sumerians?
Kosmos
from Altai (this lures me....), from Kurdistan, from Afghanistan either....
Whence finally sumerians came?
--
ATB,
__________________
Kosmos
__________________
~`dc`~
| Come Visit
NEVER NEVER LAND |
the proper study of mankind is man"
~ Alexander Pope ~
Larry Caldwell
writes:
> Let's choose; from hindu peninsula (I guess there, but....), from Pakistan,
> from Altai (this lures me....), from Kurdistan, from Afghanistan either....
> Whence finally sumerians came?
Why would they have to come from anywhere? They were a bunch of
caucasians, across one minor mountain range from where caucasians
originally evolved. They could easily have been bogging about in their
river valley for 10,000 years, fishing, hunting and brewing the
occasional pot of beer.
Kosmos
some accounts (f. e. the legend of aratta, and many other commercial &
mythic writings) stating close contacts with indian regions.
--
ATB,
__________________
B. M. C.
__________________
"Larry Caldwell" <lar...@teleport.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:MPG.16007a3f3...@news.teleport.com...
Larry Caldwell
writes:
> well, their writings seems related to hindus valley ones.... and there's
> some accounts (f. e. the legend of aratta, and many other commercial &
> mythic writings) stating close contacts with indian regions.
If I'm not mistaken, the archaeology shows a substantial trading culture
from Sumeria to SE Asia at the time. Certainly the IVC would have been
easily reached by coasting river boats, which both the Sumerians and the
IVC had. However, the Sumerians were Caucasian and the Indus Valley
inhabitants were Dravidian. There is no possibility that one colonized
the other.
Kosmos
????? caucasian? excuse me, but what source are you quoting for that?
however, since they were caucasian (do you mean turanics or whatelse
either?), maybe they were related to aryans, the conquerors of dravidian
peoples (btw, since their civilization arose before 4000 b. c., how can we
speak about caucasians? though harappa and mohenjo daro was allegedy build
around 2000 a. c., well, none knows whether the roots of both sumerians and
dravidians were in common before the time that pakistan cities were built!);
but since their writings sharen't *anything* related to any hindeuropean
wirtings, how can we state that they were caucasian?
Larry Caldwell
writes:
What gave you the idea they weren't? Semitic incursions started with the
Akkadians about 2500 bce.
> however, since they were caucasian (do you mean turanics or whatelse
> either?), maybe they were related to aryans, the conquerors of dravidian
> peoples (btw, since their civilization arose before 4000 b. c., how can we
> speak about caucasians?
You need to stretch your timeline a bit. Caucasians were well
established around the Mediterranean by the end of the last ice age,
12,000 years ago. Caucasians were named after the Caucasus Mountains,
which separate Asia Minor from Europe. The Tigris River has its
headwaters in the Caucasus Mountains.
No, the Sumerians were not Turanians, or Aryans, or anything else. As I
mentioned earlier, they could easily have been puddling about in their
river delta for 10,000 years before they developed a civilization. Their
language was certainly not an Indo-European language. They had been
growing crops for about 2000 years when they developed writing.
> though harappa and mohenjo daro was allegedy build
> around 2000 a. c., well, none knows whether the roots of both sumerians and
> dravidians were in common before the time that pakistan cities were built!);
> but since their writings sharen't *anything* related to any hindeuropean
> wirtings, how can we state that they were caucasian?
Here you lose me. What calendar is 2000 a.c.? Cuneiform writing was
evidently invented independently by the Sumerians about 3100 bce. Early
writings are all commercial records, so it is safe to say that there was
a thriving trade culture in the area at the time. Technology at the
invention of writing was ceramic/chalcolithic.
The Indus Valley Civilization was roughly contemporary, but 1000 miles
away. The Hind were over a thousand years in the future. We don't know
how extensive trade contacts were, but the IVC did not adopt cuneiform
writing. It's likely that trade was through intermediaries rather than
direct.
--
Everybody is born ignorant. Some people learn to be stupid.
Philip Anderson
>In article <cVRm7.19836$ul3.6...@news.infostrada.it>,
nemo...@email.it
>writes:
>> ????? caucasian? excuse me, but what source are you quoting for that?
>
>What gave you the idea they weren't? Semitic incursions started with
the
>Akkadians about 2500 bce.
I don't think Caucasian as a racial designation is particularly useful.
Linguistically, Sumerian is not (or has not successfully been) related
to the Caucasian languages (or as Larry said, to Proto-Indo-European, or
Dravidian).
>No, the Sumerians were not Turanians, or Aryans, or anything else. As
I
>mentioned earlier, they could easily have been puddling about in their
>river delta for 10,000 years before they developed a civilization.
Their
>language was certainly not an Indo-European language. They had been
>growing crops for about 2000 years when they developed writing.
I believe that traces of a language even earlier than Sumerian have been
identified in their writings, suggesting that they did migrate in, on
top of an earlier people; not necessarily any distance of course.
Turan, in the sense of not Iran, referring to Central Asia is not used
except in Iranian history and mythology.
>Here you lose me. What calendar is 2000 a.c
"ante Christum" I assumed (before Christ).
