How do we Know...

From: Janeen Grohsmeyer
Message: 5199
Date: 2000-12-29

Earlier, Glen wrote:
> >The prehistoric Sumerians are not the originators of
anything.


I asked:
> If the innovations appeared all throughout the >Middle
>East and if the prehistoric Sumerians never came up with >anything new,
>then why did civilization (i.e., the growth of cities) >occur first in
>Sumeria?

Glen responded:
>Well, I'm a bit confused too. Help me out with this piece of logic... How
do
cities grow without agriculture?

Looks we're both confusing each other. :) Let's see if we can clear this
up. What I find incredible in the first statement is the idea that the
Sumerians never invented *anything* at all. However, that does *not*
automatically imply that I think they invented *everything.* John is the
one who listed an impressive set of accomplishments for the Sumerians, not
I.

Also, I never said or meant to imply that cities can grow without
agriculture. I agree with Glen's summary of: "No cities started without
agriculture first, as far as I know. So... first agriculture, THEN a city."


Glen asked: "Why Sumer and not some place else?" and he went on to give some
humorous and interesting comparisons between Vancouver and Winnipeg. There
are a variety of reasons why things happen in one place and not in another,
but three very important ones are climate (as Glen mentioned), resources (as
John mentioned), and location (which of course influences both climate and
resources). Sumer was in a fertile land with an adequate and reliable water
supply, and it was also easily accesible for travelers. Kind of like the
large industrial city of Pittsburgh in the United States: three rivers meet
there, it's surrounded by rich farmland, and there are nearby coal deposits.


The term "attractor" works in this instance, both for solidly logical
reasons (enough water and enough food) and for more mystical ones (good bars
and lots of single women or single men). People move to Los Angeles and
Paris for no other reason than the music and art they can find there. I'm
sure people went to Sumer because they heard it was a happening kind of
place to be.

When Glen says that we cannot make a "convincing argument that the Sumerians
indeed affected the IEs or vice-versa," again, I'd like to put in a request
for some kind of timeline. Once the Proto-IEs split, do we stop calling
them IEs at all? Do we start referring to them as Anatolians, Aryans,
Celtic-Italians and what not? Obviously, the Sumerian culture did influence
the descendants of the IE.

Back to confusing parts: I most certainly did not say that Sumerians
invented agriculture. I specifically stated that there were several tribes
all scratching in the dirt at the same time. Nor did I say that the
Sumerians "gave the IE agriculture or mythology." I said that once the
cities in Sumer started (whenever we date that), the Sumerians would have
had more influence than the other tribes.

While the Vinca-writing connection in 4700 BCE is interesting, it does not
negate the premise that a culture which develops and maintains cities has
more influence than tribes who do not. Inventions need to be used on a
regular basis to have much impact. (With the exception of atomic bombs.)
For example, an ancient Greek (sorry, not sure what century or what city)
knew about the principle of the steam engine, but it didn't have any impact
because the metallurgical techniques weren't around to do much with it. It
took the invention of steel to bring the steam engine into its own, over
2000 years later. Likewise, Leonardo da Vinci drew pictures of airplanes,
but didn't have the motors available to make them feasible.

That citified culture's influence would show up first on neighboring tribes,
but it would also spread in ripples to tribes farther away, such as the IE.
I don't know how long it would take that influence to spread. I don't know
in what areas that influence would be in. Irrigation? Trade? Fighting
techniques? Weaving patterns in cloth and baskets? Myths?

Some weeks back, I asked if there was any information on IE star myths or
star names. Except for the possibility of the name of a star or a planet or
two, there is apparently no record of any native IE starlore. Like Glen, I
personally find it unlikely that the IEs had *no* divinities associated with
the stars, but there is little evidence of it left. All their myths which we
know about--star and otherwise--seem to show Sumerian influence.

When did that Sumerian influence show up? I have no idea. Luckily, Glen
does:

>However, regarding proto-IE itself (c.4000), I don't see how Sumerian
civilisation was as yet powerful enough to have affected in any direct way
IE-speaking cultures.

Ah, the importance of timelines! It seems that the Sumerians did not
inundate the ProtoIE with their stories. So, did the Sumerian influence
come in succeeding waves, rippling out again and again over the millennia
from Sumer, from Greece to Rome to north-west Europe, then again from India
to Arabia to Italy and to north-west Europe again, slowly eroding any native
IE myths? Can we piece together anything that doesn't have a Sumerian
flavor to it?

Glen believes we can. He says: "Common deductive reasoning must painfully
sift out the late additions and alterations from these lores to arrive at
the common IE myths. Luckily, there appear to be at least some common IE
characteristics of the prototypical Euro-Anatolian mythos that are unique to
the IE."

I'm not so sure at this point. Like salt in soup, just a dash can affect
the entire pot. Pity.


Janeen