The Vara of Yima

reply to post by Kantzveldt



Also don't forget ārya-land (Ireland) who are essentially Scythians who settled in that part of the world .

reply to post by LUXUS


Yes we discussed that here didn't we, the Tuatha de Danu as relating to the Asura.

reply to post by DazDaKing

but the great flood story is repeated consistently across many ancient cultures and landscapes. It is the most common story to be found, and is very often accompanied by the ''Noah's Ark" story. This is another case of the Ark story, except this time it is a settlement and not a 'boat'.

I didn't say floodS never happened. Just that Yima and my construed insinuation that a "world wide" flood are myths.

Many localized floods throughout time and in different cultures are the most probable since there are flood stories all over the place, but not all at the same times and with different "explained reasons" for them.
It does not mean they are all referring to the same flood at all, but adds to the idea/thought/myth of a world wide flood where everything was destroyed except what a few people saved.

The thoughts and myths of a "world wide deluge" is not possible for more reasons than I care to address in this thread.

one shouldn't also blast all myths as just that - 'myths'.

What should one call these myths that are not myths (but are myths, but are not, but....)?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Edit; double post/ignore

Chamberf=6
reply to post by DazDaKing

 

but the great flood story is repeated consistently across many ancient cultures and landscapes. It is the most common story to be found, and is very often accompanied by the ''Noah's Ark" story. This is another case of the Ark story, except this time it is a settlement and not a 'boat'.

I didn't say floodS never happened. Just that Yima and my construed insinuation that a "world wide" flood are myths.

Many localized floods throughout time and in different cultures are the most probable since there are flood stories all over the place, but not all at the same times and with different "explained reasons" for them.
It does not mean they are all referring to the same flood at all, but adds to the idea/thought/myth of a world wide flood where everything was destroyed except what a few people saved.

The thoughts and myths of a "world wide deluge" is not possible for more reasons than I care to address in this thread.

one shouldn't also blast all myths as just that - 'myths'.

What should one call these myths that are not myths (but are myths, but are not, but....)?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 12/29/2013 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)

Of course, it doesn't mean there was a worldwide catastrophic flood (although that IS what should happen TO AN EXTENT after an extreme ice age), but it is interesting that the flood and Ark story are consistently repeated throughout history.

Your different 'times' argument may appear to make sense at first, but the fact that the Ark story often accompanies the flood story (across unconnected cultures) suggest this is a singular event or 'story' we are being told, as it is passed down the ages. You can assume the more recent cultures simply ripped off the Ark story every time they had a 'localised flood' if it makes more sense to you, I just find that slightly strange, but it is plausible.

Another important thing to note is that the story in its most consistent form is told as the oldest singular 'story' on our Earth as we know it - the Epic of Gilgamesh. Dating back ~5000 years and roughly in time with 'writing' appearing in our history, we have a full on story talking of pre-flood civilisations, the great flood AND the Ark story. Now, we can assume from this point that all other flood/ark stories are influenced by this one, that's fine, but what is the source of this original story? Surely, the fact it crops up in time with our written history suggests that, if referring to a real event - it was a singular flood.

Infact, even earlier than the Epic of Gilgameh, the Sumerian belief system (revealed to us via clay tablets) 'officially' tells the story of two brother 'Gods', Enki and Enlil, and how one brother wanted to flood the Earth and reset what humanity had become, where as the other brother decided to warn a human in hopes of saving the race. This is OUR FIRST STORY! It was the sacred belief of the first humans in our known history to show any signs of true intelligence/knowledge.

Considering this flood/Ark story is the first and most sacred thing non-archaic humans decided to talk about, and preserve (in its rawest form at least) for up to 4000 years at least, does strike me as interesting. Even as relatively very advanced cultures such as Ancient Greece rose (who understood simple machines, space to an extent and even postulated atoms/a discretised universe), they still held these stories in the highest of regards. This was history as real to them as our history is to us, it would seem.

Once again, not trying to convince you of anything, but you must admit it is interesting and worth slightly more discussion than "it's nothing but a myth".

In regards to your last paragraph - I regret my choice of words. Semantics seem to become a top priority on ATS despite people being very well aware of what is meant at heart. Think of it like this; in modern society, when one hears the word 'myth' they generally associate it with 'fairy tale'/'completely made up story' straight away. So, in a way, the very word 'myth' and its continued use for 'historical accounts' such as these shall guarantee an automatic dismissal as 'primitive nonsense' by a significant amount of people.

Of course, what other word is there to use? They are effectively sacred stories, and shall remain stories, just like our history will in the distant future. What I should have said is that one shouldn't automatically think 'this is made-up' when reading an ancient story just because the application of the word 'myth'. I am talking here about the general, joe public interpretation of the word 'myth'. I am not talking about the strict meaning of the words 'myth/mythos/mythology', which are technically applicable here.

It's funny that we take ancient accounts of many things as 'fact' and 'evidence' but when you have consistent stories across cultures dating back to our first written history - just because words like 'Gods' are thrown in and primitive explanations of possibly real and amazing events are contained - it is automatically a 'myth' or story, rather than a real historical account. Who has the authority to decide this?

