Re: How do we Know...

From: jdcroft@...
Message: 5216
Date: 2000-12-30

Janeen

Thanks for the common sense in the argument. It shows for me again
the difficulty of determining the order in which ingredients were
introduced into the omlettes of the medieval written myths of the
Germanic, Celtic, Baltic and Slavic traditions. Many of those
ingredients no doubt did come from Sumer, via Greco-Roman
intermediaries.

Regards

John

>
>
> 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