Habiru and Hungarian. But Habiru are Semitic, so they cannot be Hungarian.

Based on the Habiru , further links are made to Hyksos , but this is just a far fetched theory.

By the time of the Israelite Exodus from Egypt to Canaan, a mysterious people arose in Southern Mesopotamia: the Kassites (Kasu). and after they lost control of Babylon they retreated to the Zagros Mounts and had not any further history. Very likely, they and not the Neo-Babylonian Chaldeans were the authentic Kasdim. The Kassites apparently spoke a language similar to Sumerian, Kassites were excellent horse-riders, a feature that primarily distinguished the peoples of the north, By some Kassite king names, which are evidently Indic (for example: Shuriash = Surya, Maruttash = Marut, Inda-Bugash = Indra-Bhaga), The Kassite kingdom in the south preceded about 90 years the Mitanni kingdom in the north, and survived it for other 90 years. At this point, the other meaning of the word Kasdim, "Chaldeans", and their relationship with Sumerians allows us to link our reasoning again with the "Hungarian-Hebrew connexion".The dynasty that ruled over Babylon about 130 years after the Kassites were dethroned is known as "Chaldean", the one to which Nebukhadnetzar the Great belonged.

Chaldeans (Kasdim) are not a people but a kind of social class or caste associated with the magicians, enchanters, sorcerers, soothsayers. They probably belonged to a different people, as they had their own language, "the language of the Kasdim", but spoke to the king in Aramaic, the Assyrian tongue of Babylon. The likely hypothesis is that, after the Kassites were defeated by the joint Assyrian-Elamite armies and the 2nd Dynasty of Isin took the power, they withdrew to the Zagros Mountains. How this is related to Hungarian is not known, but this is the theory.

This theory is supported by Mittani theory and further development on that.

Alans, Massagetas,
The Legend of the White Stag ascribes the origin of the Hungarians to the merging of three peoples: Huns, Magyars and Alans. Since the Alans, together with the Yazyg and Roxlans are classified as Massagetas in early records and as Sarmatians in later ones, henceforth the terms "Alan", "Yazyg", "Roxlan" and "Massageta" This is the basis of the theory linking Alans, Massagetas and Hungarians.

is probably synonymous of "Hun" or "Magyar". In fact, Herodotus mentions them as Sapir/Sabir, Makr/Magar, in reference to Subarians and Mitanni. Other classical sources and historians always mention these two terms together (Sabir and Magor). In Persian inscriptions, Sapardia and Hunae are also consecutive. The descriptions of their mastery in the art of war and powerful cavalry and their somatic and cultural features lead to identify them with the Huns, so that they appear as the same people. The equation Subarians-Mitanni of old is paralleled in later times by the association Huns-Magyars.

One of the major controversies among different scholars regards the common origin of Hungarians and Turks. Undoubtedly, Hungarians are not a Turkic people, and probably they never were. The cultural differences existing between these two groups, mainly after the Magyar settlement in the Carpathian Basin, generated the elaboration of a new "official" theory of origins supported by the Austro-Hungarian élite, followed by the Soviet-ruled Hungary and by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences

Indeed, the last word is not said, because there were Turkic peoples that contributed to the definitive formation of the Hungarian nation: Khazars/Kabars, Kumans (Kipchak) and, in a lesser amount, the Besenyö (Pechenegs). Historically, the most relevant of them have been the Khazars, with whom the Magyars had intensive interaction as allies, subjects, confederates, neighbours or rivals. When the Khazar empire collapsed, they were welcomed by the Magyars in their already conquered Danubian land. Both peoples had similar languages, so that they were understandable to each other. The Khazar tongue was still spoken in Hungary until the 10th century c.e. Paradoxically and in apparent contrast with the purpose of this essay, the Khazars did not add any substantial contribution to the presumed Hebrew-Hungarian connexion: they were a Turkic people related with the Uyghurs that became famous for the adoption of Judaism of their leading class but they had not Jewish bloodline, facts that have generated a series of speculative theories mainly in an anti-Semitic sense. They arose from the collapsed kingdom of the Kök Turks and built their own empire, which was ethnically quite heterogeneous, composed by almost every Scythian-related tribe between Khwarezm and the Dniepr. The OnOgurs and Bulgars were consistent elements within the population of Khazaria, as well as Magyars, that had also their own realm by the western border.

