PIE root *gwou- ox, bull, cow.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/roots.aspx?type=Indo-European&root=g%ca%b7ou-
So it appears Alain Danielou is the only one making this claim.
a Brahman bull, steer, or cow.Origin of Brahma
3First recorded in 1935–40; alteration of Brahman
Wow that's very recent!!
It's all the same to them whether they kill a bull as a sacrifice or sacrifice a human being;
In Egypt living bulls were venerated as incarnations of a godhttps://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789401206358/B9789401206358-s030.xml
AN INDO-EUROPEAN CUSTOM OF SACRIFICE IN GREECE AND ELSEWHERE
In: Evidence and Counter-Evidence: Essays in Honour of Frederik Kortlandt, Volume 1Author: Norbert Oettinger
In Armenia, a black bull was associated with the thunder god
In the later Śatapatha Brāhmana, both a primordial bull
http://sumerianturks.org/bull.htm
And in Sumer (starting around 4000 BC), bulls represented sun and sky gods, their highest gods. So, there is a continuity of bull cult f
Cattle was first domesticated from wild aurochs in the Taurus mountains in Southeastern Turkey, not far from Gobeklitepe, some 10,500 years ago!
Aurochs were big animals weighing up to half a ton and with heights up to 180 cm. No wonder they inspired awe among the people of Gobeklitepe. Imagine how important it was for the people living in the region to have domesticated these big animals.
Not too far from Gobeklitepe, neolithic site of Catalhoyuk had a bull cult about 8000 years ago. We find a bull cult in the indigenous Hatti civilization in Turkey (Anatolia) some 4500 years ago.
And in Sumer (starting around 4000 BC), bulls represented sun and sky gods, their highest gods. So, there is a continuity of bull cult for civilizations in Turkey and Mesopotamia for thousands of years.
Aurochs / Bulls are the biggest animals ever domesticated apart from the elephant.
Bull cult is found in ancient Anatolia / Turkey, Sumer (Iraq), Transoxiana (Turkmenistan), Maykop (Russia), Indus Valley (India / Pakistan), Egypt, Levant, Greece, Rome (Italy), Celtic, Gaul mythologies in Austria, France, Ireland and beyond. It is the most important cult spanning thousands of years (probably 10,000) and a large part of Eurasia.
Sumerian Gud is ox.
Ah written by the author of a book on the Sumerian roots of IndoEuropean language!!
Fascinating.
One recalls immediately the epithets of Indra (vṛšabha- and ṛš bh -, both meaning ̳bull‘) and the fact that the Greek master of the thunderbolt, Zeus, also has a strong connection with bulls
(in the shape of a bull he impregnated his mistress Europa). But, on the whole, it appears that Hittites, as well as Indo-Europeans, worshipped their gods in the human shape, but that, being
very powerful, the gods could, if they wished, change their shape into particular animals.
https://i.4pcdn.org/tg/1480929855646.pdf
- Celtic (in this case Irish) texts were written down between the 11th and 14th centuries CE. In one myth a bull is killed and dismembered by another bull and the parts of his body are distributed around Ireland, which explains the names of many features of the
landscape, though not the cause of their existence. "It was not long before the men of Erin [Ireland], as they were there in the company of Ailill and Madb early on the morrow, saw coming over Cruachan from the west, the Brown Bull of Cualnge with the Whitehorned [Bull] of Ai in torn fragments hanging about his ears and horns." An example of one of the distributions is this one: "Then he raised his head, and the shoulder-blades of the Whitehorned fell from him in that place. Hence, Sruthair Finnlethe ('Stream of the White Shoulder-blade') is the name given to it." The original source is the last chapter of the Táin Bó Cúalnge, usually called in English, The Cattle Raid of Cooley. These quotations are from The Ancient Irish Epic Tale, Táin Bó Cúalnge, transl. by Joseph Dunn, publ. David Nutt, London, 1914.
