DOCSLIB.ORG

By Alexander Nash a Senior Honors Thesis Submitted to the Faculty Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
By Alexander Nash a Senior Honors Thesis Submitted to the Faculty Of THE PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN URHEIMAT: THE ARMENIAN HYPOTHESIS by Alexander Nash A Senior Honors Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The University of Utah In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Honors Degree in Bachelor of Arts In Linguistics Approved: Benjamin Slade, PhD Supervisor Chair, Department of Linguistics __ Aniko Csirmaz, PhD Sylvia D. Torti, PhD Honors Faculty Advisor Dean, Honors College December 20 IS Copyright © 2015 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT This thesis analyzes the viability of the Armenian Hypothesis, which places the Proto- Indo-European homeland in the Armenian Highland (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1990, Kavoukjian 1987). Arguments supporting the hypothesis are evaluated in the light of linguistic, archeological, and genetic evidence. After a thorough evaluation, I find that the Armenian Hypothesis lacks any evidence that positively differentiates it from the Pontic Steppe Hypothesis and fails to provide for several linguistic and archeological facts. It is concluded that for a revised version of the Armenian Hypothesis to be compelling, additional archeological evidence supporting it would need to be found in the Armenian Highland (a sadly under-researched region) and additional details would need to be provided concerning Indo-European fragmentation, migration, and subsequent dialectal development. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION - QUEST FOR THE URHEIMAT 1 2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2 2.1 THE GLOTTALIC THEORY 2 2.2 EARLY HISTORY OF THE ARMENIAN HIGHLAND 9 3.0 THE ARMENIAN HYPOTHESIS 13 3.1 THE MODEL 13 3.2 ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING THE ARMENIAN HYPOTHESIS 15 3.3 PROBLEMS 17 4.0 THE PONTIC STEPPE HYPOTHESIS 24 5.0 CONCLUSION 25 FURTHER READING 27 REFERENCES 27 iii 1.0 Introduction -- Quest for the Urheimat The location of the Proto-Indo-European urheimat, or homeland, can be considered one of the original puzzles of modern linguistics. Excited by its possible implications for the origins of western civilization, linguists have been engaged in this problem ever since Sir William Jones noted, in 1786, the similarities between Sanskrit, Latin, Greek, and other languages now considered to be descendants of the Proto-Indo-European tongue (Mallory 1989]. Many of the tools and theories advanced by linguists were developed in pursuit of this Promised Land; through ever more sophisticated reconstructive techniques, the form of this prehistoric language was slowly revealed, but competing theories as to its original homeland and the method of its dispersal continued to war with each other even through to the 21st Century (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1990, Pereltsvaig 2015). Of these theories, the current favorite among scholars seems to be the Kurgan/Pontic Steppe Hypothesis, identifying speakers of PIE (Proto-Indo- European) with the Yamna culture, present in the Pontic-Caspian area from 5000- 3000 BC (Mallory 1989, Pereltsvaig 2015). Archeological evidence from the region has identified aspects of the Yamna culture that align well with what scholars have inferred about PIE culture, such as the domestication of horses (Mallory 1989). Recent genetic analyses also provide evidence of massive migrations from the Pontic Steppe that match the predictions of the Pontic Steppe Hypothesis concerning the spread of PIE to Europe (Haak etal. 2015). The debate is still hot, however (Bouckaert et a l 2012; Gray, Atkinson, & Greenhill 2011) - and the Pontic Steppe Hypothesis, of course, is not above critique1. In order to obtain a more precise picture, therefore, it may be appropriate to reanalyze the linguistic and historical data in terms of alternative hypotheses that may have fallen by the wayside. It is in this light that I wish to analyze the viability of the Armenian Hypothesis, which posits that Proto-Indo-European was spoken in Armenia Major before the various Indo-European peoples migrated to their modern locations (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1990, Kavoukjian 1987]. This hypothesis has been greatly overlooked by scholars. The Armenian Hypothesis relies on the Glottalic Theory of PIE obstruents, which will be described in detail in Section 2, along with background information on the prehistory of the Armenian highland that is essential for understanding the model. In Section 3 the main arguments of the Armenian Hypothesis will be presented and deconstructed. In Section 4 I will briefly describe the Pontic Steppe Hypothesis and compare it with the Armenian Hypothesis. My conclusions will then be found in Section 5. 