How did the Great Flood change history?
phippsmartin_at_hotmail.com
Date: 02/15/05
- Next message: a.manansala_at_attbi.com: "Re: Red/Blonde haired mummies and such."
- Previous message: Greg Evans: "Re: Criminal Mind Tom Cruise is "friends" publicly now with 'Scientology'-owner David Miscavige - (Version 1.5 on 11 Feb 2005)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 14 Feb 2005 17:14:17 -0800
Here I'm refering to the Great Flood described in the Epic of Gilgamesh
which I am taking to be a historic event that happened locally in the
Mesopotamian region and was later the basis for the Biblical global
flood.
In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh encounters a goddess Inanna (later
called Ishtar). It is tempting to think that Inanna was a real person
and that she and Gilgamesh were contemporaries. Indeed, there is also
the story of the Courtship of Inanna and Dumuzi in which it is made
quite clear that Inanna is a real person, albeit a queen. (See
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/GILG.HTM or
http://novaonline.nv.cc.va.us/eli/eng251/gilgameshstudy.htm and
http://home.earthlink.net/~templezagduku/dumuzi.html or
http://www.mindspring.com/~mysticgryphon/synopsis.htm or
http://www.craton.net/inanna/main.php?action=synopsis .)
Upon reflection, however, I don't think Inanna and Gilgamesh were
contemporaries. Although some historians claim that the Epic of
Gilgamesh is "the world's oldest story", it is believed that the real
Gilgamesh lived about 4700 years ago whereas the Courtship of Inanna
and Dumuzi, for whatever reason, is believed to date back earlier,
perhaps as far back as 5500 years ago, back when writing was first
being developed in ancient Sumer.
If Inanna and Gilgamesh lived 700 years apart then why were they shown
to be contemporaries in the Epic of Gilgamesh? I suspect that Inanna's
presense in the Epic of Gilgamesh was largely symbolic: Inanna
represented the old matriarchy described in the Courtship of Inanna and
Dumuzi whereas Gilgamesh represented the new patriachy. Indeed, Inanna
offered Gilgamesh the opportunity to become her husband in the Epic of
Gilgamesh and Gilgamesh refused her, making Inanna angry.
The Courtship of Inanna and Dumuzi clearly portrays a matriachy: Dumuzi
was a mere shepherd who became king by marrying Inanna, the queen. In
a related story, Inanna returns from hell and finds Dumuzi having
assumed the role of king and Inanna has him sent to hell in his place.
In contrast, the Epic of Gilgamesh portrays a king who is firmly in
control and does not need a woman to rule.
What happened? Well, the Epic of Gilgamesh talks about a Great Flood.
It doesn't say when it happened but it presumably happened within the
lifetime of one of the characters in the story because it is described
to him by a first hand account. This is unlikely: the historical
Gilgamesh might have been passing on to his subjects a story that had
been passed down orally through many generations and not one that was
related to him first hand.
Biblical and archeological evidence would place the Great Flood to
around 5250 years ago. There's no evidence of a more recent great
flood in Mesopotamia, certainly not one wiping out the civilization,
and in any case it has to date back more than 4700 years for the story
to have been passed down to the historical Gilgamesh.
Now I'm thinking that Inanna was a real person who lived before the
Great Flood and Gilgamesh was a real person who lived after the Great
Flood and that the contrast between the Courtship of Inanna and Dumuzi
and the Epic of Gilgamesh in terms of the relative importance of male
and female rulers indicates that their society was a matriachy before
the Great Flood and became a patriachy soon after. This makes a lot of
sense to me.
Following the destruction if the Great Flood, men might have been able
to convince people that the Gods had rejected rule by women. Myths
such as that of Pandora's Box and the Garden of Eden seem to reflect
the idea that women cannot be trusted to make decisions and should not
be obeyed. (When I refer to the Garden of Eden as a "myth", I should
point out that it is, at best, a legend because there are no written
records dating back more than 5500 years.)
Presumably Egypt was a matriarchy more than 5000 years ago. Presumably
Egypt became a patriachy with rule by Pharoahs 5000 years ago when
invaders from Mesopotamia brought their patriachial society with them.