- In Lithuanian, a folktale tells of a bull and 3 cows which are beheaded by Aušrinė, (the morning star) and then the land appears. "The maiden upon returning released her bull. The bull knelt down and spoke in a man's voice: "Chop off my head!" The maiden did not want to chop it off, but she had to. She chopped the head off—a fourth of the seas disappeared, became land. Her brother emerged from the bull. She cut
off the heads of all three cows, who were her sisters. All the seas disappeared, turned to land. The earth sprang to life."
https://sindhueuropayom.fandom.com/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_religion#Bulls
In another document from Mari Ninigizibara is said to have been deco-rated with silver and gold. This goddess is finally referred to in first-millennium god lists as a gu4-balaĝ “bull-balaĝ” of Inana.
http://sumerianshakespeare.com/30301.html
The sign is gu4, pronounced gud, the sign for "bull".
The usual form is on the left. It still retained much of its early pictograph appearance (it looks like a bull head). On the right is the compressed form. The large triangle has been replaced with two smaller triangles, "reverse cunei", facing in the opposite direction, and the vertical line has been moved to the horn area.
the first dark comedy and murder mystery. A literary masterpiece that was written by
a Sumerian Shakespeare.
However, it seems the Sumerians were distinct from the Semitic neighbors that surrounded them (the Akkadians, Elamites (Iranians), Gutians, Hamazi, etc.). It's highly improbable that the Sumerians were ethnically the same as their neighbors but spoke a language that is completely different. Not only was their language different, but their statues and portraits suggest the Sumerians were Caucasians, who originated from the area around the Caspian Sea. The Semites, on the other hand, originated from the Arab Peninsula. Remarkably, the Sumerians were later able to maintain their ethno-cultural identity during two centuries of Akkadian domination (2350 – 2150 B.C.)
The Sumerians themselves did not arrive until about 3500 b.c.e. from their original home, which may have been in the region of the Caspian Sea.
https://atlantipedia.ie/samples/tag/jerald-jack-starr/
The king of Uruk. He stands at the Tree of Life which
blossoms with eight-pointed rosettes.
Gudea and Ur-Namma, two great kings of Sumerian history
(circa 2100 B.C.). See an enlargement of Gudea, and see Ur-Namma at the
dedication of a new temple.
The crowns of Gudea and Ur-Namma are stylized versions of a
shepherd hat. That’s because a shepherd was considered the ideal role model
for a king (see The Shepherd Kings on this website). Sumerian kings were routinely described as the shepherds of
their people. Their crowns were doubtlessly taller and more grandiose than a
real shepherd hat, which gave the kings greater stature and made them seem more
regal. The shepherd crowns of Gudea and Ur-Namma were particularly extravagant
in this regard, but the crowns of many other Sumerian kings were more modest in
appearance. Their crowns more closely resembled the original hats worn by shepherds in
the field.
The reigns of Gudea and Ur-Namma occurred at the end of
Sumerian history, but I would suggest that the Sumerian ideal of
shepherd kingship was established in the Uruk Period (circa 4000 – 3000
B.C.) at the very
beginning of Sumerian history.
The shepherd kings of Uruk:
Uruk was the first large city in Sumer (and in the world) so
it was literally the beginning of Sumerian civilization (“civilization”
is derived from the Latin word “civitas” meaning “city”).
Uruk and other Sumerian
cities grew up around the first large temples in the region, so the cities were
originally administered by the high priests. Later, as the city-states became
more powerful and competitive, they were ruled by kings who could better deal
with the mundane, more down-to-earth matters of civic administration. Kings
could also command large armies to fight against other Sumerian cities and
to guard against foreign invasions. In the interim, according to the prevailing
theory, after Uruk was ruled solely by priests and before it was later ruled by
kings, it was governed by the “priest-kings”, so-named because they were often shown
performing both kingly and priestly duties.
