--> Link_1 (E)

Link_2 (D)

Link_3 (D)

-->
[img][/img]

Weder ein Liebeslied noch ein religiös-"sakraler" Text, sondern eine"sumerische" Tontafel, in der genau festgehalten ist, was abgeliefert wurde bzw. abgeliefert werden musste.

Ãœbersetzt:

"40 small/young ewes
6 ewes (and) goats
(delivered by?) Ensar."

Gruß!

-->...."Die Sumerer gab es nicht", Buch von Gunnar Heinsohn



Hallo Popeye,

Gunnar Heinsohn (den ich für einen seriösen Wissenschaftler halte) hat in seinem Buch"Die Sumerer gab es nicht" auf allergrößte Probleme bei der Datierung der Geschichte hingewiesen. Demnach basiert die herkömmliche Chronologie auf der Bibel mit Ausgangspunkt Abraham ca. 3000 Jahre v.C. und alles, was die Archäologie so zu Tage förder muß nun in diesen Rahmen rein. Dabei geht es nicht ums Reinquetschen, sondern ums Strecken. Es ist zuviel Zeit für zuwenig Funde da.

Was meinst Du dazu?


Viele Grüße, Ralf G.

-->Hallo, @Ralf Geller,
zu meiner Schande muss ich gestehen, dass das Buch zwar in meinem Bücherregal steht, aber noch nicht konsumiert wurde. Ich kann zu der Schriftfrage nur auf die 'Mainstream-Geschichte' zurückgreifen, und in dieser Frage ist es letztlich gleichgültig, ob es DIE Sumerer waren, oder andere, die zu dieser Zeit dort lebten. (Mich treibt immer noch das 'Kerbholz' um, und die Zeichen auf den Kerbhözern).
Der große Fachmann und Heinsohn-Kenner zu diesen Datierungs- und Geschichtsfragen ist @dottore - siehe Link. Wen er dies liest, wird er dazu sicher was sagen können.
Grüße & und ein spätes Herzlich Willkommen hier!
Popeye
<ul> ~ http://f17.parsimony.net/forum30434/messages/220086.htm</ul>

-->Hallo Popeye,

(Mich treibt immer noch das 'Kerbholz' um, und die Zeichen auf den Kerbhözern).

Kerbe=Schulden?

Erzähl' mal bitte kurz was drüber. (Les' es morgen. Feierabend jetzt!)


Grüße und schönen Abend, Ralf G.

-->Guten Abend, Herr R. Geller!

Erst einmal ein herzliches Willkommen, denn ich vermute, Sie haben noch keine oder aber noch nicht viele Beiträge zuvor hier eingestellt. Da Sie leider ihr Passwort in die falsche Zeile eingegeben haben, wurde es sichtbar, und ich habe es vom Speicher genommen.

Leider ist der Forumbetreiber, Jürgen, derzeit nicht vorort, so dass er einen neune Vorschlog Ihrerseits zum Passwort nicht entgegnnehmen kann. Wenn es Ihnen hilft, können Sie aber gerne mir einen neune Vorschlag mit Ihrer Email-Adresse zuschicken ( ingUR ). Ich werde mich bemühen, dieses, so schnell wie möglich, einzurichten.

Gruß,
Uwe

-->Siehe hier für eine Meinung zur Frage Keilschrift/Vinca-Schrift und zur Frage, ob die Hieroglyphenschrift eher entstanden ist als die Keilschrift. Letztere Frage wird sich vielleicht kaum jemals zufriedenstellend klären lassen, da es nur um wenige Jahrhunderte zu gehen scheint. FAQs der Quelle enthalten auch etwas Spaß, etwa hier. Der Autor der Seite hat seine eigene, ziemlich eigenwillige Theorie zur Entstehung des Sumerischen und der menschlichen Sprache überhaupt, wonach die Sprache erst ziemlich spät entstanden ist.



In"A Manual of Sumerian Grammar and Texts" Anhang 1 geht J. Hayes auf die Geschichte des Sumerischen ein. Er beschreibt die Theorie Schmandt-Besserats, wie sie (weniger ausführlich) hier skizziert ist. Die ersten Zählsteine sollen danach um -8000 aufgetaucht sein. Er bespricht auch die Möglichkeit, daß die Sumerer"may have borrowed their writing system from some other people, perhaps some distance away from Mesopotamia. This is not impossible. It has often been argued that the Sumerian writing system does not fit the Sumerian phonological system very well... This is an old theory, very difficult to prove, and not much in favor today. However, as more research on Sumerian phonology is pursued, the gap between the writing system and the phonology is appears to grow wider, and so this theory merits more attention than usually given to it today." Wenn die Keilschrift ursprünglich ideographisch war, ist mir freilich nicht klar, warum sie gut zur Phonetik des Sumerischen passen soll. Gegen Ende desselben Teilabschnittes von Anhang 1 bemerkt er:"It will be noted that no attempt has been made here to define `writing'. This is not as easy as it seems. The issue is important, however. In 1995 and 1996 a few `plaques' were found in Jerf el-Ahmar in Syria, dating apparently to the Neolithic (10th millenium BCE), which contain a number of abstract symbols. It would be stretching the point to call these plaques `writing', but they must have had some symbolic function. Photographs of these plaques are published in Bertin et al., En Syrie: Aux Origines de l'Ecriture (1997), which contains many beautiful photographs of cuneiform tables."



