Dead Names, Dead Dog: Scent of the Swastika, Part 1

Let’s start again with the linguistic arguments in Dead Names:

Tranquilson (a questionable source cited several times by Gonce), in the guise of academic contempt, states — among many other objections – that I “make some extremely untenable historical assertions such as that the Sumerian language is ‘closely allied to that of the Aryan race, having in fact many words identical to that of Sanskrit (and it is said, to Chinese).”

I respectfully submit that these assertions are not untenable at all. At the time the Introduction was being written this was being seriously discussed among scholars of Sumer, and it is still discussed today.

What “Simon” actually presents here is a list of people – some professors, some amateur scholars, and some whose credentials are completely unknown – to indicate that Sumerian might indeed be linked to Sanskrit. This includes that curious Sanskrit-Latvian site that I discussed previously. “Simon’s” strategy is to throw as many names as possible out here, in hopes that nobody will actually check on them.

I did.

My own study of his sources, based upon consultation of article citations (who’s quoting who) and what little linguistic background I have, is that there are indeed some scholars who believe there is a connection between Sumerian and the languages of India. In fact, the two civilizations had trade between them, so some loan words are not unexpected. This hardly makes their languages “closely allied,” however.

Further, the work of these scholars seems to be mainly in isolation. If a serious debate was going on regarding the origins of Sumerian, it no doubt would show up in the linguistic journals as authors quoted from each other’s papers. Instead, most of these scholars seem to be working in relative isolation, publishing their work in low-circulation journals such as Mother Tongue (carried by only a dozen libraries, when most journals of academic weight are carried by hundreds). This doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re wrong, but it appears that the majority of linguists still believe that Sumerian is an isolate language unrelated to any other living tongue.

Of course, the red flag in the above passage – and, I’m guessing, one of the main reasons for Karyn’s puzzlement – is the reference to the “Aryan race.” Simon refers to this again in his “Chart of Comparisons” in the Necronomicon, where he mentions that the pentagram is the “sign of the Aryan race,” so it is more than a casual reference.

As most anthropologists and historians (and, I hope, many Papers readers) already know, the Aryan race is a discredited concept, based on the notion that speakers of the hypothetical Proto-Indo-European, or “Aryan,” were of the same genetic origin. This became a favorite point of many white supremacists later, culminating in the Nazi beliefs of a Germanic, genetically superior “Aryan race” who deserved to rule the world.

Is this an innocent mistake? Or is something else going on?

Published in: on August 29, 2006 at 11:23 pm  Comments (6)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://danharms.wordpress.com/2006/08/29/dead-names-dead-dog-scent-of-the-swastika-part-1/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

6 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. […] In our first section, we looked at the mentions of the discredited Aryan race concept in the Simon Necronomicon.  Still, could this be a fluke, a mistake made by someone not familiar with the terminology? […]

  2. […] We’ve previously discussed the Necronomicon’s mentions of the Aryan race, and its links to the British Aryan doctrines of L. A. Waddell. Still, isn’t it possible that “Simon’s” mentions of these are nothing more than mistakes? […]

  3. […] Based on our three previous posts, we have to ask why exactly this “Aryan race” material shows up in the Necronomicon. As part of that, I’m going to take you through my thought process on it to see if we come to the same conclusions. […]

  4. […] To catch up, I’ve spent a number of posts detailing the references in the Necronomicon to Aryan superiority. Picking up from the last post, we can put together a hypothetical scenario as to what occurred. […]

  5. The Latvian-Sumerian word list of correspondences is entirely bogus and was dreamt up by Latvian supremacists who believe they are prime examples of the now-discredited Aryan race.

    Five-pointed stars vs. six-pointed sounds like the early days of the Third Reich, before Rosenberg started asking intellectual Jewish inmates of ghettos in the east to come up with theories on how the Communist red star was really the same as the Star of David.

    Lovecraft bought into the race stuff pretty heavily, but what “Simon” probably doesn’t completely realize is that Lovecraft’s notions of race were influenced by H P Blavatsky’s root races, Atlantean, Aryan, Turanian, etc., a system which “Simon” understands thoroughly and knows is racist in the pejorative sense (Blavatsky said African Bushmen and Australian aborigines belonged to no root race and were animals without souls). Or maybe he does understand that and is trying to get the context right for the Necronomicon?

  6. […] on our three previous posts, we have to ask why exactly […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s