2.0 Background Information 2.1 The Glottalic Theory One of the most intense debates surrounding the reconstruction of PIE concerns the nature of the language's phonological system, and in particular, its series of stops [Salmons 1993]. The traditional2 reconstruction of PIE stops posits 1 See Further Reading for a critique of the Pontic Steppe Hypothesis. 2 1 say "traditional" for convenience's sake and not because the reconstruction is uncontroversial. As Salmons (1 9 9 3 ] puts it: "... One fails to find a strongly held consensus about the nature of Proto-Indo-European obstruents during the course of the last hundred years. That is, one cannot appeal to some uncontroversial reconstruction of the obstruent system and claim that Glottalic Theory deviates radically from such an accepted system.” an inventory of stops similar to that found in (1), with three series of stops: voiced, voiced aspirated, and voiceless (Haider 1985]. (1) b bhp d dht gghk This reconstruction was created via the Comparative Method, a method by which correspondences between daughter languages are analyzed in order to determine the original nature of the mother language, using what we know about how languages change over time. Table [2) shows some examples of the kind of data that would be considered using this method (Salmons 1993). Originally, a strong emphasis was placed on the role of Sanskrit in reconstruction, and accordingly, a four-part stop series, similar to that of Sanskrit (voiceless, voiceless aspirated, voiced, and voiced aspirated), was posited using comparative data. However, the voiceless aspirated series was called into question and soon disposed of in most traditional reconstructions (Salmons 1993). P- t- k- Sanskrit pitar- trayas hrd0 Latin pater tres cor, cordis Greek pater treis kardia However, what is shown is typical of the various pre-Glottalic-Theory reconstructions, taken as a whole. 4 Old Irish athir tri cride Gothic fa&ar 0reis hairto Armenian hayr erek' sirt 'father' 'three' 'heart' b- d- g* Sanskrit bala-m dasa janu Latin de-bilis decems genu Greek belteron??? deka gonu Old Irish deich glun Gothic taihun kniu Armenian tasn cunr 'strength, size,' etc. 'tenth' 'knee' Scholars such as Jakobson, Pedersen, and Martinet raised concerns about this traditional view as early as 1957 or earlier, stating that it was problematic mainly for typological reasons - that is, that it ran contrary to what was (and still is) commonly accepted as the typical cross-linguistic pattern for stop systems (Salmons 1993). In analyzing the traditional reconstruction, immediately conspicuous is the presence of a voiced aspirate series in a system that lacks voiceless aspirates. Not only are voiced aspirates rare in themselves cross-linguistically, but they are normally only found in languages that also have a series of voiceless aspirates. Also suspicious is the noted rarity (or possible absence) of *b in this system, which cross- linguistically is a relatively common and unmarked consonant -- it is typologically unusual for / b / t o be absent in a phonological system that contains other bilabial stops (Salmons 1993). These concerns, and others, led some scholars to propose a series of alternative theories, now collectively referred to as the Glottalic Theory. These sought to solve the problems of the Laryngeal Theory by taking typological constraints into consideration, thereby proposing a different nature for the three- stop series of PIE: (weakly) glottalized, voiced with aspirated allophones, and voiceless with aspirated allophones (Salmons 1993). (See the table in (3)). A quick note on some features of the consonants being considered here. Glottalization involves the closure of the glottis during the production of a sound. There are two main types of glottal consonants -- ejective, with a glottalic egressive airstream, and implosive, with a glottalic ingressive and pulmonic egressive airstream. The term aspiration refers to a burst of air accompanying the release of a stop (Salmons 1993). In characterizing the PIE stop system in this manner, therefore, the voiced aspirated series was eliminated and the *b gap was reanalyzed as a *p' (ejective p) gap, which is far more typologically sound3. According to this theory, the first series is only weakly glottalized in order to explain why so many of PIE's daughter 3 For articulatory reasons, /p ’/ is quite rare, even in languages that contain ejective consonants. The opposite is true of implosives — /& / is the easiest of implosives to pronounce, leading most proponents of the Glottalic Theory to propose an ejective rather than implosive series (Salmons 1993). 