A statue of the “priest-king” of Uruk, frontal and
three-quarter views. The statue is part of a matched set that is dated in the
Uruk Period. The nude statues are rendered in a very simple and abstract style
(click here to see a picture of both statues).
According
to the Louvre, where the statues are kept, “On the
head of the priest-king is what seems to be a cap or headband” and the
beard is
“continuous with the hair”. There are no striations on the top of the
head to
show that it is hair, but then again, there are no striations on the
beard
either. The simple abstract style of the figure makes it difficult to
discern the exact nature of his headdress. In many depictions of the
priest-kings of Uruk, one could argue that he is wearing a
hat, or a headband, or a hat with a band. I would suggest that it's a
hat, and not
a headband, for the following reasons:
1) A headband is generally associated with the crown of an
Akkadian king, as seen on the statutes of Lamgi-Mari and Sargon. Sumer and
Akkad were two distinct countries that were often at war with each other, so it
seems unlikely that both the Sumerian and Akkadian kings would wear the same kind
of crown.
2) If a headband was the crown of the prototypical Sumerian
king, it seems that the same
crown would show up in other Sumerian
cities, in other periods of history. But there aren’t
any known examples of later
Sumerian kings wearing a simple headband as a crown,
not even in Uruk.
3) A headband wasn’t worn by Sumerian priests. Later portraits
of Sumerian priests were traditionally depicted in the same manner. They were
often nude, they poured libations from the same spouted pitchers, and they didn’t
wear any kind of headdress (as shown on an engraving, a plaque, and the Vulture Stele). On
the other hand, throughout Sumerian history, a simple headband was usually the
headdress of a female priestess (see the priestess of Ninsun and the high
priestess of Ur, to name just a couple) but the headband is never shown on a
male priest. It seems that if the headband was the mark of a male priest, then some
other examples would have shown up in Uruk or elsewhere.
In light of the evidence, I
propose a new theory about this statue of the priest-king of Uruk.
I
have never heard it mentioned before, but I
would suggest that he wears a shepherd’s hat with a domed top and a
thick
brim. It is not as elaborate as the shepherd hats of Gudea and Ur-Namma,
but it
probably closely resembled the rustic caps worn by ordinary shepherds.
Early versions of the shepherd hat, like this one, had brims that were
thick but narrow. Some other examples are shown on the seal impressions
pictured below.
I also suggest that this "priest-king" is not a
king at all, but just a priest, because he is nude. The Louvre states,
"This nakedness is probably connected with the figure's participation in
a
particular ritual - most likely a form of fertility cult." Although the
priests are sometimes nude, it's not fitting that a king be shown
naked. It would be injurious to his gravitas. In my opinion, the Uruk
priest is not a priest-king until he put his clothes on.
For the sake of reference, the ruler of Uruk is a priest when he is shown naked, he is a
priest-king when he wears the ceremonial netted skirt of Inanna, and he is a king when he wears a regular skirt.
I
would further suggest that the shepherd,
which is clearly the model for Sumerian kings, was originally the model
for a
priest. Like a true shepherd, the priest gathers his flock (the people)
at the
temple and he administers to their needs, which is why a priest is often
referred to as a shepherd in many religions of the world. The shepherd
priest of Uruk would later
become a shepherd priest-king, who then became the shepherd king − the
ideal Sumerian king and the prototype for all other Sumerian kings.
A priest-king of Uruk. The dome of his hat is very high,
taller than where the top of his head should be. The thick brim is pulled down
low on his forehead. There is a hatband incised above the brim. From this angle
it is obvious that he is wearing a hat…
…from this angle, it is not so obvious. Now his hair looks
like a headband, or he is wearing a stylized chignon, and the hat and
the chignon are not differentiated.
Drawing of a head (Uruk). The notch in the back is either a ribbon used
to tie his chignon − or the hat is lower in the back (like the one shown above)
and his chignon is below it. The artists of Uruk were not always precise about
delineating the beard from the hair, or the hair from the hat, or the hat from
the band. That is why there has been some debate about the nature of his
headdress. Fortunately, not many images of the priest-king are quite so
ambiguous as this drawing and the statue shown above. The shepherd hat is more obvious in a
reconstruction based
on the surviving fragments, as shown below.