>The Indus Valley Civilization was roughly contemporary, but 1000 miles
>away. The Hind were over a thousand years in the future. We don't
know
>how extensive trade contacts were, but the IVC did not adopt cuneiform
>writing. It's likely that trade was through intermediaries rather than
>direct.
Bahrein, probably ancient Dilmun, seems to have been a staging post.
IVC seals have been found in Mesopotamia, though goods could have
travelled via intermediaries, and Mesopotamian cylinder seals in the
Indus Valley, which are more likely to have belonged to individual
merchants.
Overland trade through Iran would probably have been indirect.
--
hwyl/cheers
Philip Anderson
Cymru/Wales
Michael Adams
with some Semite alphabet. I can see some possible link to the Indus/Harrapa
culture and likely Dravidian link of some sort..
Anyone done any comparitive research into their myths, and if they are in
common with known Harrapa and like civilizations?
Some has said that many later Hebrew myths/legends are based in part on
Sumerian, but any proof?
We do need to remember that the Sumerians are a name for a whole scale of
cultures, sort of like how the Etruscans were.. City states that had some
things in common with each other.
Sumer, Ur, Eresh(sp) and others..
Mike
Alaska
Kosmos wrote:
--
Love Humor or just love to share it?
Then join or send to me at Adulth...@egroups.com
To join then send a blank email to
adulthumor-...@egroups.com The messages are
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/adulthumor-l/messages/
Michael Adams
culture..
Not unknown for a culture to adopt elements of another, especially when it
makes things easier.
Egyptian forms seem to have been adopted by many Semite tribes..
While Cuniform, likely had some earlier picto-graf form.
Mike
Michael Adams
Harrapa pictographs? Namely pictures, better yet Graphs..
Mike
Michael Adams
and fish..
Intermediaries, could be possible, but who were there? The Intermediaries.. I can
see why they would use Pictures, similiar to why Chinese uses a like form, namely
you don't need to know the lingo, to make deals, transactions and more.
Could be records of transaction/reciepts. Or deeds of trust for property or ...
Orders?
Mike
Michael Adams
rivers, or some other means to the south. There was major mountains to the
east.. Almost like a wall..
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~kverhoef/
Mike
Larry Caldwell
> Some has said that many later Hebrew myths/legends are based in part on
> Sumerian, but any proof?
A few stories, like the Great Flood, made it into Hebrew myth. The
actual source is hard to determine, since the flood myth was common in
the whole region.
Other than that, it's hard to see much Sumerian influence in Hebrew
mythology. Babylonian myth had some Sumerian roots, but so did
Canaanite myth. What we think of as Jewish mythology didn't appear on
the scene until the 9th century, and didn't become a monotheism until
the 6th century.
> We do need to remember that the Sumerians are a name for a whole scale of
> cultures, sort of like how the Etruscans were.. City states that had some
> things in common with each other.
> Sumer, Ur, Eresh(sp) and others..
Yes. Things took a really grim turn in the Fertile Crescent when the
Akkadians took over. You see a lot of Akkadian politics in Exodus,
where the Israelites exterminate whole tribes. You can see the
effects of Akkadian brutality in the Middle East even today.
I think it was the Chaldaean city states that first adopted
henotheism, exalting one city god over the pantheon. That eventually
evolved into Judeo-Christian-Islamic monotheism. Abraham was
supposedly from Ur.
Chris Siren
> Michael Adams <Abr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3C68A892...@yahoo.com>...
>
> > Some has said that many later Hebrew myths/legends are based in part on
> > Sumerian, but any proof?
>
> A few stories, like the Great Flood, made it into Hebrew myth. The
> actual source is hard to determine, since the flood myth was common in
> the whole region.
>
> Other than that, it's hard to see much Sumerian influence in Hebrew
> mythology. Babylonian myth had some Sumerian roots, but so did
> Canaanite myth. What we think of as Jewish mythology didn't appear on
> the scene until the 9th century, and didn't become a monotheism until
> the 6th century.
There are some other parallels at least beyond that, almost all of which
are parallels of other sections of Genesis. I discuss some of them briefly in
the Sumerian Mythology FAQ at:
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze33gpz/sumer-faq.html#A1.6
Chris Siren
Philip Anderson
>Egyptian forms seem to have been adopted by many Semite tribes..
>While Cuniform, likely had some earlier picto-graf form.
We know it did; we have pictographic writing, eg from Uruk, and it is
possible to trace the progression of some signs from simple picture to
picture made from wedges to the standard cuneiform sign. No
relationship has been found between the language and any other
(including the Dravidian languages of India). I believe there is some
evidence that they migrated into Sumer (not Sumeria, by the way) from
the north-east.
The Indus Valley script however is still undeciphered (except to
individuals), so we can't comment much on their mythology apart from
images, which have some similarities with Mesopotamia, some with later
Indian religion.
Joe Jefferson
>
> A few stories, like the Great Flood, made it into Hebrew myth. The
> actual source is hard to determine, since the flood myth was common in
> the whole region.
And throughout much of the rest of the world as well which suggests, at
least to me, that its ultimate source may lie somewhere deep in the
human psyche. (Of course I'd say the same thing about several other
widespread myths, such as the Earth Diver or the Theft of Fire.)
