Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Aus Der Box Skeptisch

where did the "sumerians" come from?

244 posts in this topic

I have read a cornucopia of information regarding the sumerians. Yet, one glaring question remains for me. "Where did they come from? They literally had their own language that didn't seem to relate to any know speech from the area. It seemed like cuneiform was an already established form of writing for them. While most of their advances with farming and such simply came with time and the first "civilization" grew from what they had started I ask you, how were they so individualized and advanced at that time?

To quote a webpage I was glancing at which gave rise to this post:

http://history-world.org/sumeria.htm

The original homeland of the Sumerians is unknown. It is believed that they came from the east, but whether by sea or from the highlands is unknown. Their language is not related to those major language families that later appear in the Near East - Semites and Indo-Europeans. (The original home of the Semitic-speaking peoples is thought to have been the Arabian peninsula, while the Indo-Europeans seem to be migrated from the region north of the Black and Caspian seas. A third, much smaller language family is the Hamitic, which included the Egyptians and other peoples of northeastern Africa.)

I hope to see a good discussion soon. As this query in particular is quite intriguing to me.

Thank you in advance.

Enlil and Enki according to the Sumarian Tablets. i have some channeled material here which may be of some interest. You can believe it or not. Either way I don't care. It makes sense to me.

Cosmic Awareness:

This Awareness indicates that this relates to that which this Awareness has given in the reference to Enlil and Enki, in the time of Sumer and Ur; this approximately 20.000 years ago in that which is Mesopotamia; that this in the area of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers were the so-called origin of civilization began. It was not so much the origin of the races or the origin of humanity, but it was a new origin of civilization in that agriculture was introduced during that time. The agriculture which has continued to this day, where certain fruits, vegetables and crops were given to these entities and have spread throughout the world from that area, and whereby these entities were the first of a creation of the Cro-Magnon type of human, or that which has been called the prototype for Adam and Eve. This Awareness indicates that Adam and Eve in this sense were not of the white race, as many believed, but were of the black race. This Awareness wishes of course to clarify this, in suggesting that Adam and Eve were not single individuals; they were a type of human, but as one would say the first Cro-Magnon human on Earth was of the black race rather than of the white race, male and female were they.

This Awareness indicates that Adam represents the Cro-Magnon type of person, the Homo Erectus, the entity who stands erect as compared to the earlier Neanderthal types.

This Awareness indicates the DNA code of the individuals contains the memory of past evolutionary levels, from reptilian, and up to the present condition or genetic development of the physical. This Awareness indicates that additions to this genetic code through interference such as described by the mating of the "sons of god" with those of the daughters of man; this interference with the natural movement of the genetic code, can and did create certain mutations which allowed for a more vital altering and growth in the movement of evolution, so that mankind underwent drastic change in a short period of time.

This Awareness indicates that these alterations occurred at different times, as the human species began to change shape and form and moved more toward the upright manner of walking, and as these changes occurred, these were influenced by either by alterations caused by changes in nature itself, which caused the fetus to mutate or were caused by alterations associated with the mating of higher celestial beings with those of the physical plane. This Awareness indicates that which is referred to as the "sons of god," as in reality being reference to extraterrestrial beings who have had their influence on entities on this plane.

This Awareness indicates that the earth itself represents influences from a number of space civilizations, that there are approximately 23 such space civilizations having influenced the nature of the general population of Earth.

The Three ways Man Was Created

Question:

Well, then essentially then there are three basic routes that man, as we understand today, evolved or came to this plane. One: through the natural evolution, though the group soul of animals; the second through the extraterrestrials; and the third as indicated by the works of entities like Jehovah, creating clones. Is that correct?

Answer:

This is in the affirmative. This through natural genetic influence caused by environmental changes, or caused by the necessity of that which has been referred to as the survival of the fittest, or the Law of Adaptation; and that which has occurred through genetic tampering, or artificial coding of cells and the DNA genetic codes, that which may be termed genetic engineering, such as was accomplished by Jehovah and others; and that which occurred through selective breeding, such as through the "sons of god," and the daughters of man, or of other forms of selective breeding, such as accomplished through the creation of pedigree animals or others.