The Huns are undoubtedly the most famous of the Hungarian ancestors, though much of what is known of them is tainted with biased accounts and legends that exalt their allegedly ferocious character, so that any horde of invaders is still qualified with this name. The western civilizations have received the Roman viewpoint first and the Catholic superstition later ‒ the mediaeval prayer "De sagittis hungarorum libera nos, Domine", that is "Save us from the arrows of the Hungarians, O Lord" was framed as an invocation for protection from the Magyars, enhancing the excellence of their archery. The Magyars were recognized as the same Huns that four and half centuries before rushed into the heart of Europe with their outstanding archers.

Avars, as exposed in the previous chapter, were culturally related with Scythian-Dahae tribes, but probably their early origin was Subarian/Habiri. Concerning their homeland, the Persian name Varkâna means "Land of Wolves", name that translated to modern Hungarian would be "Farkasok-földje/Farkasok-országa", but in old Hungarian it is correct to say "Farkasok-hona", which resembles to the historic Persian name. Even more similar is "Avarok-hona", meaning "Land of the Avars". Therefore, a possible sequence may be that the Persians adapted the Avar designation of the land, either translating the meaning (in case that the Avar name was actually "Land of Wolves") or else applying a meaning in Persian (converting the term "Avar" into "Wolf"); therefore, the modern Hungarian term was translated after the Persian historic name, being the complete sequence as follows: Farkasok-hona»Varkâna»Várkony, or Avarok-hona»Varkâna»Várkony. In this case we assume that the Avars' language was an old form of Hungarian, which is not unlikely considering that they were Subarian Habiri, speaking a transitional tongue between Emegir and Magyar. There are additional evidences to establish these facts: The Avars' arrival in Europe and subsequent settlement in the Danubian Basin is chronologically placed after that of Attila's Huns and previous to the HunOgurs and Árpád's Magyars. Even though these migratory waves are interpreted as different, as a matter of fact, they represent a continuity, a "proto-Hungarian" territorial claim. The Avars held the land previously conquered by the Huns as a permanent resistance force against European occupants. Indeed, contemporary sources were not able to explain a clear distinction between the Avars and the Huns that preceded them, nor did between them and the Magyars that followed. The Avars easily "assimilated" the remnants of Attila's Huns, and in the same way did the Magyars with the Hun/Avar/HunOgur inhabitants - having the same language, life-style, clothing, cooking, ornaments, metallurgy, etc.

Hephthalites or Hayathelaites:(White Huns)
Usually known as "White Huns", they had indeed not any real relationship with the Huns. Such association is caused by misleading name resemblances: apparently they called themselves "Hua", according to the Chinese accounts, while their Sanskrit name was "Huna", terms that historians have connected with the Huns. Refer to Article who are white Huns

original Scythians came from the line of Magog, being an Indo-European people. Notwithstanding, this term was applied to every sort of wandering tribes, and since the Scythians were present in a very vast area of the continent, they have taken many cultural features of the peoples with whom they were in contact, usually as allied. Therefore, there is a wide range of peoples, from Europe to India, sharing several Scythian features and claiming Scythian ancestry, even peoples from opposite sides, Aryan and non-Aryan, Indo-Iranian and Eurasian, Turks, Slavs, Hungarians, Indian, etc. They apparently spoke an Iranic tongue (Zend). Their religion was centred in the worship of natural forces.