--
Joe of Castle Jefferson
http://www.mindspring.com/~jjstrshp/
Site updated November 25th, 2001.
"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the
poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the
hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4.
CleV
<jjst...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Larry Caldwell wrote:
>> A few stories, like the Great Flood, made it into Hebrew myth. The
>> actual source is hard to determine, since the flood myth was common in
>> the whole region.
>And throughout much of the rest of the world as well which suggests, at
>least to me, that its ultimate source may lie somewhere deep in the
>human psyche. (Of course I'd say the same thing about several other
>widespread myths, such as the Earth Diver or the Theft of Fire.)
After watching a documentary on the Neandertaler the other night it
occured to me I couldn't think of any myths which mayhave ben inspired
by our primal encounters with them. They couldn't have become
mythologised as the Giants, for example, because they were smaller
than us. So ... whither the Neandertals in myth?
Michael Adams
Mongolia, to North and Sumeria.. Some connection, after all many of the Mongols cousin
groups moved west into the lands north of Sumeria, while The German tribes likely once lived
in lands NNW of Sumeria... Or is just anthropologiest and like getting their myths mixed up.
The world tree could be an early idea of the tower of babal or like?
Mike
Alaska
Michael Adams
not one that covered the planet, just their region. Like one in the region
they lived in, Mesopotamia has them alot. Or some have suggested that when
the black sea broke it's divder between it and the med, the result was a
giant flood of some sort.. Either a Tsunami or like wave or something else?
Mike
Joe Jefferson wrote:
--
Michael Adams
persons who have a problem with their petutiory(sp) gland not shutting off,
they grow tall, and big, and likely were forced out cause of being
different. Or in the case of Goliath used for shock value. Anothere problem
they often have is side vision blindness, might explain how David got so
close!?
Mike
CleV wrote:
--
Michael Adams
bred into human population, or were just a group of humans, mutants or maybe
the pre-cusror to humanity. I have seen people who are alive today who fit
the Neandertal mold of look and walk and bone and like structure.
Mike
Alaska
CleV wrote:
--
Joe Jefferson
>
> The flood was likely a rememberance of a flood they shared in common, and
> not one that covered the planet, just their region. Like one in the region
> they lived in, Mesopotamia has them alot. Or some have suggested that when
> the black sea broke it's divder between it and the med, the result was a
> giant flood of some sort.. Either a Tsunami or like wave or something else?
I strongly disagree. Unless you're going to argue that the Orpheus myth
is a rememberance of somebody who actually visited the land of the dead,
or that there really was at one time a superpowered sentient raven
wandering around in the Pacific Northwest, it seems rather silly to
require that the flood be based on an actual event.
And in any event, the world flood story is known to too many cultures to
have been a local event, unless you assume it happened at least 40,000
years ago. However there's no good reason to think that oral tradition
can persist that long. Just the opposite in fact, since there are no
recognizable myths of the last ice age, which persisted until just
18,000 years ago.
J.C.Curtis
> And in any event, the world flood story is known to too many cultures to
> have been a local event, unless you assume it happened at least 40,000
> years ago. However there's no good reason to think that oral tradition
> can persist that long. Just the opposite in fact, since there are no
> recognizable myths of the last ice age, which persisted until just
> 18,000 years ago.
>
encased in ice though. And "ice giants" and so on.
Larry Caldwell
> I strongly disagree. Unless you're going to argue that the Orpheus myth
> is a rememberance of somebody who actually visited the land of the dead,
The Orpheus myth is the record of a cthonic initiation ceremony
practiced by a mystery cult.
> or that there really was at one time a superpowered sentient raven
> wandering around in the Pacific Northwest,
Ravens are an omnivorous bird. Observing ravens will lead a human
being to a food supply. It is natural to make up stories about a bird
that everyone learns to observe as one of the first survival lessons
of childhood.
> it seems rather silly to
> require that the flood be based on an actual event.
Why would someone make up a story about something that never happens?
It rains. Rains cause floods. Floods cause stories. After all, you
can't do anything else while everything is underwater.
> And in any event, the world flood story is known to too many cultures to
> have been a local event, unless you assume it happened at least 40,000
> years ago. However there's no good reason to think that oral tradition
> can persist that long. Just the opposite in fact, since there are no
> recognizable myths of the last ice age, which persisted until just
> 18,000 years ago.
There is no reason for myths to just be recorded in oral tradition.
Archaeologists are starting to find traces of writing that far
predates Sumerian cuneiform. Take a look at
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/vinca.htm to see what this earliest
form of writing looked like. From the astronomical sophistication of
the European Megalith Builders, we can determine that the Old
Europeans maintained written records of observations over centuries.
Christine Thorel
> ... it seems rather silly to
> require that the flood be based on an actual event.
>
> And in any event, the world flood story is known to too many cultures to
> have been a local event, unless you assume it happened at least 40,000
> years ago. However there's no good reason to think that oral tradition
> can persist that long. Just the opposite in fact, since there are no
> recognizable myths of the last ice age, which persisted until just
> 18,000 years ago.