Why is it that Herodotus' claims of the great pyramid being built in 20 years is taken as historically factual evidence (although that does honestly defy physics or atleast our view of ancient egypt) for the Great Pyramid being built by 4th dynasty Khufu, but when Herodotus laims an Egyptian high priest told him the Great Pyramid was built before the 1st dynasty by 'Shepard Kings', we ignore it and brush it aside because it doesn't fit the story we've made for ourselves? This, obviously biased, categorising of what is historical evidence and what is myth, by 'experts' who have been spoon fed a certain story as truth themselves, is not good for the general critical thinking of humankind. Don't let others make your mind up for you through THEIR choice of words and labels.

Please let me know if you understand what I am trying to say. It is in essence a silly point to make, but I honestly think it has a bigger effect than people realise. Some people WILL NEVER even explore a tiny fraction of the ancient stories, because they are just 'myths', right? It is a sort of unavoidable chain I guess. The problem lies in the fact that 'myth' to many people is taken as 'believed once true but really false' rather than 'sacred narratives of previous civilisations/cultures.

Take care.

DazDaKing
Ah c'mon man. I'm not saying take every word of every myth to be true - but the great flood story is repeated consistently across many ancient cultures and landscapes. It is the most common story to be found, and is very often accompanied by the ''Noah's Ark" story. This is another case of the Ark story, except this time it is a settlement and not a 'boat'.

Of course the details change, and the non fundamentals are exaggerated and twisted by each culture (which are the parts you pick up on and claim BS to the whole myth), but the core story of flood and interaction between 'man' and 'God' prior to the floods arrival is possibly the most consistent story of our ancient history.

That might work as an archetype.

In this myth, there was a particularly harsh winter visited upon us by a demon. Not a flood.

It's more like a metaphor for settlements or settler communities, early villages or whatever coming out of a nomadic prior existence.

DazDaKingI'm not saying believe in 'God' and so forth, but that simply some truth lies in these 'myths' as they seem to originate from common sources. Maybe it was just an end of ice age flood, and the humans who survived were so incapable of understanding how they survived that they all began attributing their success to God, across the whole world.

But the devil is in the details. These stories always include someone reliable being warned by a 'higher entity' (God, King, Great Shepard etc) of the flood in advance so that the human race can be prepared. Isn't that an odd detail to keep cropping up? Isn't it more likely that these ancients, who if we're susceptible to primitive withdrawals to God as an explanation, would simply just claim God was good to them throughout the flood. Why the re-appearing story of 'God' warning man in time, and man effectively saving man?

Most of these stories are based on one story, thus their familiarity.
Flood myths worldwide exist because large floods exist worldwide. Memories of the Altai flood in the Old World and the Missoula Flood in the new world, just to name a couple, result in such myths.

DazDaKingOf course, 'God' by no means necessary in any of these ancient myths has to refer to a God that only we modern humans can comprehend. A God to an ancient man is what we are to the modern tribes still operating.

I'm just saying, as much as one shouldn't take these myths to be word for word truth (or even plausible sometimes at all), one shouldn't also blast all myths as just that - 'myths'.

When core elements of myths from across the whole ancient world seem to overlap, it would be silly to discredit the whole thing based on some supernatural claims here and there. But surely, there's a common source to these stories, even if it is just a flood, and therefore these corresponding myths can be invaluable to our deciphering of a mysterious history.

As I said, there is a common story to the flood myths of the Middle East. Even the Gilgamesh story, which is not the oldest middle eastern flood myth, predates this Yima myth by over a thousand years. It is believed that the similar Ziusudra flood myth from Sumer (link) predates that.

But what does such knowledge gain us other than a few hints at migration and/or trade patterns - where other, physical evidence is far more tangible and useful.

Harte

reply to post by DazDaKing

Please let me know if you understand what I am trying to say

Yes, I understand--agree with some, disagree with some--but I understand you.

Aside: I have said in another thread that Herodotus has to be taken somewhat with a grain of salt. He did travel around and see things and record them, but he also recorded oral histories as well as contemporary wars/events. He was born "Greek" but ruled by Persians and his pro-Greek bias shows.

reply to post by Harte


Hi Harte. Please read my post just above yours, I discussed the Epic of Gilgamesh and the earlier Sumerian beliefs. I am well aware of the consistency of flood myths dating back to our very first recorded 'civilization'.

I also mention how the Ark story often accompanies the flood story, which effectively suggests a pre-flood civilisation. When these pre-flood people's are described as containing 'sons of Gods', along with archaeological evidence of many ancient temples pre-dating our written history, along with our first written history speaking of this pre-flood civilisation, it seems to suggest that the cradle of civilisation may have occurred earlier than our records say, and even more so ancient knowledge was lost.

In that sense I think it has more importance than just showing 'migration patterns'. When our first recorded civilisation is saying, from the relative get-go, that their God's sent a great flood and that before this flood existed 'advanced humans' (at least, that is how it is perceived through the texts), it suggests that there is a lot more to our history than we currently believe.

If the Sumerians were a progressive society arising from more primitive societies, why do all these relevant ancient stories, down to the first one, paint these pre-flood people in a superior light. That is quite strange to me. It doesn't quite completely fit the archetype of: primitive man hit by flood, primitive man survives flood, primitive man thanks God for survival. Infact, the archetype seems to be this; God(s) send flood, human(s) were warned in advance, pre-flood people and 'sons of Gods' were wiped out, few humans survive and civilisation is rebuilt. Don't you think that is significantly more specific and detailed than what you'd expect?