Read more:

and:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sumerians were the people who once lived in Iraq some 4000 yrs ago. They worship Anunakis as their Creators. They(Sumerians) were very advanced civilization. They(Sumerians) believe that Anunakis came from Planet X. Sumerians were invented by Aliens.

UFO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sumerians were the people who once lived in Iraq some 4000 yrs ago. They worship Anunakis as their Creators. They(Sumerians) were very advanced civilization. They(Sumerians) believe that Anunakis came from Planet X. Sumerians were invented by Aliens.

UFO

Some 'outside' influence on the developement of humankind is not an unreasonable proposition even the bible indicates this. In Sumerian myth it is the Goddess who is the prime mover in this 'creation' . The 'spin' in the Old Testament attempts to reverse this with a rehash of the 'rib' story etc.... Motive ?

Maybe just simple misogyny, there was a lot of this about when the bible was put together.....as there still is.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sumerians were the people who once lived in Iraq some 4000 yrs ago. They worship Anunakis as their Creators. They(Sumerians) were very advanced civilization. They(Sumerians) believe that Anunakis came from Planet X. Sumerians were invented by Aliens.

UFO

You should ground yourself in some actual truth, not Sitchin-ian claptrap. The Sumerians did not worship anyone/anything called the Anunaki. Annunaki is not even a Sumerian word. It's Akkadian, meaning it's from the Sumerians cultural successors almost 1,000 years later. Additionally, the Sumerians had no knoweldge/awareness of anything like a Planet X. It's unlikely that they even had a conception of the wandering stars they called planets as something similar to Earth.

Sheesh.

--Jaylemurph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sumerians were the people who once lived in Iraq some 4000 yrs ago. They worship Anunakis as their Creators. They(Sumerians) were very advanced civilization. They(Sumerians) believe that Anunakis came from Planet X. Sumerians were invented by Aliens.

UFO

Not quite. The Annunaki (Anunna deities) were actually lords of the underworld. The creator gods An, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursanga were not Annunaki but predominantly sky/mountain gods.

The Sumerians believed no such thing, contrary to the meaningless ramblings of Zechariah Sitchin and the like.

cormac

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite. The Annunaki (Anunna deities) were actually lords of the underworld. The creator gods An, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursanga were not Annunaki but predominantly sky/mountain gods.

The Sumerians believed no such thing, contrary to the meaningless ramblings of Zechariah Sitchin and the like.

cormac

It is interesting that the creation myths of the Sumerians by the Goddess or Goddesses sounds very like genetic mixing of a very small number of individuals from which the Sumerians believed they descended. This would seem to be very similar to what we now know from genetic studies that we all descend from a very few special women.

They were an amazing civilisation, from reading of Kramer some years ago, and had a high regard for the feminine principle as part of their deities which must have influenced their way of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is interesting that the creation myths of the Sumerians by the Goddess or Goddesses sounds very like genetic mixing of a very small number of individuals from which the Sumerians believed they descended. This would seem to be very similar to what we now know from genetic studies that we all descend from a very few special women.

They were an amazing civilisation, from reading of Kramer some years ago, and had a high regard for the feminine principle as part of their deities which must have influenced their way of life.

What is it about making humans out of clay that you think sounds like genetic engineering?

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it about making humans out of clay that you think sounds like genetic engineering?

cormac

fantasizing?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is interesting that the creation myths of the Sumerians by the Goddess or Goddesses sounds very like genetic mixing of a very small number of individuals from which the Sumerians believed they descended. This would seem to be very similar to what we now know from genetic studies that we all descend from a very few special women.

They were an amazing civilisation, from reading of Kramer some years ago, and had a high regard for the feminine principle as part of their deities which must have influenced their way of life.