>
>
How about if you assume that there where many local floods at different places
and times?
Chi
Gale
> <snip>
>
> How about if you assume that there where many local floods at different places
> and times?
>
If you live beside the river, you will see floods --- and eventually see
one so big that you'll tell your grandchildren about it; and it will
grow more in their "memories."
If you begin planting (and perhaps, perhaps not, if you are herding) you
live by the river --- that's where the water is, and the agricultural
life tends to require a year-round water supply.
So, in that regard, everybody has a flood story -- and at that level the
question is a "so what?" If flood stories are not a "so what?", then the
significance must lie in the particular stories, rather than any
generalizations gathered from the mere fact of their existence.
--
Blessed Be,
Gale
original fiction, poetry, Tarot at
http://www.capstonebeads.com/Magick.html
modstaff alt.religion.wicca.moderated
Joe Jefferson
>
> Joe Jefferson <jjst...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<3C71F7...@mindspring.com>...
>
> > I strongly disagree. Unless you're going to argue that the Orpheus myth
> > is a rememberance of somebody who actually visited the land of the dead,
>
> The Orpheus myth is the record of a cthonic initiation ceremony
> practiced by a mystery cult.
Such a connection exists in Greece but not in other places. (North
America, for example, where the story is found on both coasts.) Even in
Greece it's far from obvious that the story came from the ceremony,
rather than the other way around.
> > or that there really was at one time a superpowered sentient raven
> > wandering around in the Pacific Northwest,
>
> Ravens are an omnivorous bird. Observing ravens will lead a human
> being to a food supply. It is natural to make up stories about a bird
> that everyone learns to observe as one of the first survival lessons
> of childhood.
Natural to assume that a bird is responsible for sunlight? That a bird
caused humans to die instead of living forever? To credit a bird with
fire, and low tide, and the spread of vegetation across the land? All of
these and many more were attributed to raven by the Tsimshian. An
Alaskan Eskimo story tells how Raven created the world by bringing dry
land up from the bottom of the sea with his spear. In Athapascan regions
Raven is a villain and when he dies humans disappear from the Earth, to
be brought back only after Raven is revived.
> > it seems rather silly to
> > require that the flood be based on an actual event.
>
> Why would someone make up a story about something that never happens?
See your previous statement regarding Raven. It's natural to make up
stories. People do it all the time, for a wide variety of reasons.
Joe Jefferson
No doubt there were. There have also been earthquakes, fires, and
tornadoes in many different places. But natural events fail as an
explanation for world mythology because the majority of mythical events
*never* occur in the real world.
Joe Jefferson
I know about the Norse and the Chipewyan, but that's all I can think of
off the top of my head. What other ones are there, and what elements in
the stories are recognizable as referring to an Ice Age and not just
ordinary winter?
Joe Jefferson
>
> After watching a documentary on the Neandertaler the other night it
> occured to me I couldn't think of any myths which mayhave ben inspired
> by our primal encounters with them. They couldn't have become
> mythologised as the Giants, for example, because they were smaller
> than us. So ... whither the Neandertals in myth?
What makes you think they would have gotten into myth at all? To the Cro
Magnons, the Neandertals were probably nothing special, just the ugly,
somewhat backward people living over the next ridge. Sort of like
Paleolithic rednecks.
CleV
<jjst...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>CleV wrote:
>> After watching a documentary on the Neandertaler the other night it
>> occured to me I couldn't think of any myths which mayhave ben inspired
>> by our primal encounters with them. They couldn't have become
>> mythologised as the Giants, for example, because they were smaller
>> than us. So ... whither the Neandertals in myth?
>What makes you think they would have gotten into myth at all? To the Cro
>Magnons, the Neandertals were probably nothing special, just the ugly,
>somewhat backward people living over the next ridge. Sort of like
>Paleolithic rednecks.
You don't think they would have made a strong us vs them distinction?
I like the idea that primal events would still live on in racial myth
- but the evidence doesn't seem to be there :-(
Joe Jefferson
>
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 17:59:32 -0800, Joe Jefferson
> <jjst...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >CleV wrote:
>
> >> After watching a documentary on the Neandertaler the other night it
> >> occured to me I couldn't think of any myths which mayhave ben inspired
> >> by our primal encounters with them. They couldn't have become
> >> mythologised as the Giants, for example, because they were smaller
> >> than us. So ... whither the Neandertals in myth?
>
> >What makes you think they would have gotten into myth at all? To the Cro
> >Magnons, the Neandertals were probably nothing special, just the ugly,
> >somewhat backward people living over the next ridge. Sort of like
> >Paleolithic rednecks.
>
> You don't think they would have made a strong us vs them distinction?
Not really. I imagine the distinction was probably there, but "us"
referred to their own tribe and "them" to every other tribe, regardless
of whether that other tribe was Neandertal or Cro Magnon.
Floyd Davidson
>> being to a food supply. It is natural to make up stories about a bird
>> that everyone learns to observe as one of the first survival lessons
>> of childhood.
>
>Natural to assume that a bird is responsible for sunlight? That a bird
>caused humans to die instead of living forever?
I've never heard of this causing humans to die before...