Perhaps, the pre-flood people were simply more primitive Sumerians, and the 'sons of Gods' references are due to this earlier society being closer to the 'source' of humans in terms of chronology. However, there are numerous historical accounts of an advanced (relative to how we perceive pre-Sumerian humans) pre-flood civilisation, rather than a primitive one. Who knows? I think there may be slightly more to it than localised floods coincidently having the same stories attributed to them.

I do lean towards thinking the bulk of this 'myth' refers to one main event, and that the Sumerians seem to be the first civilisation to 'rise' on the other side. This is because the story originates exactly in line with our first recorded civilisation and first form of writing. The alternative seems to be that different, pre-Sumerian settlements all experienced floods, and then when they came together as the 'Sumerians', they joined their stories together and fabricated the rest collectively. The other alternative, I guess, is that Sumer experienced several floods leading up the invention of writing and then these spoken tales ended up as the Epic of Gilgamesh/Sumerian flood story.

That doesn't make great sense though. If the ancient Sumerians experienced several floods, you'd think they'd become better aware that floods are naturally re-occurring disasters, and the cooperation required to survive amongst humans would also mean you shouldn't have a story where only a few humans are responsible for saving mankind. Those who had lived through the floods and survived would have told stories of how they collectively defended against such events, rather than attributing their success solely to God(s). But instead, we are told not only did the God(s) send the flood, but that another 'God' decided to show mercy and attempt to save mankind. These people sure don't like taking credit for their own work it seems.

In regards to what use this knowledge is to us - I think it is MUCH more than just trade patterns and migration routes. For example, in what way does the original Sumerian story provide evidence of earlier trade routes and migration patterns? It doesn't. But it does suggest the existence of a significant civilization prior to the Sumerians, it suggests a group of entities/Gods who ruled us, and it also suggests that these 'Gods' were of a physical,
humanoid form, rather than your stereotypical primitive 'Sun God' explanation for all not fully understood phenomena.

When you then consider that there is numerous other evidence (historical and scientific) suggesting advanced civilisation as far back as ~10,000 BC, these first human stories hold even more weight in regards to this 'theory'.

Of course, this is just one possible interpretation, but you did ask. Personally, I believe these first recorded stories are slightly more important than just primitive rambling regarding localised floods. If we take the current paradigm of our history, with Human civilisation improving linearly with time, we get this flow chart;

200,000 BC - humans appear
40,000 BC - first sign of any intelligence; the Lion-Man statue
10,000 BC - first temples appear
Approx 3000 BC - civilisation explodes 1000 fold; writing, advanced agriculture, astronomy, mathematics, medicine, belief systems and so forth

So, if the pre-Sumerians were mentally 'evolving' for ~7000 years (10000 BC to 3000 BC), why is it when they finally crack systems such as writing and mathematics, they instantly attribute that knowledge to their ruler 'Gods'? If I was part of the group that developed the first working form of writing, I would understand the logic and process behind it, and would have absolutely 0 desire to attribute it to 'Gods'.

Furthermore, what's with this 7000 year apparent silence? Why were we building temples in 10,000 BC yet we have no other evidence of advanced culture at this stage? 7000 years is a long flipping time, and yet you'd think the point where humans are building temples is the start of a long period of growth, rather than silence? Of course, the Sumerians didn't pop up overnight, but 7000 years is still an absurdly long time.

Our history doesn't quite fully add-up. It is very possible that we lost a great amount of information concerning the period of 40,000 BC to ~3000 BC, and ALL we have to go on are some ruins (the ones we've discovered atleast) overground, underground, underwater, and the stories of our first recorded 'civilisation'.

For these reasons, I believe these ancient accounts still have a part to play in the deciphering of our great past.

reply to post by DazDaKing

I know you were responding to Harte, but I have to ask (without doing excessive quoting from your above post).

It seems you are suggesting that modern "takes" on the Sumerians in particular about the Annunaki are perhaps literal and correct? That's just an impression I get from what you wrote. If that's not what you meant, sorry for reading too much into it.

In ancient past, an "advanced society" that was "lost" could simply have been one that knew stone working techniques or primitive writing (just as examples) that over the 7,000 years you bring up several times simply did get lost. The skilled workmanship or those few involved in primitive writing died due to famine, invasion, a flood--any number of things--leaving only those that were not among the small "highly" skilled class with that knowledge. ...But through oral traditions, the slowly skewed memories of those times were passed down. like a 7,000 year game of "telephone".
No gods intervention required.

And about god(s) warning about huge flood(s) --not a river flooding or such-- then god(s) saving man may be, once again, ancient man describing events they didn't fully understand and attributing them to god(s). Many of those "gods" that mysteriously seemed to disappear over the ages--excluding today's religions.
But that is another HUGE debate.

Sorry for butting into your conversation with Harte...

DazDaKing
reply to post by Harte

 

Hi Harte. Please read my post just above yours, I discussed the Epic of Gilgamesh and the earlier Sumerian beliefs. I am well aware of the consistency of flood myths dating back to our very first recorded 'civilization'.

I also mention how the Ark story often accompanies the flood story, which effectively suggests a pre-flood civilisation. When these pre-flood people's are described as containing 'sons of Gods', along with archaeological evidence of many ancient temples pre-dating our written history, along with our first written history speaking of this pre-flood civilisation, it seems to suggest that the cradle of civilisation may have occurred earlier than our records say, and even more so ancient knowledge was lost.