It appears therefore that a fundamental revision of early Hungarian history is necessary in order to arrive at a more accurate picture, and much research work remains to be done in this field. Based on the available information, it seems most probable that the Hungarians are a synthesis of the peoples which have settled in the Carpathian Basin since the Neolithic period up to the Middle Ages: the Sumerian-related peoples of Near-Eastern origin (Neolithic, Copper and Bronze Ages), followed by the Scythians (6th c. BC), the Huns (5th c. AD), the Avars (6th c.), the Magyars (9th c.), the Petchenegs (11th c.), and the Cumans (13th c.). This Hungarian synthesis is characterized by a remarkable ethno-linguistic homogeneity and has remained highly differentiated from the considerably more numerous surrounding Indo-European people. The conclusion which can be drawn from this is that the Hungarians were able to preserve their ethno-linguistic identity and to maintain a demographic majority or critical mass within the Carpathian Basin as a result of the periodical inflow of ethno-linguistically related peoples. These peoples were designated in the 19th c. as Turanians, and the Sumerians, Scythians, Huns, Avars and Magyars were all considered to belong to this ethno-linguistic group. So more research is needed and also may be Hungarians are a not one of the said groups but all the groups.

Related Posts

Myth of Sumerian Legacy

The term "Sumerian" is the common name given to the ancient inhabitants of southern Mesopotamia by their successors, the Semitic Akkadians. The Sumerians called themselves sag-giga, literally meaning "the black-headed people". The Akkadian word Shumer may represent this name in dialect, but it is unknown why the Akkadians called the southern land Shumeru. Biblical Shinar, Egyptian Sngr and Hittite Šanhar(a) could be western variants of Šumer

Severalpeople have claimed decendents of Sumerians or related to sumerians. Let us see the claims


Sumerian is generally believed today to be an isolate language without known close relatives, even though most will say it is the closest to the FinnUgor and Altaic language. Even the well known Sumerologist, Samuel Noah Kramer has hinted at the probability at times about the FinnUgor and Altaic links to Sumerian. Many others mention it also but then try to play it down and minimize the true extent of the links. Early pioneers as Jules Oppert (France), Archibald.H Sayce (England), A.H. Layard (England), Francis Lenormant (France), Delitzs (Germany), Coloman-Gabriel Gostony (France) and many others who are less known today such as Hungarian Sumerologists Dr Zsigmond Varga, a student of Delitz, and his student Dr Ida Bobula. Unfortunately the detailed work and sound correspondences needed by modern "historic" linguist, were only started by them, but never continued and refined by anyone, before it became a semi "taboo" topic to compare Sumerian to other language families.

The origin of this theory was explained by Ida Bobula this way: "When in the middle of the 19th century, under the debris of Mesopotamia the first written memories, the tiletable notched cuneiform and hieroglyphic text began to turn up, professionals recognized that those against the Assyrian-Babylonian texts were written in a non-Semitic structured language." The language proved to be agglutinatively structured. The pioneer orientalists, Julius Oppert, Rawlinson, and Archibald Sayce, spoke of the ancient Scythian and Turanian languages; the French scientist Lenormant decisively declared that the language of these "artificers of writing" is closest to Hungarian, and that it would prove to bear a relationship to the "Turanian" family similar to that of Sanskrit for the Indo-European family.

The second account has been related to Biblical history. The document starts with Tana, perhaps the same as the Sumerian Etana of the city of Kish, son of "Arwium", son of "Mashda". The Kushan Scythians also had an ancestor called Kush-Tana. In the Sumerian account, Etana of Kish was the first king who 'stabilised all the nations'. Some feel that Etana of Kish corresponds to the Biblical Cush, father of Nimrod.

In the Hungarian account, Tana's son is called Menrot, whose twin sons, Magor and Hunor dwelled by the Sea of Azov in the years following the flood, and took wives from the Alans, presumably meaning the ancestors of the Iranians (from the eponymous ancestor Aran).
Another version of this legend found in the Kepes Kronika makes Magor and Hunor the sons of Japheth rather than of Nimrod, equating Magor with Magog.Nimrod the hunter, founder of Erech, is more plausibly identified by David Rohl with Enmerkar, founder of Uruk (Sum. kar=hunter).

The mother of the twin sons in the Hungarian version is Eneth, Enech or Eneh, who is the wife of either Menrot (Nimrod) or of Japheth. If she is to be equated with the Sumerian goddess Inanna, she may have originally been the wife of both men, and a great many others beside.

The Sumerian legends of "Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta" describe vividly how the powerful Inanna, something of a kingmaker in her time, abandoned the king of Aratta, who is called Ensuhkeshdanna, and awarded the kingship of Erech to Enmerkar.Another argument sometimes used to link the Sumerians (who called their language Emegir) with the Magyars, involves the hereditary caste among the Medes and later Persians known as "Magi".