>To credit a bird with
>fire, and low tide, and the spread of vegetation across the land? All of
>these and many more were attributed to raven by the Tsimshian. An
I don't see anything unnatural about those stories. Raven
brought water to the mountains of Southeastern Alaska by taking
make long flights to find the water, taking big gulps to get all
he could, and flying back to pour the water on the mountain tops
to letting it form rivers the flowed down to the sea. Raven
continued this until it became automatic.
And that is how Raven created the hydrogen cycle...
>Alaskan Eskimo story tells how Raven created the world by bringing dry
>land up from the bottom of the sea with his spear.
This is true. Raven, along with being a strange bird, has done
many things, because he *is* talented. Raven is a lot like some
of my friends ;-)
> In Athapascan regions
>Raven is a villain and when he dies humans disappear from the Earth, to
>be brought back only after Raven is revived.
I've never heard of Athabaskin people viewing Raven as a
villain. Here in Alaska the various Athabaskin people live
directly between the (Tlingit and Haida and) Tsimshians
mentioned above and the Eskimos also mentioned above. And they
all understand Raven pretty much the same.
There is a series of videos available from the University of
Alaska titled "Make prayers to the Raven", which documents the
(Athabaskan) Koyukon people's perception of Raven rather well.
>> > it seems rather silly to
>> > require that the flood be based on an actual event.
>>
>> Why would someone make up a story about something that never happens?
>
>See your previous statement regarding Raven. It's natural to make up
>stories. People do it all the time, for a wide variety of reasons.
You prove his point. With the exception of one story which is
either mistaken or applies to Athabaskan people who are very
different than those in Alaska that I know about, all of the
Raven stories you mentioned are indeed based on actual events.
The land did in fact get pulled up from the water (virtually
every geologist/archaeologist or whatever says that happened),
for example. We do have sunlight... and a moon, and we do
have the hydrogen cycle.
Do we have open minds though?
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.ptialaska.net/~floyd>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@barrow.com
Derrick Everett
> J.C.Curtis wrote:
>>
>> > And in any event, the world flood story is known to too many cultures
>> > to have been a local event, unless you assume it happened at least
>> > 40,000 years ago. However there's no good reason to think that oral
>> > tradition can persist that long. Just the opposite in fact, since
>> > there are no recognizable myths of the last ice age, which persisted
>> > until just 18,000 years ago.
>> >
>> There are quite a lot of creation stories that start off with the world
>> encased in ice though. And "ice giants" and so on.
>
> I know about the Norse and the Chipewyan, but that's all I can think of
> off the top of my head. What other ones are there, and what elements in
> the stories are recognizable as referring to an Ice Age and not just
> ordinary winter?
>
Is it not an Ice Age that destroys the world in one version of the
Iranian myth of Manu, which in other respects parallels that of the
Biblical flood?
--
Derrick Everett (deverett at c2i.net)
==== Writing from 59°54'N 10°36'E ====
http://home.c2i.net/monsalvat/index.htm
Floyd Davidson
>Christine Thorel wrote:
>>
>> How about if you assume that there where many local floods at different places
>> and times?
>
>No doubt there were. There have also been earthquakes, fires, and
>tornadoes in many different places. But natural events fail as an
>explanation for world mythology because the majority of mythical events
>*never* occur in the real world.
Perhaps the purpose of traditional stories is not to describe
the events portrayed... which you are focusing on to the
exclusion of what the stories actually tell. They use
descriptions of real events to explain something else. In some
cases it may be how to live, or how to act, or when to do
something, or why to do something. But the event used is just a
vehicle, not the whole show.
Joe Jefferson
>
> Joe Jefferson <jjst...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >Larry Caldwell wrote:
> >>
> >> Ravens are an omnivorous bird. Observing ravens will lead a human
> >> being to a food supply. It is natural to make up stories about a bird
> >> that everyone learns to observe as one of the first survival lessons
> >> of childhood.
> >
> >Natural to assume that a bird is responsible for sunlight? That a bird
> >caused humans to die instead of living forever?
>
> I've never heard of this causing humans to die before...
It's in the Raven cycle recorded by Henry W. Tate. Death came as the
result of an argument between Stone and Elderberry over who would give
birth first. Raven settled the argument in favor or Elderberry, so now
people die and elderberries grow on their graves. Had Stone won the
argument, people would have lived forever.
> >To credit a bird with
> >fire, and low tide, and the spread of vegetation across the land? All of
> >these and many more were attributed to raven by the Tsimshian. An
>
> I don't see anything unnatural about those stories. Raven
> brought water to the mountains of Southeastern Alaska by taking
> make long flights to find the water, taking big gulps to get all
> he could, and flying back to pour the water on the mountain tops
> to letting it form rivers the flowed down to the sea. Raven
> continued this until it became automatic.
>
> And that is how Raven created the hydrogen cycle...
>
> >Alaskan Eskimo story tells how Raven created the world by bringing dry
> >land up from the bottom of the sea with his spear.
>
> This is true. Raven, along with being a strange bird, has done
> many things, because he *is* talented. Raven is a lot like some
> of my friends ;-)
>
> > In Athapascan regions
> >Raven is a villain and when he dies humans disappear from the Earth, to
> >be brought back only after Raven is revived.