No ancient works describe any "pre-flood" civilization as any different than the "post-flood" civilization.

The ark stories are mostly limited to the M.E. and areas they were in contact with in the ancient past. Noteably, though, there is no known flood myth from Egypt.

If a culture develops a myth of a flood so large that everyone drowned, then the story must contain some means that explains how we know what happened, how come the animals survived, etc.

Other than the M.E. stories, few if any describe a vessel being built to survive the flood. And the earliest one I mentioned above doesn't even do that, IIRC. It's a myth about a river flood and a riverboat owner that rode it out with his cargo. At least, it can be interpreted that way.

The vast majority of flood myths around the world are quite dissimilar to the M.E. ones. And among the ones that are similar to Noah's , cultural contamination cannot be ruled out in the majority of them.

In that sense I think it has more importance than just showing 'migration patterns'. When our first recorded civilisation is saying, from the relative get-go, that their God's sent a great flood and that before this flood existed 'advanced humans' (at least, that is how it is perceived through the texts), it suggests that there is a lot more to our history than we currently believe.

No text describes any "pre-flood" "advanced" civilization. Not a one.
And the flood myth is not the earliest example of writing. It is the earliest written example of a mythology.
Harte

DazDaKing
If the Sumerians were a progressive society arising from more primitive societies, why do all these relevant ancient stories, down to the first one, paint these pre-flood people in a superior light.

Can you quote a single example of this from the text itself?

That is quite strange to me. It doesn't quite completely fit the archetype of: primitive man hit by flood, primitive man survives flood, primitive man thanks God for survival. Infact, the archetype seems to be this; God(s) send flood, human(s) were warned in advance, pre-flood people and 'sons of Gods' were wiped out, few humans survive and civilisation is rebuilt. Don't you think that is significantly more specific and detailed than what you'd expect?

The details you refer to were added over the years as you well know if you know the Sumerian and Babylonian myths.

Originally, mankind was wiped out because they were too darn noisy. Literally.

Perhaps, the pre-flood people were simply more primitive Sumerians, and the 'sons of Gods' references are due to this earlier society being closer to the 'source' of humans in terms of chronology. However, there are numerous historical accounts of an advanced (relative to how we perceive pre-Sumerian humans) pre-flood civilisation, rather than a primitive one. Who knows? I think there may be slightly more to it than localised floods coincidently having the same stories attributed to them.

Or, perhaps, they were added by Jewish writers and stem from the Canaanite religion (which itself rose out of the Babylonian/Sumerian one) where Yaweh was located prior to the Bible being written.

I do lean towards thinking the bulk of this 'myth' refers to one main event, and that the Sumerians seem to be the first civilisation to 'rise' on the other side. This is because the story originates exactly in line with our first recorded civilisation and first form of writing. The alternative seems to be that different, pre-Sumerian settlements all experienced floods, and then when they came together as the 'Sumerians', they joined their stories together and fabricated the rest collectively. The other alternative, I guess, is that Sumer experienced several floods leading up the invention of writing and then these spoken tales ended up as the Epic of Gilgamesh/Sumerian flood story.

The original myth involved a Sumerian man, not a "pre-Sumerian."

I'm certain that settlements everywhere in those days experienced floods. After all, practically all the ones we've found are on rivers.

When the ice dam let go in the Altai flood, it must have seemed very much like a worldwide flood. Not hard to see how an event like that could morph into a worldwide flood story, with addenda created to explain how humans survived once the claim of "world wide" was attached.

And that just one of very many ice dam floods from that particular region.

Similarly with the Missoula floods.

However, evidence of massive (river) flooding in Mesopotamia was uncovered around a century ago. The person that found it thought it might actually be evidence of the Biblical flood, it was so extensive, before they finally found the extent of it in sediments.

That doesn't make great sense though. If the ancient Sumerians experienced several floods, you'd think they'd become better aware that floods are naturally re-occurring disasters, and the cooperation required to survive amongst humans would also mean you shouldn't have a story where only a few humans are responsible for saving mankind. Those who had lived through the floods and survived would have told stories of how they collectively defended against such events, rather than attributing their success solely to God(s).

Actually, all the flood stories except that of Noah (who was given instructions regarding building a specific structure) involve a story about a hero and how he survived, and not how he was saved by the gods.

Warned, yes. Instructed, no (except Noah.)

But instead, we are told not only did the God(s) send the flood, but that another 'God' decided to show mercy and attempt to save mankind. These people sure don't like taking credit for their own work it seems.

You have to understand these are religious works you're talking about. In a religious work, we would expect God or Gods to be given credit wouldn't we? We're not talking about biographies or novels here. These are praises to creator gods and harvest gods, etc. You expect men - religious men - to steal their thunder with an action hero getting the credit?

In regards to what use this knowledge is to us - I think it is MUCH more than just trade patterns and migration routes. For example, in what way does the original Sumerian story provide evidence of earlier trade routes and migration patterns? It doesn't.

It absolutely does, if you would stop and think for a minute.

How is it that Yima's tale so resembles Gilgamesh, at least superficially? Do you think we can infer nothing from this? We can infer something, but not as much as we can infer from Babylonian items being found in India. That's what I meant by "more useful" evidence.