But the theory has many loopholes. Eventhough mountain of documents show Closest Europeon languge to Sumerian is Hungarian, the language is noticed only in 9th century AD , while the sumerians rule ended in 2000 BC. So how come they are related. The myth was created to show the Hungarians inferior to Europeons ruling societies. The Hungarian whose origin has been conflicting claims trace their origin to Huns. And Hungarian being close to Finnish is itself doubt.

Ur or Uru (=city) was a major city during Sumerian civilizatin times. The word Uru or Ooru ( village or township) has got into almost all Dravidan languages including Tulu.Possibly the the name of the once famous Sumerian city was extended to all civilized settlements later on.It is a common suffix now in most of the place names in southern India. Bengalur,Mangaluru,Mundkur,Tanjavur ,Trichur,Gudur etc.There are also other Sumerian/Dravidian words sharing similar sounding verb -ur. SumerianUru (2) (= firewood.) has similar words in Tulu, Kannada (Uri- is to burn) and other Dravidian languages. Similarly, Sumerian Uru (3)(=to till or grow) has Urpini/Ulpini (Tulu), Ulu(=to till) in Kannada.
One of the numbers,"five" in Sumerian was Ia or i (=five).It is ain in Tulu and aidu in Kannada.
Sig(=sun burnt clay tiles) has analogous Sike or seke (=sunny sultriness) and Sigadi (=fire place/oven) in Tulu and Kannada.
There may be more such analogous words in Sumerian and Tulu/Kannada/Dravidian languages.
The analogy is cited here to suggest that some early Tulu,Kannada and other Dravidian tribes might have migrated from Sumerian region to India.A genealogical relationship exist between the Black African, Dravidian, Elamite and Sumerian languages. But apart from these word similarities there is nothing else to say Sumerians and Dravidian are related.

Elam, lasting from around 2700 BC to 539 BC, is one of the oldest recorded civilizations. Elam was centered in the far west and southwest of modern-day Iran (the lowlands of Khuzestan and Ilam Province, which takes its name from Elam), as well as parts of southern Iraq. It was preceded by what is known as the Proto-Elamite period, which began around 3200 BC when Susa (later capital of Elam) began to be influenced by the cultures of the Iranian plateau to the east.
The Elamite culture show influence of sumerian. But the elamite is seprate culture and language is seprate and still to be deciphered elamite text are different from Sumerian.

Hebrew belongs to the Afro-Asiatic language family. Sumerian is a different language family. Hebrew is related to Akkadian, Aramaic, Egyptian and Phoenician.

The term "Sumerian" is the common name given to the ancient inhabitants of southern Mesopotamia by their successors, the Semitic Akkadians. Clearly this shows that Semitic and Sumer are different people. While semitic people are migrants from outside, sumerians are natives.

The Babylonian civilization, which endured from the 18th until the 6th century BC, was, like the Sumerian that preceded it, urban in character, although based on agriculture rather than industry. The country consisted of a dozen or so cities, surrounded by villages and hamlets. At the head of the political structure was the king, a more or less absolute monarch who exercised legislative and judicial as well as executive powers. Under him was a group of appointed governors and administrators. Mayors and councils of city elders were in charge of local administration.
The Babylonians modified and transformed their Sumerian heritage in accordance with their own culture and ethos. The resulting way of life proved to be so effective that it underwent relatively little change for some 1200 years. It exerted influence on all the neighboring countries, especially the kingdom of Assyria, which adopted Babylonian culture almost in its entirety. But sumerians are not babylonians as they are not semitic. Infact semitic babylonians named them numers.
Early Eastern Europe did have an important early local civilization, even before the coming of the Indo-Europeans, who are mistakenly claimed to bring agriculture to the natives. Most grain names or the name of bread in various major branches of Indo-European languages (Germanic, Latin, Slavic) cannot be derived from a common origin indicating that they weren't agriculturalist prior to their separation. The earliest appearance of Indo Europeans, from the east in Europe was around 2800BC with the first appearance of the ancestors of the early Greeks

The claims are based on some similarities , we dont know how the sumerians spoke . The Sumerians can be Elamaites or Semitic or Huns or Dravidians or East African we dont know. As the Mystery race they have claims from all over the world. The documents of Elam are decoded it may throw further light. Until then people will claim sumerian as their own

Origin of Democracy and Republic - Greek Myth

Almost all historians have been saying Democracy & Republic originated in West(in greece), the bastion of Free people. Let us see the facts in detail.