Goddesses were often of significant importance to many ancient Near Easter cultures, but we must be careful in how we interpret this. All ancient Near Eastern societies were rigidly patriarchal. We cannot apply our modern notion of "feminism" to these ancient peoples because no such idea existed to them.

As far as their origin, it is even more important to divorce ourselves from the wobbly headed ramblings of Zecharia Sitchin and similar ilk. These modern fringe writers have contributed nothing useful to historical research and, at least in my opinion, have done little more than to contribute to human stupidity. Creation myths of the ancient Near East do not bear similarities to what we would understand to be genetic engineering—a science wholly unknown to the ancient world and not even conceivable to its people. Rather, a common motif is one deity's fashioning of human kind from mud or clay, an idea borrowed by the Hebrews in much later times for the penning of their own creation story.

When speaking specifically of the Sumerians or Akkadians, we need not wonder or turn to charlatans like Sitchin. Instead, we can turn to the ancients themselves. They believed—and penned in their own texts—that humans were created for one reason and one reason only: to serve the gods in any manner the gods saw fit.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goddesses were often of significant importance to many ancient Near Easter cultures, but we must be careful in how we interpret this. All ancient Near Eastern societies were rigidly patriarchal. We cannot apply our modern notion of "feminism" to these ancient peoples because no such idea existed to them.

As far as their origin, it is even more important to divorce ourselves from the wobbly headed ramblings of Zecharia Sitchin and similar ilk. These modern fringe writers have contributed nothing useful to historical research and, at least in my opinion, have done little more than to contribute to human stupidity. Creation myths of the ancient Near East do not bear similarities to what we would understand to be genetic engineering—a science wholly unknown to the ancient world and not even conceivable to its people. Rather, a common motif is one deity's fashioning of human kind from mud or clay, an idea borrowed by the Hebrews in much later times for the penning of their own creation story.

When speaking specifically of the Sumerians or Akkadians, we need not wonder or turn to charlatans like Sitchin. Instead, we can turn to the ancients themselves. They believed—and penned in their own texts—that humans were created for one reason and one reason only: to serve the gods in any manner the gods saw fit.

Wow kmt, my diction is rubbing off on you :devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it about making humans out of clay that you think sounds like genetic engineering?

cormac

Maybe he has "feet of clay."

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goddesses were often of significant importance to many ancient Near Easter cultures, but we must be careful in how we interpret this. All ancient Near Eastern societies were rigidly patriarchal. We cannot apply our modern notion of "feminism" to these ancient peoples because no such idea existed to them.

As far as their origin, it is even more important to divorce ourselves from the wobbly headed ramblings of Zecharia Sitchin and similar ilk. These modern fringe writers have contributed nothing useful to historical research and, at least in my opinion, have done little more than to contribute to human stupidity. Creation myths of the ancient Near East do not bear similarities to what we would understand to be genetic engineering—a science wholly unknown to the ancient world and not even conceivable to its people. Rather, a common motif is one deity's fashioning of human kind from mud or clay, an idea borrowed by the Hebrews in much later times for the penning of their own creation story.

When speaking specifically of the Sumerians or Akkadians, we need not wonder or turn to charlatans like Sitchin. Instead, we can turn to the ancients themselves. They believed—and penned in their own texts—that humans were created for one reason and one reason only: to serve the gods in any manner the gods saw fit.

Your comment that

'All ancient Near Eastern societies were rigidly patriarchal'

makes me wonder what your definition of 'patriarchal' might be ?

They worshipped female deities, like Inanna, hardly patriarchal as some might see it today ?

As you rightly say the Hebrews later borrowed the idea of humans made of clay; but like other stories they 'borrowed' they put their own spin on it ... out goes the Goddess of Sumerian creation myth and in comes their male deity who does the whole creation bit in 7 days with the feminine clearly set in a subservient and evil role.

It does not take a great intellect to work out what the Hebrews were up to !