6 languages lost that feature, and the allophonic distribution of aspiration, unimportant in describing the phonemic inventory of PIE itself, explains the later developments made by those same daughter languages (Salmons 1993). (3) Traditional Reconstruction vs. Glottalic Theory -- Stops Traditional Glottalic Theory Series I voiced - b ,d ,g glottalized - b',d',g' Series II voiced aspirated - bh, dh, g h voiced w/ aspirated allophones - ¥ h\ d ^ , gW Series III voiceless -p,t,k voiceless w/ aspirated allophones - pW, t(h), kW The Glottalic Theory has the advantage of offering a simpler explanation for the root structure constraints that seem to have existed in PIE. As characterized by the traditional view, these restrictions (in roots of type CV(V)C) disallowed the co­ occurrence of either two plain voiced stops or a voiceless stop and a voiced aspirate within a single root, as can be seen in examples (4) and (5) (Salmons 1993). (4) Attested Sequences *ped- *dek- *pek- *deigh- *dheb- *dheigh- (5) Unattested Sequences **bed- **pegh.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Armenian Secret and Invented Languages and Argots
    Armenian Secret and Invented Languages and Argots The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Russell, James R. Forthcoming. Armenian secret and invented languages and argots. Proceedings of the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:9938150 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Policy Articles, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#OAP 1 ARMENIAN SECRET AND INVENTED LANGUAGES AND ARGOTS. By James R. Russell, Harvard University. Светлой памяти Карена Никитича Юзбашяна посвящается это исследование. CONTENTS: Preface 1. Secret languages and argots 2. Philosophical and hypothetical languages 3. The St. Petersburg Manuscript 4. The Argot of the Felt-Beaters 5. Appendices: 1. Description of St. Petersburg MS A 29 2. Glossary of the Ṙuštuni language 3. Glossary of the argot of the Felt-Beaters of Moks 4. Texts in the “Third Script” of MS A 29 List of Plates Bibliography PREFACE Much of the research for this article was undertaken in Armenia and Russia in June and July 2011 and was funded by a generous O’Neill grant through the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard. For their eager assistance and boundless hospitality I am grateful to numerous friends and colleagues who made my visit pleasant and successful. For their generous assistance in Erevan and St.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Hittite and Tocharian: Rethinking Indo-European in the 20Th Century and Beyond
    The Impact of Hittite and Tocharian: Rethinking Indo-European in the 20th Century and Beyond The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Jasanoff, Jay. 2017. The Impact of Hittite and Tocharian: Rethinking Indo-European in the 20th Century and Beyond. In Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics, edited by Jared Klein, Brian Joseph, and Matthias Fritz, 31-53. Munich: Walter de Gruyter. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:41291502 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA 18. The Impact of Hittite and Tocharian ■■■ 35 18. The Impact of Hittite and Tocharian: Rethinking Indo-European in the Twentieth Century and Beyond 1. Two epoch-making discoveries 4. Syntactic impact 2. Phonological impact 5. Implications for subgrouping 3. Morphological impact 6. References 1. Two epoch-making discoveries The ink was scarcely dry on the last volume of Brugmann’s Grundriß (1916, 2nd ed., Vol. 2, pt. 3), so to speak, when an unexpected discovery in a peripheral area of Assyriol- ogy portended the end of the scholarly consensus that Brugmann had done so much to create. Hrozný, whose Sprache der Hethiter appeared in 1917, was not primarily an Indo-Europeanist, but, like any trained philologist of the time, he could see that the cuneiform language he had deciphered, with such features as an animate nom.