Patriachy was set into law in Babylon with the Code of Hummarabi around
3800 years ago. The Code of Hummarabi was a Draconian code in which
women who commited adultery could be stoned to death. Similar laws
were included in the old testament and some Muslim societies, to this
day, strictly follow this code.
If I am right about all this then the Great Flood represented a great
tradegy, not simply due to the loss of life at the time, but due to the
destruction of a great matriarchial society in which women were
actually seen as superior to men. In the past four millenia, women
have been able to win back some of the rights they lost but they will
never be able to achieve equal status with men.
I am going to include some quotes below that I am going to copy and
paste from a previous post of mine. Basically, it would seem that
matriarchy was seen as natural because women were able to have children
but men were not. Only when the connection between sex and fertility
was understood could there be dynasties based on the passing of power
and property from father to son: in a matriarchy in which a female
queen had many consorts, no one consort could claim to be THE father of
her children so there wouldn't have been a clear line of descent from
father to son. Even in Gilgamesh's day, this would appear to have been
true because it was known that the king wasn't his real father and that
he was only "two thirds god (and one third human)". Gilgamesh's son,
however, did succeed him as king.
Anyway, on with the quotes.
http://www.bigeye.com/sexeducation/ancientegypt.html
"Ancient Egypt's lineage was traced through women and property was
passed through women. For this reason, Ancient Egypt originated as a
matriarchy. The pharoahs were trustees of the property passed down and
their reign was decided by their matrilineal status. Because of the
matrilineal structure, husbands would lose their property and status if
their wife died. The property was passed down to the daughters and
granddaughters. Many incest relations began with fathers and daughters
and granddaughters because the men wanted to stay with the property.
There were also numerous brother/sister incest marriages."
Similarly,
http://womenshistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F...
"The argument for the existence of prehistoric matriarchal societies
(societies, that is, in which familial and political authority was
wielded by women), first developed by Johann Jacob Bachofen [see also
the section Mother Goddess under Women in Prehistory], was further
articulated by, among others, Friedrich Engels in his book The Origin
of the Family, Private Property and the State published in 1884. Engels
argued that the transition from primate societies to the earliest human
social structure was achieved by granting to solidarity a supreme
importance which transcended even sexual competitiveness and jealousy.
According to Engels, solidarity was achieved through "group marriage"
where whole groups of kin-related women were collectively "married" to
whole groups of men. Under these circumstances, only the mother of a
child was known, so kinship tended to be traced through the female
line, creating what Engels called a "matrilineal clan." The kinship
rights of men were his sisters and her children.
"The question of whether or not some cultures in the early historical
period were, if not matriarchal, then at least matrilineal, is today a
controversial one. The consensus among most anthropologists and
sociologists is that a strictly matriarchal society never existed. The
issue has important ramifications. To argue in support of
matrilinearity in ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, Crete, and Anatolia is
also to argue that these cultures were still matrilineal as they
entered the historical period; that they, and by inference other
cultures too, were matrilineal in the prehistoric era. If this was
indeed the case, then matrilinearity was, and for some still is, a more
"natural" (because prehistoric and therefore "primitive," uncorrupted,
and true) arrangement of human society. This "natural" state, however,
was gradually destroyed as men established the "unnatural" condition of
patriarchy by subjugating women and usurping female power.
"The historical period, beginning around 5,500 years ago, marks the
beginning of the rise of patriarchy. It arose gradually, however, and
for a while women appear to have maintained, mostly by default of
tradition and custom, especially in conservative societies like that in
Ancient Egypt, a position of importance that was not only different
from but, and this is the crucial point, also independent of that of
men. In other words, for a while in Ancient Egypt (and also in Minoan
Crete and still in Archaic Greece), women were recognized as embodying
an identity and power which derived from, and was based upon, the
female, of which the Mother Goddess, and ultimately all female
goddesses, was its manifestation. It was a power acknowledged and
respected by men which resided in the female and could be claimed by
all women; it was not, as it subsequently became in the later Egyptian,
Greek, and Minoan periods and has remained ever since, a power defined
and delimited by men."