The Blau Monuments:
The Blau Monument from Uruk. The proto-writing on the
Blau Monument is not translatable and the purpose of the artifact isn’t known.
According to the British Museum, “The two stone tablets seem to form a pair, though it is
not
fully understood what they were used for, and what they mean.
However, it's widely accepted that they record a transaction in which
land was exchanged
for various goods…“ The Blau Monument may “thus represent an early form
of
Mesopotamian kudurru or boundary stone”.
It is said that
the two parts of the Blau Monument belong together, but I don't think
this is true because the king is dressed differently on the separate
parts. Neither do I believe that the pieces are by the same artist, or
that the separate parts even belong in the same time period. Anyway,
I'll save that discussion for another webpage. In the meantime...
There are two views of the priest-king on the Blau Monument,
as shown above. On the left, he holds an unidentified object and he is clearly wearing a shepherd hat. On the right, he
presents a lamb or a goat, perhaps as a sacrificial offering. The outline of the shepherd hat isn't very obvious, but the notch
on the back of his head that delineates the hat's lower brim shows up better in an
enlargement.
Judging by the writing, this part of the Blau Monument is much older
than the part on the left, and the above two pictures show how the brim
of the hat became wider over time until it resembled the later versions
of the shepherd hat. The narrowness of the brim in the early depictions
of the Uruk king is probably why his headdress is often mistaken for a
headband rather than a hat.
It's not just the hat that identifies the Uruk king as a shepherd. He is also involved in the
care and feeding of animals.
Uruk cylinder seal impressions of the shepherd king:
The shepherd king and a priest feed the sacred flock of Inanna.
He wears the ceremonial netted skirt of Inanna. She was the goddess of
war and the patron deity of Uruk.
Another image of the shepherd king feeding the sacred flock
of Inanna. Her looped standard with streamers is clearly visible in the middle
of this seal impression.
And yet another image of the shepherd king feeding the
sacred flock of Inanna.
Here the king is carrying an animal, and another animal is in the
background. The priest carries a ceremonial spouted pitcher. The
baskets of food represent abundance.
Again with the animals. It seems animals are always in
the presence of the shepherd king.
A cylinder seal impression showing the shepherd king with pigs/wild
boars (sipa, the Sumerian word for shepherd, means a herder of any type of
animals, even pigs). The shepherd carries a staff. With him are a couple of
dogs (hunting dogs, shepherd dogs?). Shepherd dogs are mentioned in Dumuzid’s
Dream on the ETCSL, lines 95 - 97.
A similar seal impression showing two swine and four dogs. Two of the dogs are on a leash. Sipa also refers to a herder or keeper of dogs.
The shepherd king holds the branches of the Tree of Life
while rams feed on its eight-pointed rosettes. A lamb is shown in the
background. The rosettes were a sacred symbol for the Sumerians and the image of
rams feeding on the high branches became a common motif in ancient Sumer.
The shepherd king on a ceremonial barge. He has a sacred statue of a bull, or a bull altar,
So what’s with all the animals? Surely it’s not to show that the king is a goodhearted person because he is kind to animals. Of course some of the animal images could relate to his functions as a priest – feeding the sacred flock, offering sacrifices, etc.; but other Sumerian kings, like all kings in the ancient world, also had priestly duties. They are shown performing religious rites, meeting with the gods, and dedicating new temples, but they’re not constantly surrounded by animals the same way as the Uruk king. The continuous presence of animals
or maybe it’s just a bull, and the structure represents a pavilion in the background
on the shore. Even when he’s on a boat, the shepherd king has an animal with him.
in the iconography of the Uruk king is meant to establish his identity as a shepherd, as the guardian and protector of his flock, the people.