The bible creation myths have been scientifically proved to be to be false but the Sumerian myths and their beliefs about their origins conform to what we now know of our genetic origins... a very few special women... who the Sumerians believed were created with 'outside' or 'non terrestial' help....an interesting and very ancient idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your comment that

'All ancient Near Eastern societies were rigidly patriarchal'

makes me wonder what your definition of 'patriarchal' might be ?

They worshipped female deities, like Inanna, hardly patriarchal as some might see it today ?

As you rightly say the Hebrews later borrowed the idea of humans made of clay; but like other stories they 'borrowed' they put their own spin on it ... out goes the Goddess of Sumerian creation myth and in comes their male deity who does the whole creation bit in 7 days with the feminine clearly set in a subservient and evil role.

It does not take a great intellect to work out what the Hebrews were up to !

The bible creation myths have been scientifically proved to be to be false but the Sumerian myths and their beliefs about their origins conform to what we now know of our genetic origins... a very few special women... who the Sumerians believed were created with 'outside' or 'non terrestial' help....an interesting and very ancient idea.

They were patriarchal in that the male deities, particularly Enlil, were the ones at the head of the pantheon. Much like Zeus, Odin and Ra/Horus were in their respective pantheons. And while there were goddesses involved in the creation of humans it was Enlil who instructed them to do so. It wasn't an original idea on the goddesses part.

Actually they don't since, from a matrilineal genetic standpoint, while Mitochondrial Eve is seen as the ancestor of all current living humans she was not the first human female to have existed. She is only the first whose genetic lineage we all descend from. Whatever other genetic lines existed contemporary to hers ceased to exist. This is nothing like the Sumerian creation story.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your comment that

'All ancient Near Eastern societies were rigidly patriarchal'

makes me wonder what your definition of 'patriarchal' might be ?

They worshipped female deities, like Inanna, hardly patriarchal as some might see it today ?

As you rightly say the Hebrews later borrowed the idea of humans made of clay; but like other stories they 'borrowed' they put their own spin on it ... out goes the Goddess of Sumerian creation myth and in comes their male deity who does the whole creation bit in 7 days with the feminine clearly set in a subservient and evil role.

It does not take a great intellect to work out what the Hebrews were up to !

The bible creation myths have been scientifically proved to be to be false but the Sumerian myths and their beliefs about their origins conform to what we now know of our genetic origins... a very few special women... who the Sumerians believed were created with 'outside' or 'non terrestial' help....an interesting and very ancient idea.

By "patriarchal" I mean the traditional definition of the word: a system of society or government controlled by men. This extended down to the family unit. I do not write this to be "sexist" or "anti-feminist," but only to stress basic facts. Concepts such as "sexist" and "feminism" did not even exist in the ancient world. The fact that these people worshipped goddesses does not change the basic construct of their societies and families, because these ancient Near Easter deities were fashioned after the guise of humans and, like humans, were imperfect and fallible. They also worshipped gods, and in point of fact the primary deity of all ancient Near Eastern societies was male. This is not to diminish the status of ancient goddesses, but serves only to express fundamental facts of these ancient religions.

As an aside, in pretty much all ancient Near Eastern and the wider Mediterranean societies, most women had no say in law or government; they could hold no such positions. In some of these societies they had little to no say in even the family, so long as the husband lived. This is why I use the term patriarchal. Some women certainly had it better than others, but none were on equal footing with men. And in saying this I am not including royal women, who certainly exercised power but are not reflective of the 99.9% of the other women in their cultures.

When we examine these societies closely, it's safe to say that when the Hebrews had emerged as a separate and identifiable culture (probably no earlier than the tenth century BCE, although their origins as semi-nomadic tribal peoples precede that point in time), they wouldn't have even known what "Sumerians" were. The Sumerians went extinct millennia before the Hebrews emerged. The most direct religious influence on the Hebrews was their Canaanite kin. As best as can be determined, Yahweh was originally a minor Canaanite deity.