  1. India has democracy from early days earlier than Greece
  2. India has democracy at all levels right from village level to state, Not just State level.
  3. It is entirely possible that Democracy travelled from India to Greece.
  4. Teachings of Buddhism and jainism inspire democracy and republicanism , what inspired Greece.

Let us see evidences

First democracy and Republics

Early Sumerian period is said to be democratic between 2900BC to 2300BC , but we have no solid evidence to support the theory, we have only pointers

Next comes the Indian reference Rig Veda between 4000BC to 2000BC. Which talk of Sabha , samiti to elect the ruler. Ramayana(500BC) also mentions samiti. Vaishali was the capital of the vibrant Republican Licchavi state since before the birth of Mahavira(founder of Jainism- 599 BC), which suggests that it was perhaps the first republic in the world.

The most useful Greek account of India is Arrian's Anabasis of Alexander , which describes the Macedonian conqueror's campaigns in great detail. The Anabasis, which is derived from the eyewitness accounts of Alexander's companions, portrays him as meeting "free and independent" Indian communities at every turn. What "free and independent" meant is illustrated from the case of Nysa, a city on the border of modern Afghanistan and Pakistan that was ruled by a president named Aculphis and a council of 300. After surrendering to Alexander(327BC), Aculphis used the city's supposed connection with the god Dionysus to seek lenient terms from the king

The first-hand description of India by a Greek traveler named Megasthenes. After Alexander's invasion, Megasthenes served as ambassador of the Greek king Seleucus Nicator to the Indian emperor Chandragupta Maurya, and in the course of his duties crossed northern India to the eastern city of Patna, where he lived for a while. If this statement is drawn from Megasthenes, then the picture of a northwestern India dominated by republics must be extended to the entire northern half of the subcontinent.

The most useful sources for mapping north India are three: The Pali Canon, which shows us northeastern India between the Himalayas and the Ganges in the sixth and fifth centuries B.C.; the grammar of Panini, which discusses all of North India, with a focus on the northwest, during the fifth century; and Kautilya's Arthasastra, which is a product of the fourth century, roughly contemporaneous with Megasthenes. All three sources enable us to identify numerous sanghas and ganas, some very minor, others large and powerful.

According to Panini, all the states and Republics (janapadas ) of northern India during his time were based on the settlement or conquest of a given area by an identifiable warrior people who still dominated the political life of that area. Some of these peoples (in Panini's terms janapadins ) were subject to a king, who was at least in theory of their own blood and was perhaps dependent on their special support. Elsewhere, the janapadins ran their affairs in a republican manner. Thus in both kinds of state, the government was dominated by people classified as ksatriyas, or, as later ages would put it, members of the warrior caste.

Kautilya: according to him, there were two kinds of janapadas, ayudhiya-praya, those made up mostly of soldiers, and sreni-praya , those comprising guilds of craftsmen, traders, and agriculturalists. The first were political entities where military tradition alone defined those worthy of power, while the second would seem to be communities where wealth derived from peaceful economic activity gave some access to the political process. This interpretation is supported by the fact that sreni or guilds based on an economic interest were often both part of the armed force of a state and recognized as having jurisdiction over their own members.