>
> I've never heard of Athabaskin people viewing Raven as a
> villain. Here in Alaska the various Athabaskin people live
> directly between the (Tlingit and Haida and) Tsimshians
> mentioned above and the Eskimos also mentioned above. And they
> all understand Raven pretty much the same.
The specific example I was thinking of comes from the Kutchin and the
Hare up in the far north, bordering on Eskimo regions. On the west coast
Raven is very much the trickster/hero but as one travels east he becomes
a much less sympathetic character.
> >> Why would someone make up a story about something that never happens?
> >
> >See your previous statement regarding Raven. It's natural to make up
> >stories. People do it all the time, for a wide variety of reasons.
>
> You prove his point. With the exception of one story which is
> either mistaken or applies to Athabaskan people who are very
> different than those in Alaska that I know about, all of the
> Raven stories you mentioned are indeed based on actual events.
>
> The land did in fact get pulled up from the water (virtually
> every geologist/archaeologist or whatever says that happened),
> for example. We do have sunlight... and a moon, and we do
> have the hydrogen cycle.
And the stories bear essentially no resemblance to the way those things
happened. One could just as easily claim that the Great Flood myth is
derived from the existance of water - undeniably true, but at such a
level that it says nothing meaningful about the story at all.
Joe Jefferson
>
> Joe Jefferson <jjst...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >Christine Thorel wrote:
> >>
> >> How about if you assume that there where many local floods at different places
> >> and times?
> >
> >No doubt there were. There have also been earthquakes, fires, and
> >tornadoes in many different places. But natural events fail as an
> >explanation for world mythology because the majority of mythical events
> >*never* occur in the real world.
>
> Perhaps the purpose of traditional stories is not to describe
> the events portrayed... which you are focusing on to the
> exclusion of what the stories actually tell. They use
> descriptions of real events to explain something else. In some
> cases it may be how to live, or how to act, or when to do
> something, or why to do something. But the event used is just a
> vehicle, not the whole show.
That's exactly what I was trying to convey about the Great Flood story.
Although it uses the vehicle of a flood, it is not *about* a flood.
Floyd Davidson
>Floyd Davidson wrote:
>> >Natural to assume that a bird is responsible for sunlight? That a bird
>> >caused humans to die instead of living forever?
>>
>> I've never heard of this causing humans to die before...
>
>It's in the Raven cycle recorded by Henry W. Tate. Death came as the
>result of an argument between Stone and Elderberry over who would give
>birth first. Raven settled the argument in favor or Elderberry, so now
>people die and elderberries grow on their graves. Had Stone won the
>argument, people would have lived forever.
Are you sure of that translation of the meaning/significance?
>> I've never heard of Athabaskin people viewing Raven as a
>> villain. Here in Alaska the various Athabaskin people live
>> directly between the (Tlingit and Haida and) Tsimshians
>> mentioned above and the Eskimos also mentioned above. And they
>> all understand Raven pretty much the same.
>
>The specific example I was thinking of comes from the Kutchin and the
Gwitch'n
>> >> Why would someone make up a story about something that never happens?
>> >
>> >See your previous statement regarding Raven. It's natural to make up
>> >stories. People do it all the time, for a wide variety of reasons.
>>
>> You prove his point. With the exception of one story which is
>> either mistaken or applies to Athabaskan people who are very
>> different than those in Alaska that I know about, all of the
>> Raven stories you mentioned are indeed based on actual events.
>>
>> The land did in fact get pulled up from the water (virtually
>> every geologist/archaeologist or whatever says that happened),
>> for example. We do have sunlight... and a moon, and we do
>> have the hydrogen cycle.
>
>And the stories bear essentially no resemblance to the way those things
>happened.
As I noted in another article:
"Perhaps the purpose of traditional stories is not to
describe the events portrayed... which you are
focusing on to the exclusion of what the stories
actually tell. They use descriptions of real events
to explain something else. In some cases it may be
how to live, or how to act, or when to do something,
or why to do something. But the event used is just a
vehicle, not the whole show."
>One could just as easily claim that the Great Flood myth is
>derived from the existance of water - undeniably true, but at such a
>level that it says nothing meaningful about the story at all.
I think the Great Flood stories are at least similar to Raven
stories in the sense that the flood described is *not* what
the story is about. Pedantically pecking away at the details
of the flood just misses the point entirely and give a false
impression of the significance of the story as it relates to
the position it has within the culture which produced it.
That's bad science.
Floyd Davidson
>Floyd Davidson wrote:
>> Joe Jefferson <jjst...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >Christine Thorel wrote:
>> >>
>> >> How about if you assume that there where many local floods at different places
>> >> and times?
>> >
>> >No doubt there were. There have also been earthquakes, fires, and
>> >tornadoes in many different places. But natural events fail as an
>> >explanation for world mythology because the majority of mythical events
>> >*never* occur in the real world.