Obwohl es mit Ihrem Beitrag nichts zu tun hat, vielleicht noch den Absatz danach als kleines Schmankerl für dottore, falls er dieses Lévi-Strauss-Zitat noch nicht gebracht hat:



The changes brought about by the invention of writing cannot be discussed here, but Schmandt-Besserat quotes a provocative statement of Lévi-Strauss from 1973:

And when we consider the first uses to which writing was put, it would seem quite clear that it was connected first and foremost with power: it was used for inventories, catalogues, censuses, laws and instructions, in all instances, wheter the aim was to keep a check on material possessions or on human beings, it is evidence of the power exercised by some men over other men and over worldly possesions.

-->Hallo, @JeFra, besten Dank für die interessanten Vinca-Links. Es ist gar keine Frage, dass zumindest in Mesopotamien Schrift zuerst eine „Buchhaltungskonvention“ war. Das ist aber bei den meisten Schriftsprachen wohl so gewesen: erst die Zahl, dann das Wort. Auch die homophonische Ausgestaltung (siehe Kopie unten) erfolgte ja erst viel später und erlaubte dann die Transformation verschiedener Sprachen in das Keilschriftformat.
Ob nun Vinca früher oder spatter entstand ist für mich eigentlich nicht so interessant. Spannender ist die Frage der Verwandtschaften und der Entwicklung.
Gruß & Dank!

Auszug: Gwendolyn Leick, Mesopotamia, The invention of the City, 2001, S.65ff

Why Sumerian came to be the language represented by writing is still uncertain. Mesopotamia was never linguistically or ethnically homogeneous and the personal names in the early texts clearly show that languages other than Sumerian were spoken at the time. Much has been written about the apparently 'sudden' appearance of the Sumerians in Mesopotamia and their possible origins.6 They were thought to have come from the mountains because of their predilection for ziggurats, and were seen to have been engaged in rivalry and conflict with the people who spoke Semitic languages. None of that can be substantiated. Linguistically, Sumerian is not related to any of the known groups of languages and attempts to link it to Ural-Altaic languages, because of a shared characteristic of adding syntactic elements to the main word - agglutinating them -have proved fruitless.

The question of the origin of the Sumerians remains intractable and all we can state is that, at the beginning of the Early Dynastic period, this language was chosen to be rendered in writing. Perhaps the Sumerians did become politically dominant and exercised control over the scribal centers in the early cities. It is also possible that it was even then a prestige language reserved for written communication irrespective of whether or not the 'Sumerians' were politically powerful. Some of the earliest royal inscriptions, for instance, were commissioned by kings who bore Semitic names. Whatever the motivations were originally, once it was adopted Sumerian remained the foundation of Mesopotamian writing, even when, in time, other languages were rendered in the same system. Knowledge of Sumerian was still considered a sign of true learning and wisdom nearly three thousand years later.7 Like Sanskrit or Latin, it acquired a cultural value as the link to an old and still vital tradition. Even among modern Assyriologists, those mastering Sumerian have an unofficially higher status than those dealing with 'easier' languages.8

The process of adapting the writing system occurred towards the end of the Uruk period and is conventionally designated as Archaic Level in.9 Let us consider how the 'archaic' system of word signs was converted to writing Sumerian. The principle by which a form of writing based on symbols without phonetic characteristics may be converted into a system of writing that can also reflect parts of sounds (phonemes) is quite simple. It is based on the fact that, in every language, there are words with different meanings that sound the same, such as 'bee' and 'be' or 'dear' and 'deer' in English. In Sumerian, many words were apparently monosyllabic, and quite a few consisted of just one vowel sound. The word for 'water' was a.10 In a grammatical context, the syllable 'a' could stand for a whole range of syntactical functions, depending on whether it was put before, between or after a chain of semantic elements. The archaic sign for water consisted of two parallel wavy lines. If one works within an existing repertoire of signs that refer to objects that can be represented in a standard form (a type of drawing), such as the wavy lines, then there will already exist quite a number of such signs for a large variety of concrete things (types of vessels, animals, buildings and so on). When these signs are taken to represent a word in a particular language, as, for instance, when the stripy insect is recognized by an English speaker, he will read 'bee'. In English the sound 'be' can also be an infinitive verbal form, or a syllable within other words, as in 'be-lieve'. By drawing a 'bee' in all cases where a 'be' sound is wanted, the functional possibilities of the sign multiply since it can refer to the primary, pictorial referent, the 'bee', or stand for the sound in a variety of contexts.
In Sumerian, any time the sound 'a' needed to appear in writing, two wavy lines were used, and context would make it clear whether it was meant to be read as 'water', a grammatical component or a syllable in a compound word. This principle, known as homophony, was the main structural device in the adaptation of the archaic cuneiform system for specific languages.11 The disadvantage was that the script became a hybrid of pictographic and phonetic signs that had a much greater potential for confusion than the purely pictographic one. Writing became more complicated, special markers had to be introduced to signal that a group of signs referred to a specific category of words, such as personal names, or stars, or animals, or whatever. In practice, scribes developed professional expertise tailored to suit the type of work they were engaged in: bureaucratic, legal (recording of court cases or drawing up of contracts) and communication (missives or public inscriptions). All these types of written tasks had their own special features and scribes relied on a limited repertoire of signs. Only the advanced scholar would have complete command over all the possibilities and intricacies of the script and vocabulary.