    [Show full text]
  • Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology in the Caucasus
    -.! r. d, J,,f ssaud Artsus^rNn Mlib scoIuswVC ffiLffi pac,^^€C erplJ pue lr{o) '-I dlllqd ,iq pa11pa ,(8oyoe er4lre Jo ecr] JeJd eq] pue 'sct1t1od 'tustleuolleN 6rl Se]tlJlljd 18q1 uueul lOu soop sltll'slstSo[ocPqJJu ul?lsl?JneJ leool '{uetuJO ezrsuqdtue ol qsl'\\ c'tl'laslno aql 1V cqtJo lr?JttrrJ Suteq e:u e,\\ 3llLl,\\'ieqt 'teqlout? ,{g eldoed .uorsso.rciclns euoJo .:etqSnr:1s louJr crleuols,{s eql ul llnseJ {eru leql tsr:d snolJes uoJl uPlseJnPJ lerll JO suoluolstp :o ..sSutpucJsltu,' "(rolsrqerd '..r8u,pn"r.. roJ EtlotlJr qsllqulso ol ]duralltl 3o elqetclecctl Surqsrn8urlstp o.1". 'speecorcl ll sV 'JB ,(rnluec qlxls-pltu eql ut SutuutSeq'et3:oe9 11^ly 'porred uralse,t\ ut uotJl?ztuolol {eer{) o1 saleleJ I se '{1:clncrlled lBJlsselc uP qil'\\ Alluclrol eq] roJ eJueptlc 1r:crSoloaeqcJe uuts11311l?J Jo uollRnlele -ouoJt-loueqlpue-snseon€JuJequoueqlpuE'l?luoulJv'er8rocg'uelteq -JaZVulpJosejotrolsrqerdsqtJoSuouE}erdlelutSutreptsuoc.,{11euor8ar lsrgSurpeeco:cl'lceistqlsulleJlsnlpselduexalere^esButlele;"{qsnsecne3 reded stql cql ur .{SoloeeqJlu Jo olnlpu lecrllod eql elBltsuotuop [lt,\\ .paluroclduslp lou st euo 'scrlr1od ,(:erodueluoJ o1 polelsJUtr '1tns:nd JturcpeJe olpl ue aq or ,{Soloeuqole 3o ecrlcu'rd eq} lcedxa lou plno'{\ 'SIJIUUOC aAISOldxe ouo 3Jor{,t\ PoJe uP sl 1t 'suolllpuoJ aseql IIe UsAtD sluqle pur: ,{poolq ,{11euor1dacxo lulo^es pue salndstp lelrollrrel snor0tunu qlr,n elalder uot,3e; elllBlo^ ,(re,r. e st 1l 'uolun lel^os JeuIJoJ aql io esdelloc eqt ue,tr.3 'snsBsnBJ aql jo seldoed peu'{u oql lle ro3 ln3Sutueau 'l?Iuusllllu
    [Show full text]
  • Writing and City Life
    29 THEME2 writing and city life CITY life began in Mesopotamia*, the land between the Euphrates and the Tigris rivers that is now part of the Republic of Iraq. Mesopotamian civilisation is known for its prosperity, city life, its voluminous and rich literature and its mathematics and astronomy. Mesopotamia’s writing system and literature spread to the eastern Mediterranean, northern *The name Syria, and Turkey after 2000 BCE, so that the kingdoms of Mesopotamia is that entire region were writing to one another, and to the derived from the Pharaoh of Egypt, in the language and script of Mesopotamia. Greek words mesos, Here we shall explore the connection between city life and writing, and then look at some outcomes of a sustained meaning middle, tradition of writing. and potamos, In the beginning of recorded history, the land, mainly the meaning river. urbanised south (see discussion below), was called Sumer and Akkad. After 2000 BCE, when Babylon became an important city, the term Babylonia was used for the southern region. From about 1100 BCE, when the Assyrians established their kingdom in the north, the region became known as Assyria. The first known language of the land was Sumerian. It was gradually replaced by Akkadian around 2400 BCE when Akkadian speakers arrived. This language flourished till about Alexander’s time (336-323 BCE), with some regional changes occurring. From 1400 BCE, Aramaic also trickled in. This language, similar to Hebrew, became widely spoken after 1000 BCE. It is still spoken in parts of Iraq. Archaeology in Mesopotamia began in the 1840s. At one or two sites (including Uruk and Mari, which we discuss below), excavations continued for decades.
