--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "S.Kalyanaraman" wrote:... You
seem to favor the idea> that a couple of highly debatable
circumstantial similarities could> account for relationship, without
any crucial argument.
The similarities are more than a couple. All certainly debatable.
The remarkable work of JD Muhly cf. for example, Copper and Tin. The
Distribution of Mineral Resources and the Nature of the Metals Trade
in the Bronze Age, Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts
and Science 43 (1972), pp. 155-535, 46 (1976), pp. 77-136 points to
an extraordinary interaction of people as the metallurgical commerce
emerged beyond chalcolithic phases into the alloying phases (such as
bronze or brass). This leap in technology is matched only by the
leap in inventing a writing system -- employed not only on
terracotta but also on metal objects themselves -- to create bills
of lading or property records or records of possessions. A
similarity is found in the function performed by Egyptian
hieroglyphs (which, however, use syllabic bases).
There are clues available to exclude relationship, e.g. the presence
of a cylinder seal showing a Meluhhan merchant together with an
interpreter who was an Akkadian speaker. This shows that the
Meluhhan did not speak Akkadian.