Around the 4th millennium the Sumerians arrived in Mesopotamia. Professor Bottéro says that we are still unable, and there is very little chance that we ever will be able to satisfactorily identify this population, whose origins are so murky or to link it to an ethnic, cultural or linguistic branch of any kind.

Some scholars see the Sumerians as descendants of sone of the groups that had inhabited the land for varying amounts of time. That hypothesis, however, seems to collide above all with the famous legendary tradition of the Seven Sages, according to which the southern population, which was still rough-hewn and wild, had been intiated into all that constituted civilized life by strange beings who "had come from the sea". We can easily be persuaded - since mmyths often arise out of ancient, thinly disguided memories - that the myth describes some form of immigration, apparently peaceful, which must have introduced a culturally superior population who, due to their superiority, greatly raised th elevel of life there. It is thus easier to imagine them arriving from, or through, the maritime region, perhaps following the Iranian shores of the Persian Gulf. They would then have settled near the water in Lower Mesopotamia, which would later be called the Land of Sumer - thus explaining their names. But where did the Sumerians come from? This we will never know.

---
Quoted in ful from the book, pags 8 and 9.
Best,
Lishtar

From the Depths and To the Heights to share in all spheres

Professor Bottéro establishes at the end of the section on Mesopotamian Prehistory that both the learned Sumerians and the tougher Akkadians were of equal importance to form and consolidate Mesopotamia.

He stresses this point beautifully, based on the myth of the Seven Sages, to stress that although the arts of civilization were taught by the Sumerians, the local inhabitants also accepted the new ideals and ideas. Professor Bottéro then uses the Epic of Gilgamesh to strengthen his ideas, where Enkidu represents the still uncivilized locals, while Gilgamesh represents the human king who has to befriend the wild one to become whole. Melissa mentioned the priestess who initiated Enkidu in full humanity in connection, or lovemaking. Professor Bottéro does not say it, but lovemaking, grooming, drinking and eating are signs of civilization, stated in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Not before Enkidu is transformed by the priestess, is he allowed to meet the young king. And we can quote from yet another myth that works along the same lines, called the Marriage of Martu (here in Gateways too). In it, a wild one, who lived without knowledge of city graces, descends from the mountains to live in the city, and for the love of his village girl, he then becomes civilized. The village girl has the last word in this myth, and chooses him as her bridgroom and consort too.



I remember a movie called The Bear, a French movie about prehistory. The monkey-like couple in the last sequence make love face-to-face for the first time, and you can feel that in this very moment lovemaking was a reality for them, for they saw each other mirrored in each other´s eyes. Next, both contemplate the night, embraced, and it is full moon. The movie ends.

It is not by chance that Inanna/Ishtar is the goddess of Love, because Love is the bridge to full humanity in connection.

Tomorrow, we start the section on History.

Love, light and laughter,
Lishtar

I lov

From the Depths and To the Heights to share in all spheres