Harte

DazDaKing
But it does suggest the existence of a significant civilization prior to the Sumerians, it suggests a group of entities/Gods who ruled us, and it also suggests that these 'Gods' were of a physical,
humanoid form, rather than your stereotypical primitive 'Sun God' explanation for all not fully understood phenomena.

Care to list some of these human form gods? You got pics?

That's not how it was in Sumer. Not sure what you're talking about here.

For example, in Sumer the main god was An or Anu. He was the sky god. In fact, he was originally the sky itself, eventually morphing into lord of the sky.
In Sumer, the Gods came from right here, where they were born. Eventually, the religion evolved and the gods were capable of appearing human. This was a device created to allow the gods to walk among men unnoticed. There were reasons for this. Necessary ones, to the priesthood.

When you then consider that there is numerous other evidence (historical and scientific) suggesting advanced civilisation as far back as ~10,000 BC, these first human stories hold even more weight in regards to this 'theory'.

We have no such evidence, regardless of what fringe writers might claim in order to clean your pockets.

Of course, this is just one possible interpretation, but you did ask. Personally, I believe these first recorded stories are slightly more important than just primitive rambling regarding localised floods.

If you think this, then why are you harping only on a single one of them? Do you not know the other tales and how dissimilar they are? Do you know the similarities?

Can you see how the Sumerian religion eventually morphed into both Canaanite and Greek religions?

DazDaKing If we take the current paradigm of our history, with Human civilisation improving linearly with time, we get this flow chart;

200,000 BC - humans appear
40,000 BC - first sign of any intelligence; the Lion-Man statue
10,000 BC - first temples appear
Approx 3000 BC - civilisation explodes 1000 fold; writing, advanced agriculture, astronomy, mathematics, medicine, belief systems and so forth

So, if the pre-Sumerians were mentally 'evolving' for ~7000 years (10000 BC to 3000 BC), why is it when they finally crack systems such as writing and mathematics, they instantly attribute that knowledge to their ruler 'Gods'?

Can you quote where they do this?

Also, why exactly do you believe that the Lion Man is the first evidence of intelligence? You ever knapped flint?

To my knowledge, it seems that cuneiform developed from a means created to keep track of money and goods and trade. Do you believe the Sumerians said that the gods gave them this system?

Furthermore, what's with this 7000 year apparent silence? Why were we building temples in 10,000 BC yet we have no other evidence of advanced culture at this stage? 7000 years is a long flipping time, and yet you'd think the point where humans are building temples is the start of a long period of growth, rather than silence? Of course, the Sumerians didn't pop up overnight, but 7000 years is still an absurdly long time.

What's so "advanced" about Gobekli Tepe? Do you believe no other temples have been found dating to between 10,000 and 3,000 BC?
Do you know that similar sites dot the entire area around Gobekli Tepe and date to near the same period and later?

The 7,000 year gap you mention is a gap in your own understanding of the past. Your statement about "evolving mentally" is utterly meaningless. Prior to writing, cultures all over the world were quite capable of achieving high standards of living, though many didn't, to be sure.

The fact you don't know about them does not create a "gap" in other peoples' understanding of this, it just shows youre own lack of knowledge.

People weren't sitting around waiting for writing to be invented.

Our history doesn't quite fully add-up. It is very possible that we lost a great amount of information concerning the period of 40,000 BC to ~3000 BC, and ALL we have to go on are some ruins (the ones we've discovered atleast) overground, underground, underwater, and the stories of our first recorded 'civilisation'.

Of COURSE we've "lost" information concerning this period (and all the years before it as well.) No information from the time was written down. You expect word of mouth to remain accurate over thousands of years?

You are very difficult to respond to in a venue where the number of characters is limited.

Harte

poet1b
reply to post by Chamberf=6

 

What (in your consideration) is the symbolism in these myths?

Let's look at the example; "Yima laid his knife against the ground and caused the Earth to expand."

Maybe what this is saying is that Yima pioneered mining, and the gems they mined allowed their territory to grow.

They became immortal, as, they became legends.

When we talk about ancient history, we are talking about clues put together. They are often interpreting dead languages, or languages as they were spoken thousands of years ago, so there is a great deal of guesswork.

edit on 28-12-2013 by poet1b because: formatting

Yeah but some people around here are incapable of using their imaginations. I did not realize it was difficult for some but that seems to be the case. It's not an insult, just an observation. Kinda like how I really suck at golf while my friends effortlessly command their golf ball as if they have mastered "the force". Well, some people here, while they may be very good at knowing what "Chamberf" equals, or, for another completely totally random example, they may have a very good idea what a human heart looks like even though maybe this hypothetical person spells it differently than we do, like for example perhaps they put the e at the end instead of after the h, well, while they may have their own merits, when they hear "struck the earth with a knife and it opened up" or similar, their mind simply...shuts down.

I guess it just goes to show that we need the talents of every human across the spectrum if we wish to solve every mystery and answer every question. None of us has all the answers or even all the tools to find the answers.