So the Hebrews didn't put their spin on Sumerian traditions but on Canaanite ones. As an example, look into the decipherment of the Ugaritic texts and observe for yourself the very close parallels to the stories and traditions of the Hebrew Old Testament. One thing on which I think you and I agree is how the importance of goddesses was erased from the canonical structure of the Old Testament. In the early years this doesn't necessarily reflect the common beliefs of every-day Hebrews but the efforts of the elite of Jerusalem to craft the Judaic religion to their own aims. By all appearances the original Yahweh cult included a consort for him, the Canaanite goddess Asherah. It was the original crafters of the Old Testament in Jerusalem who worked assiduously to erase her from Judaic traditions, although they were never fully successful.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

The bible creation myths have been scientifically proved to be to be false but the Sumerian myths and their beliefs about their origins conform to what we now know of our genetic origins... a very few special women... who the Sumerians believed were created with 'outside' or 'non terrestial' help....an interesting and very ancient idea.

I forgot to comment on this last paragraph so I will do so here. Cormac already covered it nicely, himself. But think about this. I have to wonder where you're getting your information. If you read a book on Sumerian myths and legends edited and translated by properly trained linguists and historians, where exactly does this conform to our understanding of genetics? I have read such myths and legends and have not once seen anything of the sort.

The idea smacks more of Sitchin than it does history.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Read some where that when the bottle neck happen from the Toba eruption 70,000 years and from a massvie tsunami on the west coast of Africa, throwing the asian man and the cro magnon man together, the asian man destroy the co magnon man and took their women.Perhaps the Sumerians are of this mixture. The co magon`s artifact of a head dress of a women looks sumerian.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Venus+of+Brassempouy&Form=R5FD8

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Sumerians+women+&qpvt=Sumerians+women+&FORM=IGRE#view=detail&id=B82AD70A8B8F9C4FC1B97B2C316B388D756BDD51&selectedIndex=196

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read some where that when the bottle neck happen from the Toba eruption 70,000 years and from a massvie tsunami on the west coast of Africa, throwing the asian man and the cro magnon man together, the asian man destroy the co magnon man and took their women.Perhaps the Sumerians are of this mixture. The co magon`s artifact of a head dress of a women looks sumerian.

http://www.bing.com/...pouy&Form=R5FD8

http://www.bing.com/...lectedIndex=196

Are you not mixing up some timelines here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reply to Kmt_sesh Yesterday 11.13 and 11.37

Thank you for your interesting and clearly knowledgeable replies but I would make the following points as I think they are relevant to this topic.

'The fact that these people worshipped goddesses does not change the basic construct of their societies and families'

That seems a rather bold statement. From memory the first named writer of our world was a Sumerian woman, Enheduanna I believe. She was a great follower of the Goddess Inanna and we do not seem to yet know the full impact of Goddess worship on these early societies.

'...they ( the Hebrews) wouldn't have even known what "Sumerians" were. The Sumerians went extinct millennia before the Hebrews emerged. The most direct religious influence on the Hebrews was their Canaanite kin. As best as can be determined, Yahweh was originally a minor Canaanite deity.'

There have been strong suggestions that early Ancient Egypt had influence from Sumer with its Goddess worship traditions and of course AE had important Goddesses leading to the stories about Osiris and Isis etc. We are told the Hebrews, or some of them, came out of Egypt and then developed their own religion apparently based on the God of Abraham who we are told came from ...Sumer, Ur of the Chaldees.

So there was clearly a great interchange of ideas around the ancient world and in all these cultures the Goddess was obviously very important.

'...One thing on which I think you and I agree is how the importance of goddesses was erased from the canonical structure of the Old Testament. In the early years this doesn't necessarily reflect the common beliefs of every-day Hebrews but the efforts of the elite of Jerusalem to craft the Judaic religion to their own aims. By all appearances the original Yahweh cult included a consort for him, the Canaanite goddess Asherah. It was the original crafters of the Old Testament in Jerusalem who worked assiduously to erase her from Judaic traditions, although they were never fully successful.'