The numerous members of a sovereign gana or sangha interacted with each other as members of an assembly. Details of the working of such assemblies can be found both in Brahmanical and Buddhist literature. By the time of Panini (fifth century B.C.), there was a terminology for the process of corporate decision-making. Panini gives us the terms for vote, decisions reached by voting, and the completion of a quorum. Another cluster of words indicates that the division of assemblies into political parties was well known. Further, Panini and his commentators show that sometimes a smaller select group within a sangha had special functions -- acting as an executive, or perhaps as a committees for defined purposes

The rules for conducting the Buddhist sangha were, according to the first chapter of the Maha-parinibbana-suttanta, based in principle on those commonly found in political sanghas or ganas. In the case of the Buddhist sangha, the key organizational virtue was the full participation of all the monks in the ritual and disciplinary acts of their group. To assure that this would be remembered, detailed rules concerning the voting in monastic assemblies, their membership, and their quorums, were set down in the Mahavagga and the Kullavagga . Business could only be transacted legitimately in a full assembly, by a vote of all the members. If, for example, a candidate wanted the upasampada ordination, the question (ñatti) was put to the sangha by a learned and competent member, and the other members asked three times to indicate dissent. If there was none, the sangha was taken to be in agreement with the ñatti. The decision was finalized by the proclamation of the decision of the sangha.

The Pali Canon gives us our earliest, and perhaps our best, detailed look at Indian republicanism, its workings, and its political philosophy. About no other republics do we know as much as we do about the Buddhist sangha and the Licchavis in the time of Buddha even though we do know that republics survived and were a significant factor until perhaps the fourth century A.D., a period of over 800 years. Scattered inscriptions, a great number of coins, and the occasional notice in Greek sources, the Jatakas or other Indian literature give us a few facts.

Four centuries before the beginning of this millennium, Plato indicted the city-state of Athens for handing over power to the people, for they had neither the inclination nor the training to run their lives. From the 5th century BCE (BC), Athenian democracy gave citizens equal rights to participate in decision making and to hold public office; it was based on the ideal of equality among citizens. One small caveat though - not everyone was a citizen. Only native Athenian men over the age of twenty were eligible for active citizenship. Not the 60 per cent of the Athenian population who were slaves, certainly not women, and not the so-called "immigrants" whose families had settled in Athens several generations earlier. But Plato looked on even this highly restricted citizenship with dismay.

Historian Jack Weatherford asserts that Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and others, got their ideas on democracy not from any Greek or Roman influence, but from the Iroquois and other indigenous peoples of the Americas, who practiced the type of democracy found in the United States Constitution, through self-governing territories that were part of a larger whole. This democracy was founded between the years 1000-1450, and lasted several hundred years. He also states that American democracy was continually changed and improved by the influence of Native Americans throughout North America. For example, the right of women to vote started on the American frontier, and moved eastward. In other words, Americans learned democracy from the indigenous peoples of the North America.

Levels of Democracy
Democracy and Republicanism are not same everywhere, Some places we had Rulers being elected, some places councils were elected, some places some regions also have democracies. The next most important thing is levels of participation. We cannot compare todays democracies and republics with yesteryears. But India had mature level of democracy ,which shows deep rooted democratic institutions.

Democracy travelled from East to West.

It is entirely possible that democracy and republicanism travelled from East to west. Since religions in east contemplated renouncing all desires. And also we have suddenly democracy arriving in west. That means import from some where else. All along Greek and Roman intelligentsia are aware of eastern thoughts.

Religious Role
Teachings of Rig veda , Buddhism and jainism created sabhas, samitis and sanghas which were primarily democratic institutions. The monarchy is always weak in India , because of democratic institutions. Empowering of the monarchy happened with Brahminical text Manu and Kautilya arthasastra. For which ruling caste was created and subsequently other castes. Later religious texts like puranas also maintained the primacy of kings until 10th century when both buddhism and jainism were active.

We can see from the above article democracy and Republicanism originated in India and travelled to west.


Related Posts
Trojan War
Black Athena  
Dating Greek Civilization
Indo European Origin 
Homer Date