To Harte-
"What's so "advanced" about Gobekli Tepe?"

well national geographic said that discovering Gobekli Tepe was like finding out that someone had built a 747 in their basement with nothing more than an exacto knife...but I guess 747s aren't that advanced...you could probably do it in your sleep with one arm tied behind your back right? Humans supposedly could no t even grow food at the ttime it was built. But then they had to stay in one place for a long time to build it, so I guess the hunters that followed the herds of mammoth or whatever had to travel back to bring the meat to the workers without it spoiling... not a simple task any way you look at it. Or how about pumapunku being built before humans had writing. Incredibly advanced. They did it without having any plans written down. Which means someone had it all memorized in their head? Or do you think they just kinda made it up as they went along?

Nat Geo link

reply to post by 3n19m470

Yeah but some people around here are incapable of using their imaginations. I did not realize it was difficult for some but that seems to be the case.

I thought this was Ancient and Lost Civs., not Grey Area or Skunk Works--guess I was wrong.

Well, some people here, while they may be very good at knowing what "Chamberf" equals, or, for another completely totally random example, they may have a very good idea what a human heart looks like even though maybe this hypothetical person spells it differently than we do, like for example perhaps they put the e at the end instead of after the h, well, while they may have their own merits, when they hear "struck the earth with a knife and it opened up" or similar, their mind simply...shuts down.

Oh, good. I was wondering if a certain insulting and mystery grudge holding post would show up again.

I guess the civil debates and discussions with DazDaKing weren't imaginative enough for some. So sorry.

None of us has all the answers or even all the tools to find the answers.

I don't recall that was ever claimed.

Chamberf=6
reply to post by DazDaKing

 

I know you were responding to Harte, but I have to ask (without doing excessive quoting from your above post).

It seems you are suggesting that modern "takes" on the Sumerians in particular about the Annunaki are perhaps literal and correct? That's just an impression I get from what you wrote. If that's not what you meant, sorry for reading too much into it.

In ancient past, an "advanced society" that was "lost" could simply have been one that knew stone working techniques or primitive writing (just as examples) that over the 7,000 years you bring up several times simply did get lost. The skilled workmanship or those few involved in primitive writing died due to famine, invasion, a flood--any number of things--leaving only those that were not among the small "highly" skilled class with that knowledge. ...But through oral traditions, the slowly skewed memories of those times were passed down. like a 7,000 year game of "telephone".
No gods intervention required.

And about god(s) warning about huge flood(s) --not a river flooding or such-- then god(s) saving man may be, once again, ancient man describing events they didn't fully understand and attributing them to god(s). Many of those "gods" that mysteriously seemed to disappear over the ages--excluding today's religions.
But that is another HUGE debate.

Sorry for butting into your conversation with Harte...

edit on 12/29/2013 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)

Damn, you and Harte have left me with a lot to tackle/reply to! Here goes.

In regards to the 'Annunaki', I take the 'official' account of the Sumerian story. The meaning of Annunaki is roughly 'princely offspring' or 'royal offspring', the sons of Anu (i.e the Sons of God). This is the first interesting part, since these 'Gods' are spoken of in a sense that they spent as much time on Earth and they did in 'Heaven'. We MUST understand, that the Sumerian concept of 'Heaven' does NOT coincide with modern interpretations of 'Heaven'. To the Sumerians, it can simply mean from the 'Sky', or from the horizon, from the unknown. Remember when white, bearded man boarded South America, and were greeted as GODS, despite these natives having built temples for and worshiped 'Gods' such as Quetzacoatl for a great time.

I have a hunch, that the word 'God' when used here, doesn't refer to a mystical sky being, but humans, who to the Sumerians appeared more advanced than they could comprehend. I'm not claiming 'aliens', but I am saying it is a possibility the Sumerians made the same 'mistake' the native American's did. You cannot with 100% certainty deny this possibility, but I am not claiming it is true.

In regards to your point about the 7,000 year gap - I agree - it is a possibility. All I simply said is that the 7,000 gap must contain a lot of lost 'history'. I'm talking things that would have existed in the Library of Alexandria as written continuation of oral traditions. 7,000 years is an extremely long time however. It is a shame we don't have more information about this period in history. I never claimed any 'Gods intervention' is required to explain this 7,000 year gap. I simply said a 'God's intervention' is often a part of the original myth regarding the 'flood'.

Sure, the names of these God's changed (Anu, Enlil, Enki -> Marduk e.t.c) but their associated roles/stories stayed relatively consistent across a few cultures. You are right, that is a completely different debate and a long one indeed.

I don't understand why you and Harte think it's completely logical to assume that this is primitive people who can't understand a flood to the extent that they fabricate stories prior the flood, during the flood and after the flood lol. Maybe ONE of these aspects definitely, but I just honestly don't think it works like that, although of course it is a possibility.


# it, let's apply some thought experiments. I am open to both interpretations (some sort of historical event vs. complete mythology). Say you have a small, primitive society sustaining itself in ancient Sumer. They have a basic form of writing, they believe in the Annunaki (since this seems to pre-date the 'flood' story considering the Sumerian King's List), they understand basic agriculture/mathematics/medicine and so forth. Ultimately, they know how to survive in this universe while also progressing - which shows a significant level of non-primitive understanding.

Then, let's assume localized flooding occurs. The water rushes through the settlements, destroying their crops and providing unlivable conditions in their settlements - effectively forcing the Sumerians at the time to migrate as soon as possible, taking their knowledge, and setting-up 'camp' somewhere else, re-planting their seeds and so forth.