    [Show full text]
  • Greek-Anatolian Language Contact and the Settlement of Pamphylia
    CHRISTINA SKELTON Greek-Anatolian Language Contact and the Settlement of Pamphylia The Ancient Greek dialect of Pamphylia shows extensive influence from the nearby Anatolian languages. Evidence from the linguistics of Greek and Anatolian, sociolinguistics, and the histor- ical and archaeological record suggest that this influence is due to Anatolian speakers learning Greek as a second language as adults in such large numbers that aspects of their L2 Greek became fixed as a part of the main Pamphylian dialect. For this linguistic development to occur and persist, Pamphylia must initially have been settled by a small number of Greeks, and remained isolated from the broader Greek-speaking community while prevailing cultural atti- tudes favored a combined Greek-Anatolian culture. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND The Greek-speaking world of the Archaic and Classical periods (ca. ninth through third centuries BC) was covered by a patchwork of different dialects of Ancient Greek, some of them quite different from the Attic and Ionic familiar to Classicists. Even among these varied dialects, the dialect of Pamphylia, located on the southern coast of Asia Minor, stands out as something unusual. For example, consider the following section from the famous Pamphylian inscription from Sillyon: συ Διϝι̣ α̣ ̣ και hιιαροισι Μανεˉ[ς .]υαν̣ hελε ΣελυW[ι]ιυ̣ ς̣ ̣ [..? hι†ια[ρ]α ϝιλ̣ σιι̣ ọς ̣ υπαρ και ανιιας̣ οσα περ(̣ ι)ι[στα]τυ ̣ Wοικ[. .] The author would like to thank Sally Thomason, Craig Melchert, Leonard Neidorf and the anonymous reviewer for their valuable input, as well as Greg Nagy and everyone at the Center for Hellenic Studies for allowing me to use their library and for their wonderful hospitality during the early stages of pre- paring this manuscript.
    [Show full text]
  • THE INDO-EUROPEAN FAMILY — the LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE by Brian D
    THE INDO-EUROPEAN FAMILY — THE LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE by Brian D. Joseph, The Ohio State University 0. Introduction A stunning result of linguistic research in the 19th century was the recognition that some languages show correspondences of form that cannot be due to chance convergences, to borrowing among the languages involved, or to universal characteristics of human language, and that such correspondences therefore can only be the result of the languages in question having sprung from a common source language in the past. Such languages are said to be “related” (more specifically, “genetically related”, though “genetic” here does not have any connection to the term referring to a biological genetic relationship) and to belong to a “language family”. It can therefore be convenient to model such linguistic genetic relationships via a “family tree”, showing the genealogy of the languages claimed to be related. For example, in the model below, all the languages B through I in the tree are related as members of the same family; if they were not related, they would not all descend from the same original language A. In such a schema, A is the “proto-language”, the starting point for the family, and B, C, and D are “offspring” (often referred to as “daughter languages”); B, C, and D are thus “siblings” (often referred to as “sister languages”), and each represents a separate “branch” of the family tree. B and C, in turn, are starting points for other offspring languages, E, F, and G, and H and I, respectively. Thus B stands in the same relationship to E, F, and G as A does to B, C, and D.
    [Show full text]
  • The Armenian Genocide
    The Armenian Genocide During World War I, the Ottoman Empire carried out what most international experts and historians have concluded was one of the largest genocides in the world's history, slaughtering huge portions of its minority Armenian population. In all, over 1 million Armenians were put to death. To this day, Turkey denies the genocidal intent of these mass murders. My sense is that Armenians are suffering from what I would call incomplete mourning, and they can't complete that mourning process until their tragedy, their wounds are recognized by the descendants of the people who perpetrated it. People want to know what really happened. We are fed up with all these stories-- denial stories, and propaganda, and so on. Really the new generation want to know what happened 1915. How is it possible for a massacre of such epic proportions to take place? Why did it happen? And why has it remained one of the greatest untold stories of the 20th century? This film is made possible by contributions from John and Judy Bedrosian, the Avenessians Family Foundation, the Lincy Foundation, the Manoogian Simone Foundation, and the following. And others. A complete list is available from PBS. The Armenians. There are between six and seven million alive today, and less than half live in the Republic of Armenia, a small country south of Georgia and north of Iran. The rest live around the world in countries such as the US, Russia, France, Lebanon, and Syria. They're an ancient people who originally came from Anatolia some 2,500 years ago.