The creation myths of the Sumerians which closely involved the actions of the Goddess, and mainly Enki if memory serves, gave great status to the Goddess in Sumerian society a status that was unacceptable to some Hebrews but the creation stories they created to eliminate her influence have not stood the test of time and scientific investigation.

So we should perhaps take a close look at the original creation myths of the Sumerians and where they believed they came from because they just might have some truth in them.

They believed that there was an 'outside' influence in their origins by what sounds like 'genetic' mixing with this 'outside' source which we might be wise to consider as a possibility and not just dismiss as a fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitochondrial DNA analysis place the early European population as sister group to the Asian ("Mongol") groups, dating the divergence to some 50,000 years ago. Thats close :)

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Cro-Magnon

50,000 years is close? You are sure that you are not trying to get the better of us here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Read some where that when the bottle neck happen from the Toba eruption 70,000 years and from a massvie tsunami on the west coast of Africa, throwing the asian man and the cro magnon man together, the asian man destroy the co magnon man and took their women.Perhaps the Sumerians are of this mixture. The co magon`s artifact of a head dress of a women looks sumerian.

http://www.bing.com/...pouy&Form=R5FD8

http://www.bing.com/...lectedIndex=196

There was no bottleneck.

The idea that humans nearly became extinct 75,000 ago because of a super-volcano eruption is not supported by new data from Africa, scientists say.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-22355515

And since Cro-Magnon is for the most part a defunct name for early Homo sapiens sapiens (Us) in Europe then no, Asian groups did not replace us there.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That seems a rather bold statement. From memory the first named writer of our world was a Sumerian woman, Enheduanna I believe.

It should be pointed out that Enheduanna was not Sumerian she was Akkadian, being the daughter of Sargon of Akkad.

We are told the Hebrews, or some of them, came out of Egypt and then developed their own religion apparently based on the God of Abraham who we are told came from ...Sumer, Ur of the Chaldees.

The former of which is not in evidence anywhere in Egypt and the latter of which (Yahweh) is not in evidence as ever having existed in Sumer at any point prior to the alleged existance of Abraham. The earliest reference of this deity firmly places Yahweh as being of Canaanite origin.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be pointed out that Enheduanna was not Sumerian she was Akkadian, being the daughter of Sargon of Akkad.

The former of which is not in evidence anywhere in Egypt and the latter of which (Yahweh) is not in evidence as ever having existed in Sumer at any point prior to the alleged existance of Abraham. The earliest reference of this deity firmly places Yahweh as being of Canaanite origin.

cormac

Correct, the thunder god of nomadic herder tribes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'The fact that these people worshipped goddesses does not change the basic construct of their societies and families'

That seems a rather bold statement. From memory the first named writer of our world was a Sumerian woman, Enheduanna I believe. She was a great follower of the Goddess Inanna and we do not seem to yet know the full impact of Goddess worship on these early societies.

Enheduanna was actually an Akkadian royal and a priestess in the city of Ur, but I understand your point. She was specifically a priestess of the Akkadian moon god Sin (known back in Sumerian times as Nanna). You're correct about her status as probably the world's first named writer (female or male). But remember the caveat in my previous post: royals do not represent the status of every-day people. More than 99% of the women in Enheduanna's own time and place did not enjoy her privileges or status.

But I think I'd be safe in saying that Enheduanna was probably a hell of a lot more intelligent than a lot of the men who ruled the Akkadian empire.

'...they ( the Hebrews) wouldn't have even known what "Sumerians" were. The Sumerians went extinct millennia before the Hebrews emerged. The most direct religious influence on the Hebrews was their Canaanite kin. As best as can be determined, Yahweh was originally a minor Canaanite deity.'

There have been strong suggestions that early Ancient Egypt had influence from Sumer with its Goddess worship traditions and of course AE had important Goddesses leading to the stories about Osiris and Isis etc.