You're telling me, when this small surviving group establishes their new settlement, and have their offspring, they are going to completely fabricate a story regarding the flood? Logically, I think they would either assume;

a) God(s) sent the flood
b) God(s) saved man from flood via supernatural intervention
c) Both
d) Neither

The actual answer is d). The fact is that the story states that the God(s) saved us via non-supernatural intervention. This is an interesting aspect. There is nothing 'supernatural', about one 'ruler' going against the plans of the rest to save his 'ruled' race. This is through the act of warning his 'ruled' race to act in time. The only supernatural aspect is the application of the word 'God' (which is COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE), and the original causation of the flood. The original causation of the flood via God(s) is the part that makes me think this is a complete myth to be honest. If a group of 'rulers' wanted to destroy mankind, there are a million better ways than a 'flood', and which are more easily 'achievable'. I'll give you that.

Perhaps, the 'rulers' (assuming the 'Gods' are humans here, advanced relative to the Sumerians), were AWARE of an incoming flood. In the same sense that, with our knowledge of the Earth and it's cycles and activity, we would be able to warn an Amazonian tribe of an impending flood. This is entirely a possibility. From the 'rulers' perspective, perhaps this flood is beneficial to them (in the same sense TPTB today will happily eliminate a large percentage of 'us'), and one of the 'rulers' had a sense of compassion for us, warning us in time.

Just some imaginative discussion I guess. I am enjoying this. It is not often that people are willing to take these debates (on ATS) to such grounds.

Please read my following responses to Harte, as some things I wanted to write here may as well go in the replies to him for character space reasons.

reply to post by Harte

Harte No ancient works describe any "pre-flood" civilization as any different than the "post-flood" civilization.

Your choice of words in a way is coincident with what I meant. The fact that the 'pre-flood' civilization is AT LEAST no DIFFERENT to the 'post-flood' civilization means that it is possible we had writing and advanced belief systems prior to the ancient Sumerians ~3000 BC. Hence, perhaps this wasn't the true cradle of civilization.

In regards to the 'pre-flood' civilization being different, there are various ancient accounts from extremely old to not so old (~100 BC).

The Sumerian King's List dates back to ~35,000 BC, with the 'Kings' prior to the flood reigning for great numbers of years (in the thousands for some of them). Of course, I am not taking this as concrete historical evidence, but it is an 'ancient work' showing the 'pre-flood' Kings as different to the 'post-flood' Kings.

In the Epic of Gilgamesh, he is described as being offspring of the 'God' blood (another reference to 'God's' with human aspects), and bigger/stronger than any normal man. Reading Tablets I through to XI also gives one a sense of the 'Gods' being much more actively involved with humans 'pre-flood' than 'post-flood'.

In the Book of Enoch (not to be brushed aside), those before the flood were 'men of renown, sons of Gods who stood as giants and came unto the women of the Earth'.

These are a few that jump to my head instantly. But I knew I should have been more careful with my use of the phrase 'advanced civilization'. When I said advanced, I meant in regards to what we perceive pre-Sumerian civilization to be. The pre-flood civilization being the same as the post-flood civilization in the ancient works is in itself good enough. The general trend in the story is that the pre-flood Sumerians weren't perceived as a more primitive group of people who eventually learned how to write e.t.c (as 'our' timeline would suggest), but were the same as the Sumerians as we know them (who 'rose' on the other side of/survived this 'flood' event).

The ark stories are mostly limited to the M.E. and areas they were in contact with in the ancient past. Noteably, though, there is no known flood myth from Egypt.

You are right, there is no significant 'flood myth' from Egypt, which is quite weird actually. You and Chamberf=6 have brought to my attention your ideas of these stories arising from 'localized floods', yet Egypt would have surely experienced these in great magnitude, yet we have no such stories attempting to explain these floods as 'sent by God(s)'. Although, after the Egyptians, the flood/Ark story continues. Please note, when I say Ark story - I am referring to the story of a human/group of humans being warned about the flood in advance to save humanity - and NOT SPECIFICALLY in regards to a boat or whatever the method of survival be.

What is interesting is that ancient Egyptians had a prevailing belief that we came from the Primordial Waters that swept the Earth (and the universe before it). An incomplete papyrus does contain a form of a flood story, where Atum is said to be unhappy with a rebellious humanity, and says he will destroy all he made and return to the Earth with the primordial water which was it's original state. Atum will remain, as a serpent, with Osiris. This is as much as can be deciphered.

"The original myth involved a Sumerian man, not a "pre-Sumerian."

You are right, but Gilgamesh is described as generally being one of the true 'pre-flood' Sumerian Kings, i.e they had the blood of the 'Gods'. I think my use of semantics is causing a problem here.

When I say 'Sumerians', I mean the people who were settled in Sumer around 3000 BC-2500 BC, and who spoke and wrote of these stories and beliefs. When I say pre-Sumerians, I'm either referring to the settlers throughout 4000-3000 BC who would lead on to become what we recognize today as ancient Sumerians, or I'm referring to the civilization described in the Sumerian beliefs as existing prior to the 'flood'. Unnecessary complication I guess.

Actually, all the flood stories except that of Noah (who was given instructions regarding building a specific structure) involve a story about a hero and how he survived, and not how he was saved by the gods.

Warned, yes. Instructed, no (except Noah.)

When did I say otherwise? Not intentionally at least. Throughout my previous posts, I am fairly sure I made the act of 'warning' quite clear.

