John is naively led into a logical trap:
>Yes but there are many developments needed to get from agriculture to
>cities. Most of the area south of the Siberian treeline and down to
>the Timor Gap had developed agriculture by 2,000 BCE. Yet cities
>were first developed in Southern Iraq, not for the
>mystical "atractivity" of Glen, but due to some very sound
>geographical and cultural reasons.
... which is what I'm saying! You can have a large "agricultural" area but
it is only in certain locations that cities will develop and thrive. This is
the origin of Sumer. First a city-less zone of agricultural usage develops,
THEN cities grow from within that zone in the more "attractive" areas.
Attractiveness is not a mystical concept and can be defined in many
scientific ways. The more likely definition of "attractiveness" in this case
is _economic value_ (just as with my Winnipeg/Vancouver comparison).
To quote your very words, John, you state that "there are many developments
needed to get from agriculture to cities" which provides us with secure and
reasonable doubt that the Sumerians were truely the _inventors_ of
agriculture, as I've been fighting.
What confuses me is how John seems to be chumming to Janeen's side in
support of a Sumer-derived agriculture (?!) when he was singing a different
tune some monthes ago regarding the northern Zagros at 9000 BCE being the
true source of agriculture. Let's make up our minds and stop pussy-footing
around inevitable conclusions.
The Sumerians certainly didn't invent agriculture. The originality of
Sumerian writing is also put into doubt and astrology is more likely to be
based on earlier beliefs rather than "invented" from the ether. What are you
people trying to prove again?
John:
>Glen I am surprised to see you leaving out your Semitish! I would
>agree with Glen's list but I would also add Sumeria and Afro-asiatic
>peoples too.
Examine my words carefully before unnecessary confrontational questioning:
"My feeling is that IE myth is a blend of three sources: Pre-IE Europe,
Anatolia & Steppe." I remain insistent that Anatolia, that is West Anatolia,
was Semitish-speaking. Your additions to this list of IE influences only add
confusion and undue complexity without any new gain of understanding or real
substantiation. Sumerians had no demonstratable effect on West Anatolia
circa 4000 BCE nor on the proto-IE language, period. There shall be no
convincing protest here without succumbing to absurd Izzialisms.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com