    [Show full text]
  • A Typology of Consonant Agreement As Correspondence
    A TYPOLOGY OF CONSONANT AGREEMENT AS CORRESPONDENCE SHARON ROSE RACHEL WALKER University of California, San Diego University of Southern California This article presents a typology of consonant harmony or LONG DISTANCE CONSONANT AGREEMENT that is analyzed as arisingthroughcorrespondence relations between consonants rather than feature spreading. The model covers a range of agreement patterns (nasal, laryngeal, liquid, coronal, dorsal) and offers several advantages. Similarity of agreeing consonants is central to the typology and is incorporated directly into the constraints drivingcorrespondence. Agreementby correspon- dence without feature spreadingcaptures the neutrality of interveningsegments,which neither block nor undergo. Case studies of laryngeal agreement and nasal agreement are presented, demon- stratingthe model’s capacity to capture varyingdegreesof similarity crosslinguistically.* 1. INTRODUCTION. The action at a distance that is characteristic of CONSONANT HAR- MONIES stands as a pivotal problem to be addressed by phonological theory. Consider the nasal alternations in the Bantu language, Kikongo (Meinhof 1932, Dereau 1955, Webb 1965, Ao 1991, Odden 1994, Piggott 1996). In this language, the voiced stop in the suffix [-idi] in la is realized as [ini] in 1b when preceded by a nasal consonant at any distance in the stem constituent, consistingof root and suffixes. (1) a. m-[bud-idi]stem ‘I hit’ b. tu-[kun-ini]stem ‘we planted’ n-[suk-idi]stem ‘I washed’ tu-[nik-ini]stem ‘we ground’ In addition to the alternation in 1, there are no Kikongo roots containing a nasal followed by a voiced stop, confirmingthat nasal harmony or AGREEMENT, as we term it, also holds at the root level as a MORPHEME STRUCTURE CONSTRAINT (MSC).
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER SEVENTEEN History of the German Language 1 Indo
    CHAPTER SEVENTEEN History of the German Language 1 Indo-European and Germanic Background Indo-European Background It has already been mentioned in this course that German and English are related languages. Two languages can be related to each other in much the same way that two people can be related to each other. If two people share a common ancestor, say their mother or their great-grandfather, then they are genetically related. Similarly, German and English are genetically related because they share a common ancestor, a language which was spoken in what is now northern Germany sometime before the Angles and the Saxons migrated to England. We do not have written records of this language, unfortunately, but we have a good idea of what it must have looked and sounded like. We have arrived at our conclusions as to what it looked and sounded like by comparing the sounds of words and morphemes in earlier written stages of English and German (and Dutch) and in modern-day English and German dialects. As a result of the comparisons we are able to reconstruct what the original language, called a proto-language, must have been like. This particular proto-language is usually referred to as Proto-West Germanic. The method of reconstruction based on comparison is called the comparative method. If faced with two languages the comparative method can tell us one of three things: 1) the two languages are related in that both are descended from a common ancestor, e.g. German and English, 2) the two are related in that one is the ancestor of the other, e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Text: HISTORY ALIVE! the Ancient World
    Name and Date: _________________________ Text: HISTORY ALIVE! The Ancient World 6.1 Introduction Ancient Sumer flourished in Mesopotamia between 3500 and 2300 B.C.E. In this chapter, you will discover what happened to the Sumerians and who ruled Mesopotamia after them. The city-states of ancient Sumer were like small independent countries. They often fought over land and water rights. They never united into one group. Their lack of unity left them open to attacks by stronger groups. About 2300 B.C.E., the Akkadians (uh-KAY-dee-unz) conquered Sumer. This group made the Sumerian city-states a part of an empire. An empire is a large territory where groups of people are ruled by a single leader or government. Groups like the Akkadians first conquer and then rule other lands. In this chapter, you will learn about four empires that rose up in Mesopotamia between 2300 and 539 B.C.E. They were the Akkadian Empire, the Babylonian (bah-buh-LOH-nyuhn) Empire, the Assyrian (uh-SIR-ee-un) Empire, and the Neo-Babylonian Empire. This timeline shows four empires that ruled Mesopotamia during a period of almost 1800 years. © Teachers’ Curriculum Institute Exploring Four Empires of Mesopotamia Name and Date: _________________________ Text: HISTORY ALIVE! The Ancient World 6.2 The Akkadian Empire For 1,200 years, Sumer was a land of independent city-states. Then, around 2300 B.C.E., the Akkadians conquered the land. The Akkadians came from northern Mesopotamia. They were led by a great king named Sargon. Sargon became the first ruler of the Akkadian Empire.