The story of Gilgamesh involves instructions, and not just a warning;

I quote;

Utanapishtim spoke to Gilgamesh, saying:
"I will reveal to you, Gilgamesh, a thing that is hidden,
a secret of the gods I will tell you!
Shuruppak, a city that you surely know,
situated on the banks of the Euphrates,
that city was very old, and there were gods inside it.
The hearts of the Great Gods moved them to inflict the Flood.
Their Father Anu uttered the oath (of secrecy),
Valiant Enlil was their Adviser,
Ninurta was their Chamberlain,
Ennugi was their Minister of Canals.
Ea, the Clever Prince(?), was under oath with them
so he repeated their talk to the reed house:
'Reed house, reed house! Wall, wall!
O man of Shuruppak, son of Ubartutu:
Tear down the house and build a boat!
Abandon wealth and seek living beings!
Spurn possessions and keep alive living beings!
Make all living beings go up into the boat.
The boat which you are to build,
its dimensions must measure equal to each other:
its length must correspond to its width.
Roof it over like the Apsu.

When you then consider that there is numerous other evidence (historical and scientific) suggesting advanced civilisation as far back as ~10,000 BC, these first human stories hold even more weight in regards to this 'theory'. DazDaKing

We have no such evidence, regardless of what fringe writers might claim in order to clean your pockets.

Off the top of my head [and ignoring ALL sacred texts/scriptures across the world];

Relatively reliable ancient Greek historical evidence may come in the form of 'Atlantis' (although weak) and Herodotus' conversations with an Egyptian High Priest (stronger).

Radiocarbon dating of the Sphinx has pushed it back to ~5000 BC. Weather erosion analysis has shown the Sphinx is possibly as old as ~10,000 BC. All radiocarbon dating attempts on anything relating to the Great Pyramid of Giza push it back to at least ~3500 BC and in some cases 4000 BC.

There is numerous other 'evidence' suggesting the Great Pyramid and Sphinx are WELL older than 2,500 BC, but honestly mate, that discussion itself can span another 2-3 pages. If you don't trust the evidence, then don't (I'm still skeptical). But it goes far deeper than just a few 'carbon-dating' tests and a claim from Herodotus.

There are numerous temples dating from 10,000 BC to 3,000 BC. If temples aren't a sign (at least one of the signs) to you of an 'advanced culture', I don't know what is.

What do you regard an 'advanced' civilization, may I ask?

Also, why exactly do you believe that the Lion Man is the first evidence of intelligence? You ever knapped flint?

The Lion-Man defined us as humans/human art. Other humanoids/animals can/could make and use tools.

reply to post by Harte


Harte, I shall reply to the rest of your points later. Please try to refrain from piling more questions on me in the meantime. It's effectively been left on me, to argue a hypothesis that many people hold much strongly than I do. I have been to an extent, playing Devil's Advocate in this thread, and therefore I have said some things I don't truly completely believe myself.

I just show an interest in these ancient works and more specifically the first true 'stories' of mankind. That to me is a fascinating thing, whatever the cause be.

But for the sake of good discussion I'll get back to your other points and attempt to answer them as honestly and logically as possible. If that involves accepting this is all fabricated BS with absolutely no factual relevance other than 'localized flooding', then let it be.

reply to post by DazDaKing

Thanks...not going to add anything else right now, but this:

On describing floods, I intentionally excluded floods such as rivers that would have been normal and even regular and depended on in Egypt for example, to keep land fertile enough to grow things. I wasn't including those in the idea of a massive localized flood and stories about those.

reply to post by 3n19m470


Funny how the same people cite Sumerian as the beginning of all civilization, when the archaeological evidences shows that Sumeria was not even close.

Çatal Höyük is actually far older than Sumeria, as Sumeria is older than our current civilization. That is a huge gap.

How this doesn't register as a major re-write of ancient history is beyond me.

More interesting is that the people who built Çatal Höyük were goddess worshipers.

www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk...

Collins says of it: 'The magnificence of its art, tools, weapon and skilfully fashioned jewellery showed a level of technology and sophistication which has forced archaeologists to review completely their understanding of the development of civilisation' (2)

The use of two feline figures in the image (right), is a common feature in many later middle-eastern and European sculpture, in which they invariably represent 'guardians' at places of power, such as on either side of thrones, or at important entrances and gateways such as at Boghazkoy and Alaja Huyuk, (see photo's below), also both in Turkey. In early Egyptian myth the earth god Aker, (who was the divine god of the eastern and western horizons or the entrance and exit to the underworld), was represented in hieroglyphs as two lions sitting back to back.

It is perhaps relevant that two lions are also used in portrayals of the legendary ante-deluvian Sumerian hero/king, Gilgamesh, creating a direct link between Pre-Sumerian, Sumerian and Post-Sumerian (Mesopotamian) cultural themes. The significance of the discovery of an such an early mother-earth figure, flanked by felines, combines to enforce the idea of an prehistoric matriarchal society, of which influences may also be seen in Malta, where the mother-earth figure is given similar such reverence at approximately the same time in history.

When did civilization go from Goddess worshipers to God worshipers?

The stone circles are representative of goddess worship.

I don't know where these numerous cities dated between Çatal Höyük and Sumeria have been found. This claim sounds made up to me.