Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Luwian Speakers in Babylon?

Expand Messages
  • John
    George You wrote ... No, my post was earlier when I was of the belief that the latest mention to Khani I could find was early in the neo-Assyrian period.
    Message 1 of 47 , Aug 31, 2003

      You wrote
      > The term "Khani" was used by the Hellenistic Greeks...
      > but perhaps you had not yet read the post that discusses
      > this.

      No, my post was earlier when I was of the belief that the latest
      mention to Khani I could find was early in the neo-Assyrian period.
      Certainly if the Hellenistic find is accurate (as it seems to be)
      then it would make my conclusion ambiguous.

      > In anycase, I am not at this time attempting a grand
      > consolidation of all these scenarios. I have a working
      > model for interpreting David and Solomon. And I have
      > a working model for interpreting the Kenites. It would
      > probably be more useful, at this time, to keep them separate.
      > In this way, if it turns out that my understanding of David
      > and Solomon are deeply flawed, then the scenario on the
      > Kenites might enjoy a separate trajectory and life. And
      > vice versa.
      > You also write:
      > "It has also been shown that amongst the neo-
      > > Hittite states of the 9th century Aramaic replaced
      > Luwian Hittite as both state and popular language and
      > Luwian Hittite had disappeared *before* the incorporation
      > of these states into the Assyrian Empire."
      > And yet we also know that Luwian was being used in
      > the so-called "Aramaean" region as late as the 700's
      > BCE.

      George, what is your evidence of the name Luwian being used by
      Aramaeans of 700 BCE? I don't dispute this but I just want to jog my
      memory, as when you mentioned this before I had some reservation then
      that I did not share.

      The only mention I can find is from livius.org

      "Under Persian rule, the Urartaean language was replaced by the
      Armenian language. Probably, this was not caused by ethnic, but by
      social changes. Although are sources are scarce, it is certain that
      the before 500 BCE, the elite spoke Hurrian -a language that does not
      belong to any known linguistic family- and the common people spoke

      This seems to be in error. I feel he mistakes the similarities
      between Hurrian and Urartuan on which we have already spoken.
      Hurrian and Urartuan are cognate languages of a combined family that
      as Sergei Starosin has shown split apart well before the first Bronze
      Age inscriptions in Hurrian.

      > You do write:
      > "Within the period under discussion (i.e. the Babylonian
      > and Persian post Exilic period, Luwian dialects are supposed
      > to have survived only in Western Anatolia. The presence of either
      > Hurrian or Luwian in the region under discussion is highly
      > problematic."
      > I suppose it poses a problem.... unless the SURVIVAL of
      > Luwian is in the "Lions" of the Levites. But this is a
      > completely different thread.
      > I'm discussing the "Hurrianized" peoples... that Livius.org
      > points to as having a presence of one sort or another right
      > into the Hellenistic period. And there is also the issue of
      > whether we are discussing "Khani" as a language, or as an
      > ethnic group, or as a geographic region.

      Hmmm... George, I feel livius is at error here. See my comments
      above and also discussions on cybalist regarding Hurro-Urartian/Hurro-

      > Considering this thread is brand new, and there is not much
      > literature out there that I can find on the topic, I hope you
      > will be interested in seeing how the facts **might** fit
      > the scenario.... rather than simply conclude it is too difficult
      > to consider.
      > For example, you write:
      > "There were West Anatolian Luwian speaking traders in Babylon
      > at the time of the Captivity, but it seems highly unlikely that
      > the Jewish redactors of the OT would have seen these people as
      > anything other than Luddu (Lydians) and therefore just another
      > pagan people."
      > Yes, perhaps. But perhaps you could provide this list with
      > some more information about these "Luwian speakers" in Babylon.

      George, I have just finished reading a very good book on Mesopotamia
      from the point of view of the world's first cities. The article on
      Babylon makes the point of the city's multi-ethnic nature and the
      fact that even from Neo-Babylonian times Greeks and Lydians were
      present in the city. It makes the point that the presence of such a
      polyglot population supported the theory of the "Tower of Babel"
      story of Genesis (another exilic marker to the Pentateuch!) I'll try
      to dig out the exact wording for you and post it to the list.


    • George
      John C., Nice analogy! You write: George, in the same way that American Mayflower descendents manage to know where they came from in England! Ararat was the
      Message 47 of 47 , Sep 7 10:37 AM
        John C.,

        Nice analogy! You write:

        "George, in the same way that American Mayflower descendents
        manage to know where they came from in England! Ararat was
        the biggest mountain known to the Hurrians."

        So.... are you telling me that the Hurrians of Palestine
        were an uninterrupted chain of ethnicity from the Urartu
        (i.e. Ararat = RRT) people?

        Ahem.... but didn't you just throw me to the floor
        and stomp on my throat over just this kind of suggestion?
        ... just a metaphore... folks, he never hurt me!... :-)

        I tell you what.... I'm just going to hum a little tune
        to myself until I hear from you whether there IS or ISN'T
        a DIRECT connection between the Hurrians of Palestine and
        the "whoever people" of the Ararat/Urartu region.

        I look forward to it!


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.