> Gerry: I knew the Akkadians were Semitic. What does the archaeological
> evidence show for displacement in Dilmun? Was there warfare or not?
JC: Yes there is evidence that during the Jemdet Nasr phase Dilmun seems
to
have been abandonned by its previous inhabitants (which would have
occurred if they had en masse decamped to Southern Mesopotamia).
Mesopotamian contact with Dilmun was re-established during Early
Dynastic times. The spot seems to have been a preferred location for
the burrial of upper class Sumerians, and Dilmun and the surrounding
areas was covered with cemetries and cenotaphs (monuments celebrating
the dead burried elsewhere) of Sumerian people who died in Southern
Mesopotamia.
Gerry: Yes. I also knew that Dilmun was a cemetery; didn't know it was
where upper class Sumerians were buried, but it figures that "other
class" folks wouldn't have the funds to transport the body to Dilmun
from elsewhere nor would they have the coin to erect great monuments or
cenotaphs.
BUT AS I ASKED ABOVE (perhaps I only inferred), did the folks leave
peacefully or was there warfare? Was there any indication of
hostility? Were "homes" burned or did bodies have arrows stuck into
their persons. Or does the archaeological evidence remain silent?
JC: The Sumerian creation myth
spoke about how the world was created out of a mingling of salt and
sweet waters. It was the creation of sky and air that separated the
salt (oceans) from the sweet (rainfall). Bahrein gets its name from
freshwater springs that appear in the ocean - and this evidence was the
archetypal "pre-creation" state of the Sumerians.
Gerry: WOW! Even the Sumerian creation myth deals with both salt and
sweet waters. Likely you're saying that the archetypal state of the
Sumerians consisted of freshwater springs appearing in the ocean.
Hmmm. That makes sense. An island is land in the ocean. A spring on
an island, is freshwater in the ocean. This is remarkable. Bahrein
hasn't changed; our perception of Bahrein is what's different.
JC: Sumerians all claim to have come from Dilmun - and to have settled
first at Eridu - it is in their own words. "Kingship descended first
at Eridu" - and in the Sumerian kinglist Eridu was the first. This
would obviously have been the case if the Sumerians came from the south
over the sea, on high-prowed read boats similar to those used by their
(genetic - not linguistic descendents) the Marsh Arabs of today.
Gerry: In pre-history didn't a person return home to die? If Dilmun was
the upper class cemetery, wouldn't ALL Sumerians wish to be from Dilmun
so that they might be buried there?
BTW, thanks ahead of time for more information on Dilmun.
Gerry
>
--
Gerald Reinhart
Independent Scholar
(650) 321-7378
waluk@...
http://www.alekseevmanuscript.com