There were certainly Mesopotamian influences on Egypt of late prehistory and into the earliest stages of the Early Dynastic Period, but these are chiefly observable in artistic motifs and architectural forms. Most historians also agree that at least some (perhaps many) domesticates of which Egyptians took advantage in prehistory came from the Levant and Mesopotamia. Religion is another matter, however. It's possible that religious practices of the Levant and Mesopotamia influenced early Egypt, but there's nothing definitive pointing in that direction. There's a greater likelihood that such religious practices filtered into Egypt from Nubia to the south. Most deities for which there is evidence from the earliest dynasties in Egypt are inherently Egyptian and in other cases, theoretically Nubian (e.g., Bat, Bes, and some even posit Horus).

There is no firm evidence for cults of Osiris and Isis until late in Dynasty 5, toward the end of the Egyptian Old Kingdom, by which time Akkad ruled what's now Iraq and the Sumerians were already fading from history.

We are told the Hebrews, or some of them, came out of Egypt and then developed their own religion apparently based on the God of Abraham who we are told came from ...Sumer, Ur of the Chaldees.

So there was clearly a great interchange of ideas around the ancient world and in all these cultures the Goddess was obviously very important.

I absolutely agree about the interchange of ideas around the ancient Mediterranean world. There's no doubting it. The critical factor is, what exactly does the extant evidence support in the way of cross-cultural transference? Your example of Exodus or some version thereof, for instance, is not supported archaeologically or textually anywhere in the ancient Near East (by textually I specifically mean extrabiblical evidence, which would subsequently call into question accounts penned by later writers such as Josephus, who drew straight from the Old Testament).

Consider, for example, the biblical phrase "Ur of the Chaldees" or "Chaldeans." It's actually quite revealing. As a people the Chaldeans (Kasdim) cannot be dated to before the tenth century BCE (the Early Iron Age) and did not rise to prominence in Mesopotamia until several centuries later. The Chaldeans conquered and occupied Babylon through the seventh and into the sixth centuries BCE—hence the moniker of "Chaldean dynasty" in ancient Babylon. It was the Chaldean ruler of Babylon named Nebuchadnezzar II who conquered Jerusalem in 597 BCE, so the Jews of that time were painfully familiar with the Chaldeans and the large territory Babylonia ruled over. But the biblical Abraham would've lived long before these events, and the Chaldeans did not even exist that far back in time. It's a good example of how the scribes who penned the Old Testament were drawing on peoples and events of their own time to manufacture a narrative for something much farther back in time. As it is there is no extrabiblical evidence for the existence of the biblical Abraham, although someone like him may have existed; or, perhaps more likely, he was a literary invention or synthesis used to represent any number of actual founders of the Hebrew culture.

I'm droning on too long again, but even in the earliest stages of the religion it is certain that Yahweh was of the most importance. While there is a case to be made for his consort Asherah, she was never placed on equal footing with Yahweh.

There is really no such thing as the "sacred feminine" of Dan Brown fame. It's a great plot development for his novels but not something at which we can point in ancient history and identify definitively. What we have instead are pantheons of deities, both gods and goddesses, many of major importance and many of minor. Nevertheless, the primary deities of all ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies of which I'm aware were always gods. I'm not saying this to be sexist because I am not sexist: I say it because my own twenty-plus years of research paints a very clear picture of this for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are told the Hebrews, or some of them, came out of Egypt and then developed their own religion apparently based on the God of Abraham who we are told came from ...Sumer, Ur of the Chaldees.

After Kmt_sesh's dissertation, I hesitate to add anything further.

However, realizing that posting assuages my ego (at least by some small amount,) I'll deign to say this.

Here's a damn fine PDF on the subject of the "problem" of "Ur of the Chaldeans."

The fact is, it's not certain that Abraham (if he existed at all) was even from Ur.

It's a scholary paper and sort of difficult, but not too bad. 12 pages, but that includes lots of footnotes.

Harte

P.S. Kmt, this is how you keep a post short.

H.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.