    [Show full text]
  • The Armenians
    THE ARMENIANS By C.F. DIXON-JOHNSON “Whosoever does wrong to a Christian or a Jew shall find me his accuser on the day of judgment.” (EL KORAN) Printed and Published by GEO TOULMIN & SONS, LTD. Northgate, Blackburn. 1916 Preface The following pages were first read as a paper before the “Société d’Etudes Ethnographiques.” They have since been amplified and are now being published at the request of a number of friends, who believe that the public should have an opportunity of judging whether or not “the Armenian Question” has another side than that which has been recently so assiduously promulgated throughout the Western World. Though the championship of Greek, Bulgarian and other similar “Christian, civilized methods of fighting,” as contrasted with “Moslem atrocities” in the Balkans and Asia Minor, has been so strenuously undertaken by Lord Bryce and others, the more recent developments in the Near East may perhaps already have opened the eyes of a great many thinking people to the realization that, in sacrificing the traditional friendship of the Turk to all this more or less sectarian clamor, British diplomacy has really done nothing better than to exchange the solid and advantageous reality for a most elusive and unreliable, if not positively dangerous, set of shadows. It seems illogical that the same party which recalled the officials (and among them our present War Minister) appointed by Lord Beaconsfield to assist the Turkish Government in reforming their administration and collecting the revenue in Asia Minor, and which on the advent of the Young Turks refused to lend British Administrators to whom ample and plenary powers were assured, should now, in its eagerness to vilify the Turk, lose sight of their own mistakes which have led in the main to the conditions of which it complains, and should so utterly condemn its own former policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Indo-European Linguistics: an Introduction Indo-European Linguistics an Introduction
    This page intentionally left blank Indo-European Linguistics The Indo-European language family comprises several hun- dred languages and dialects, including most of those spoken in Europe, and south, south-west and central Asia. Spoken by an estimated 3 billion people, it has the largest number of native speakers in the world today. This textbook provides an accessible introduction to the study of the Indo-European proto-language. It clearly sets out the methods for relating the languages to one another, presents an engaging discussion of the current debates and controversies concerning their clas- sification, and offers sample problems and suggestions for how to solve them. Complete with a comprehensive glossary, almost 100 tables in which language data and examples are clearly laid out, suggestions for further reading, discussion points and a range of exercises, this text will be an essential toolkit for all those studying historical linguistics, language typology and the Indo-European proto-language for the first time. james clackson is Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Classics, University of Cambridge, and is Fellow and Direc- tor of Studies, Jesus College, University of Cambridge. His previous books include The Linguistic Relationship between Armenian and Greek (1994) and Indo-European Word For- mation (co-edited with Birgit Anette Olson, 2004). CAMBRIDGE TEXTBOOKS IN LINGUISTICS General editors: p. austin, j. bresnan, b. comrie, s. crain, w. dressler, c. ewen, r. lass, d. lightfoot, k. rice, i. roberts, s. romaine, n. v. smith Indo-European Linguistics An Introduction In this series: j. allwood, l.-g. anderson and o.¨ dahl Logic in Linguistics d.
    [Show full text]