Indeed, http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/99/maya/sarah.html
"Worship of the Goddess began in matriarchal prehistoric societies in
which the people did not possess the conscious understanding of the
relationship between sex and conception, and believed that women had
the power to create life, in which men had no part. In these societies,
names, titles, possessions, and territorial rights passed along female
lines. In the Ancient Near East, Southeastern and Central Europe, Egypt
and Crete, women, like the land, were seen as the primary source of
life. These early agriculturalists envisioned a female deity, the Earth
Mother Goddess, as the creative power behind all animal and plant
fertility."
Sumer was probably the same way, except that they clearly recognized
the connection between sex and fertility.
http://www.sexuality.org/l/wh/whsacre2.html
"Both Qualls-Corbett and Monick assert that prior to the Christian era
sexuality was a - or, more likely, the - primary way in which
people experienced and expressed their spiritual leanings. In Sumer,
Babylonia, Phoenicia, and other early civilizations the feminine
principle stood for abundance, fertility, nurturance, and passion.
These archetypal qualities remain where the feminine principle is still
embodied today, but while they were highly valued and praised through
worship of the goddess in matriarchal times, they have fallen in
stature in our patriarchal ones."
If Inanna lived in Sumer 5500 years ago and was considered a goddess
then perhaps the legends of Isis and Venus were based on her.
http://www.ejfi.org/Civilization/Civilization-12.htm
"We see an example in Egypt where the matriarchy was overcome by a
patriarchy invading from Mesopotamia roughly 5,000 years BP, or about
3,000 B.C. Before the patriarchal invasion, writing and tool use were
unknown in Egypt."
Patriarchy was enshrined by the Code of Hummarabi (18th Century BC).
http://www.earth-history.com/Sumer/
"Mesopotamian society was a patriarchal society, and so women possessed
far fewer privileges and rights in their marriage. A woman's place was
at home and failure to fulfil her duties was grounds for divorce. If
she was not able to bear children, her husband could divorce her but he
had to repay the dowry. If his wife tried to leave the home in order to
engage in business, her husband could divorce her and did not have to
repay the dowry. Furthermore, if his wife was a "gadabout, . . .
neglecting her house [and] humiliating her husband," she could be
drowned.
"Women were guaranteed some rights, however. If a woman was divorced
without good reason she received the dowry back. A woman could seek
divorce and get her dowry back if her husband was unable to show that
she had done anything wrong. The mother also chose a son to whom an
inheritance would be passed.
"Sexual relations were strictly regulated as well. Husbands, but not
wives, were permitted sexual activity outside marriage. A wife caught
committing adultery was pitched into the river. Incest was strictly
forbidden. If a father committed incestuous relations with his
daughter, he would be banished. Incest between a son and his mother
resulted in both being burned."
Talk about a 180 degree change in a matter of a few centuries! The
change makes sense if property was passed from father to son rather
than mother to daughter: a father would be more concerned that a child
was his if he was to receive his enheritance whereas a mother would
have no doubt who her daughters were.
The change from matriarchy to patriarcy, of course, affected the way
men and women related: before, men were subject to the whims of women
and then, suddenly, it was reversed and women became almost like slaves
in society. The implications go further, however: a patriarchy is
necessarily more warlike with the male soldiers that pnce protected the
women now running things. Suddenly there was the possibility for
armies to conquer other lands and subjugate _their_ people. No wonder
patriarchial societies came to dominate! Men have been in control for
thousands of years. The result? We almost destroyed ourselves in
nuclear innihilation! Somehow I think we were all better off, men
included, under matriarchy.
I really want to know what people here think about this.
Martin
- Next message: a.manansala_at_attbi.com: "Re: Red/Blonde haired mummies and such."
- Previous message: Greg Evans: "Re: Criminal Mind Tom Cruise is "friends" publicly now with 'Scientology'-owner David Miscavige - (Version 1.5 on 11 Feb 2005)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
