From: jdcroft@...
Message: 10070
Date: 2001-10-09
> That's the creation myth you're thinking of, me suspects. Prettyfrom
> much the entire Middle-East ended up believing that they "came from
> the (primordial) water". Nothing uniquely Sumerian there. It could
> just as well be Egyptian, Greek or Cretan.
>
> >My own feeling is the ancestors of the Sumerians really did come
> >the water, refugees from sea-level rising, from further down in nowGood for you mate!
> >indudated portions the Persian Gulf.
>
> This should be in the List Archives: John Croft mentioned Sumerian
> legend (Dilmun) and its connection to this very idea of a southern
> origin of these people. I had resisted the thought for the longest
> time but I've turned around and can accept it with some provisions.
> I used to think that the Sumerians came from further north (theI would strongly agree with you on this one too.
> whole Halaf-Ubaid thing) but now I've come to a peaceful conclusion
> that this cultural spread should be associated with a concurrent
> linguistic spread of Caucasic speaking peoples (HurroUrartian-ish)
> which must have heavily affected Sumerian to give it a strange and
> un-Nostratic looking character, thereby making it difficult for
> longrangers to agree on a proper placement of the language within
> the Nostratic tree.
> Despite Sumerian's cloak of mystery, I continue to feel that it'sThe date seems associated with the spread of Ubaid I (Eridu)
> probably most closely related to ElamoDravidian languages, and hence
> would have been once part of a chain of languages stretching from
> Saudi Arabia (Proto-Sumerian) to the South Caspian (ElamoDravidian,
> Early Steppe). So...
>
> If you're right, Mark, the question is could Sumerian,
> by moving from Saudi Arabia, have replaced a related and
> autochthonous "Eurasiatic" language in the process and by what
> date might this northward movement have taken place exactly?