>>
>> Perhaps the purpose of traditional stories is not to describe
>> the events portrayed... which you are focusing on to the
>> exclusion of what the stories actually tell. They use
>> descriptions of real events to explain something else. In some
>> cases it may be how to live, or how to act, or when to do
>> something, or why to do something. But the event used is just a
>> vehicle, not the whole show.
>
>That's exactly what I was trying to convey about the Great Flood story.
>Although it uses the vehicle of a flood, it is not *about* a flood.
OK. That, at least to me, got lost in the verbiage which
inevitably arises the instant we tread near anything Christians
hold dear! ;-(
Larry Caldwell
> Perhaps the purpose of traditional stories is not to describe
> the events portrayed... which you are focusing on to the
> exclusion of what the stories actually tell. They use
> descriptions of real events to explain something else. In some
> cases it may be how to live, or how to act, or when to do
> something, or why to do something. But the event used is just a
> vehicle, not the whole show.
Exactly. Tell a child a fact and they will forget it as soon as it
leaves your mouth. Tell them a story and they will remember it for the
rest of their lives.
Larry Caldwell
writes:
> Natural to assume that a bird is responsible for sunlight? That a bird
> caused humans to die instead of living forever? To credit a bird with
> fire, and low tide, and the spread of vegetation across the land? All of
> these and many more were attributed to raven by the Tsimshian. An
> Alaskan Eskimo story tells how Raven created the world by bringing dry
> land up from the bottom of the sea with his spear. In Athapascan regions
> Raven is a villain and when he dies humans disappear from the Earth, to
> be brought back only after Raven is revived.
These are a family of fairy tales. In English, they have come to be
called "Just So" stories, after the story collection of that name. They
are folklore teaching stories that illustrate facets of the natural world
for children. Every culture has them. The charming children's story of
god placing the rainbow in the sky as a promise that there would never be
another flood is an instruction to children that when you see a rainbow
the main part of the storm front has passed. Another example is Thor's
fishing trip with the giants. When he hooked Jormungandr, the giants
were afraid. If he had succeeded in pulling the serpent off the bottom
of the ocean, the whole world would have been destroyed. This is a
simple, and quite accurate, description of tidal storm surge.
Technohumans are so out of touch with the real world that they fall prey
to superstition. They believe stories like Raven stories are literal,
and completely miss the point. I can't decipher a single Raven story
that you mentioned, because you didn't mention what the story was really
about. Is Raven and the spread of vegetation about seeds in bird
droppings? What other animals were in the story?
One of my favorite stories is Coyote and the chittim tree. It seems
Coyote was constipated, until he ate some cascara bark. The results were
predictable and hilarious. The story ends with Coyote in the top of a
tree, just ahead of a huge pile of coyote crap. Once you hear the story,
you will never forget the medicinal properties of cascara bark. The
story is not about Coyote, the story is about what to do if you are
constipated.
J.C.Curtis
Larry Caldwell wrote:
> > All of
> > these and many more were attributed to raven by the Tsimshian. An
> > Alaskan Eskimo story tells how Raven created the world by bringing dry
> > land up from the bottom of the sea with his spear.
You do know that in American Indian socieites people were often named
after birds and animals don't you? A story about a man called Raven
could quite easily become a story about a "special" raven over enough
time and re-tellings. And quite often people exaggarate. What could be
funnier than telling stories about a great superhuman being with the
same name as an especially weak person you know? Eventually the factual
basis is lost but the story was good in it's own right, or funny to a
group in it's own right, and remains. New members of the group get
initiated into the in-jokes and culture but don't know the original
people on whom the stories were based, and have no reason to disbelieve
them or suspect a joke. And so it goes on.
J.C.Curtis
Joe Jefferson wrote:
> The Neandertals were probably nothing special, just the ugly,
> somewhat backward people living over the next ridge. Sort of like
> Paleolithic rednecks.
>
Nothing like traditional trolls and giants and so on then? Not saying
they became them in myth, just that you can't make inferernces like that
without following them up. Big, strong, heavily-built, stupid trolls
from cold lands in the North, which are like people but yet different in
a number of fundamental ways, sound quite a lot like Neanderthalers from
a Cro-Magnon perspective to me.
CleV
>Joe Jefferson wrote:
Well, the thing was that they were thicker set, but NOT bigger than us
- hence my original question. Unless the original fairy folk were
hairy ....
Larry Caldwell
writes:
>
> Larry Caldwell wrote:
> > > All of
> > > these and many more were attributed to raven by the Tsimshian. An
> > > Alaskan Eskimo story tells how Raven created the world by bringing dry
> > > land up from the bottom of the sea with his spear.
Be careful with your attributions, there. I didn't write any of that.
Joe Jefferson did.
--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc
Paul "Duggy" Duggan
>Well, the thing was that they were thicker set, but NOT bigger than us
>- hence my original question. Unless the original fairy folk were
>hairy ....
Some at least were.
However... once the Neanderthals disappear, they could easily have grown a
little in the telling.
---
- Dug.
---
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you
give it to them? Then do not be to eager to deal out death in
judgement. For even the wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf.