Myths of Indus script

The world of scholars was totally ignorant about the culture known as Indus Valley Civilization or Harappa Culture till the early twenties of this century. The excavations at Mohenjodaro in Sind and at Harappa in Panjab (now in Pakistan) in 1922-23 and later and the discovery of numerous steatite seals in these excavations pushed back, at one stroke, the history of Indian Civilization including writing to the third millennium before Christ. After partition of India in 1947 when Mohenjodaro and Harappa went to Pakistan, similar sites in Eastern Panjab, Western Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Gujarat were discovered. Of these Ka#liban#gan in Rajasthan and Lothal in Gujarat are important ones which have also yielded seals (and sealings) and have contributed much in establishing the chronological sequence of early and late phases of Harappan Culture. During the last fifty years and more, different views have been expressed by scholars about the authors of this great and highly developed culture which is comparable to that of Sumer, Babylon, Egypt and Assyria. And the key to the understanding of it lies in the decipherment of the writing on the seals and sealings. But unfortunately, the decipherment of this writing has defied the attempts of several scholars during the past fifty years and more. While some scholars think that this writing is of indigenous origin, others feel that it is of foreign origin. Even amongst those who think of indigenous origin, one set of scholars propound the theory of Dravidian origin while the other set put forth the theory of Aryan origin. These different views may be briefly mentioned here.

As stated above, the Indus script appears on a large number of steatite seals which are beautifully prepared. From Lothal in Gujarat some sealings are also found. From these sealings, which are found in association with packing material:; such as cloth, matting and twisted cords, it has been suggested that the sealings were used as labels and affixed to the packages of goods were thus of commercial or merchandise value10.

Waddel was one of the earliest scholars to attempt the decipherment of the Indus script. He thought that the writing represents the Sumerian script and, based on the identity of Sumerians with Aryans, he read the names of Vedic and Epic persons11 . Pran Nath assigned alphabetic values to the script and suggested their connection with the later Bra#hmi# script12. Sankaranand and Barua also thought that the script was alphabetic. Sudhansu Kumar Ray also held a similar view. Hrozny tried to connect the script with the Hittite language. But Heras suggested that the script is picto-phonographic and connected it with Dravidian languages reading old Tamil on the seals. Hevesy sought to establish similarity between the Indus script and the script of the Eastern Islands in the Pacific ocean. Hunter felt that the Indus script is derived -partly from Egyptian script and partly from Mesopotamian script. Flinders Petrie also connected the Indus script with the Egyptian hieroglyphs and thought that the seals contained only the titles and not the names of the officials. He also assumed that the symbols were ideographs while Meriggi thought that while symbols were ideograms, others were phonemes so that the writing was of ideo-phonographic system. Amongst other early scholars who have attempted to read the Indus script may be mentioned Gadd, Sydney Smith and Langdon13 . David Diringer remarks "it seems obvious that the Indus Valley script which is rather schematic and linear on the extant inscriptions, was originally pictographic but it is impossible to decide whether it was truly indigenous or imported"14.

The above discussion would show how scholars are holding different views regarding the Indus script and how difficult the problem of decipherment of this script has been during the last several years. It is possible to decipher an unknown language in a known script or a known language in an unknown script. But in regard to Indus script, it is a case of deciphering an unknown language in an unknown script and hence it has baffled and defied the attempts of many a well-known scriptologist. For the success of such an attempt certain points of contact are necessary15. For example, the script of the Egyptian hieroglyphs remained undeciphered for a very long period until the discovery of the famous 'Rosetta Stone' inscription in 1799 by the French engineer Bouchard at the time of Napoleon's expedition to Egypt. This sensational discovery proved to be a turning point in understanding the nature of the hieroglyphic script, because the Rosetta Stone contained inscriptions in three different kinds of script, viz., hieroglyphic, demotic (or local script) and Greek. With the help of the Greek text attempts to decipher the other two scripts were made by pioneers like the French orientalist Silvestre de Sacy and the Swedish diplomat Akerblad. And it was left to the fortune and credit of Sacy's pupil and French scholar J. Fr. Champollion to finally and conclusively decipher the inscriptions of the Rosetta Stone in 1821-2216. Again, the decipherment of the Cretan Linear B inscription, whose language was unknown and for which no bilingual text was available, was made possible for Ventris and Chadwick by the existence of, similar scripts n Cypriot and in Greek mainland written in Greek language17. Similarly some points of contact are necessary to find a satisfactory solution to the problem of the decipherment of the Indus script like the biscriptal or bilingual inscriptions.We shall now review the recent attempts made by Indian and foreign scholars about the decipherment of the Indus or Harappan script. Amongst the foreign scholars, the Russian team consisting of Knorozov, Volcok and Gurov may be mentioned. They are credited to have taken the help of the computer machines. They assign word value to the signs and suggest that the script belonged to the Dravidian family of languages18. The Finnish team of scholars led by Asko Parpola also believed the language of the Indus script to be Dravidian. Amongst the Indian scholars I. Mahadevan and S.R. Rao have made a detailed study of the problem19. While the former is inclined to attribute the script to be Dravidian, the latter thinks it to be pre-Vedic. Mahadevan has also made use of the computer facilities and has attempted to achieve 'word-division' in the script assuming the language to be Dravidian. S.R. Rao claims that his approach is without any presumption and has tried to show that there has been a change in the script from its earlier phase to the later phase in that the number of signs which were more in the earlier period were reduced considerably in the later phase. He compares the signs of this later phase with the symbols of the North Semetic script of a comparative date and by showing similarity between them gives the same phonetic value to the Harappan script that is found in the Semetic script, other words, S.R. Rao suggests that there was evolution of the Indus script from an earlier period or mature peri9d (2500 B.C. to 1500 B.C.) and that the early syllabic-cum-alphabetic writing was disciplined into an alphabetic system by 1500 B.C. He also suggests that the Indus people spoke an Indo-European language which shows close affinity to Indo-Aryan in vocabulary, semantics and phonology. The names of the rulers and chiefs and of countries, sacrifices and divinities, as read by him, would suggest that the Harappans were the progenitors of the Vedic Aryans.