---
Joe Jefferson
>
> >> Perhaps the purpose of traditional stories is not to describe
> >> the events portrayed... which you are focusing on to the
> >> exclusion of what the stories actually tell. They use
> >> descriptions of real events to explain something else. In some
> >> cases it may be how to live, or how to act, or when to do
> >> something, or why to do something. But the event used is just a
> >> vehicle, not the whole show.
> >
> >That's exactly what I was trying to convey about the Great Flood story.
> >Although it uses the vehicle of a flood, it is not *about* a flood.
>
> OK. That, at least to me, got lost in the verbiage which
> inevitably arises the instant we tread near anything Christians
> hold dear! ;-(
I consider that to be mainly due to people trying to apply 19th century
scientific reasoning to stories that weren't written by - or for - 19th
century scientists, coupled with the sad fact that many Christians today
(particularly American Protestants) have very little exposure to the
history of Christian thought.
The extreme literalism of the fundamentalists movement is a relatively
recent phenomenon. Earlier generations of Christians gave a much greater
weight and allegorical understandings of the Bible. Of course that path
can (and did) lead to nutty extremes too, but I think that it can also
offer a great deal of valuable insight.
Floyd Davidson
>Floyd Davidson wrote:
>>
>> >> Perhaps the purpose of traditional stories is not to describe
>> >> the events portrayed... which you are focusing on to the
>> >> exclusion of what the stories actually tell. They use
>> >> descriptions of real events to explain something else. In some
>> >> cases it may be how to live, or how to act, or when to do
>> >> something, or why to do something. But the event used is just a
>> >> vehicle, not the whole show.
>> >
>> >That's exactly what I was trying to convey about the Great Flood story.
>> >Although it uses the vehicle of a flood, it is not *about* a flood.
>>
>> OK. That, at least to me, got lost in the verbiage which
>> inevitably arises the instant we tread near anything Christians
>> hold dear! ;-(
>
>I consider that to be mainly due to people trying to apply 19th century
>scientific reasoning to stories that weren't written by - or for - 19th
>century scientists, coupled with the sad fact that many Christians today
>(particularly American Protestants) have very little exposure to the
>history of Christian thought.
>
>The extreme literalism of the fundamentalists movement is a relatively
>recent phenomenon. Earlier generations of Christians gave a much greater
>weight and allegorical understandings of the Bible. Of course that path
>can (and did) lead to nutty extremes too, but I think that it can also
>offer a great deal of valuable insight.
Why yes... insight (or is that incite) into the proper way to
burn witches, or Natives, or ideas...
Joe Jefferson
>
> >The extreme literalism of the fundamentalists movement is a relatively
> >recent phenomenon. Earlier generations of Christians gave a much greater
> >weight and allegorical understandings of the Bible. Of course that path
> >can (and did) lead to nutty extremes too, but I think that it can also
> >offer a great deal of valuable insight.
>
> Why yes... insight (or is that incite) into the proper way to
> burn witches, or Natives, or ideas...
And to preserve literacy and knowledge after the fall of the Roman
Empire, inspire some of the world's greatest art, music, and
architecture, and motivate countless people to devote themselves to
helping the poor and healing the sick.
Joe Jefferson
However you're looking at things from a modern POV that sees Neanderthal
and Cro-Magnon as two separate categories. There's no evidence that
those categories were drawn in paleolithic times. IOW, we really don't
know if a tribe of Cro-Magnons would have viewed Neanderthals any
differently than they viewed other Cro-Magnons who were not from their
tribe.
Hal9000
news:pan.2002.02.23.12...@sneakemail.com...
> Is it not an Ice Age that destroys the world in one version of the
> Iranian myth of Manu, which in other respects parallels that of the
> Biblical flood?
Yes, that's the story of Yima the beautiful, kinda Adam in jewish lorehood
although in iranian lore he embodies kind a Noah.
Hal.
Luke Goaman-Dodson
> However you're looking at things from a modern POV that sees
Neanderthal
> and Cro-Magnon as two separate categories. There's no evidence that
> those categories were drawn in paleolithic times. IOW, we really
don't
> know if a tribe of Cro-Magnons would have viewed Neanderthals any
> differently than they viewed other Cro-Magnons who were not from
their
> tribe.
There's no evidence that they were ugly and backward either.
--
Luke
Matt Deres
news:a7n0b7$rml$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
Evidence implies empirical data and since ugliness and backwardness aren't
quantifiable, we're left with a problem. Neanderthals were, on the other
hand, quite different from us physically in ways that most people find
distinctly unattractive - huge nose, brow ridge, no chin, big jaws, etc. It
might even be that our concept of beauty was partially shaped by this very
contrast. It is also true that the artifacts they left behind show very
little change or improvement over many thousands of years. Many people
would cite a lack of technological expertise as a sign of backwardness
(justified or not).
It's true we don't (and can't) know whether Cro Magnon peoples viewed
Neanderthals as "not of our tribe" or "not of our species", but it seems to
me that that point is irrelevent. The same could well be said about many
ancient peoples' concepts of other races and species.
"Large, ugly, dim-witted, cold-dwelling people" is a label that could fit
either trolls/ogres or Neanderthals. There's absolutely no way to prove
such a link, but it seems plausible enough to me.
Matt
--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove
anything." - Nietzsche