B.B. Lal has pointed out the difficulties in accepting the views of both I. Mahadevan and S.R. Rao20. Mahadevan himself has changed his views and methods of approach on more than one occasion and we have yet to wait and see what his final views in the matter of decipherment of the Harappan script are. In one of his latest papers entitled 'Study of the Indus Script : A Bilingual Approach'21 he has suggested that the problem should be studied from the point of view of interpreting the ideograms in the light of the Indian historical tradition which has come down to us in two main streams, viz., Indo-Aryan and Dravidian. This theory still remains to be tested by scholars before expressing any opinion.

As regards S.R. Rao's approach, viz., assigning the phonetic values of the Semitic script to the late Harappan script and reading it as pre-Vedic Sanskrit is also not decisive and final. As pointed out by Lal, Rao compares the symbols of the late Harappan with those of the Semitic ones and this material is not enough to arrive at any conclusion. Regarding the vowel sign Rao compares it not with any Semitic sign, since Semitic has no vowel signs, but with Sumerian sign for a following Waddel. And for some signs, Rao suggests different sources, viz., Akkadian and Ugaritic. This will be a difficult proposition. Moreover, while the late Harappan script, as suggested by Rao, has many vowel marks, the- Semitic script is completely devoid of any vowel marks. In justification of his approach, Rao says that he is proceeding from the known script (Semitic) to the unknown script (Harappan). But he is silent about the known origins of both these scripts which are different. While the Harappan is descended from the early Indus script according to Rao himself, the origin of the Semitic script is suggested to be Egyptian. So Rao has to explain at what stage the Semitic script acquired the phonetic values of the Indus script if his theory is to be supported. He has not attempted to answer these questions but has only instituted some comparison between the two scripts and has tried to establish some kind of phonetic relationship. Another defect in Rao's findings is that while he has given his reading as pre-Vedic or Indo-European, he has quoted not a single authority of Indo-European Linguistics or even an authority of Vedic language that the readings given by him can be accepted. In view of what is said above, it is not possible to accept Rao's claim that he has deciphered the Indus script. Of course, every scholar who makes an attempt at decipherment of a new script does claim that he has deciphered, but a new script can be taken as deciphered only when the world of scholars accept his views without any doubt22. So we can say, without any fear of contradiction, that the Indus script has defied the attempt of all scholars so far and has not yet been deciphered just as the Asokan Bra#hmhi# script has been deciphered. The discovery of longer record in the script or a bilingual or biscriptal writing or some definite contact point would help us in finding a satisfactory solution to this unknown script in an unknown language.
Rleated Posts
Was Ancient India Literate
Brahmi Script Origin
Tamil Brahmi
Pallava Granta Script