The Sumerian Kings List
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_king_list) may have been
perpetuating the myth that Sumer had always been a patriarchy, the idea
being that if the rulers of Sumer had always been male then they should
always be male, with power being passed from father to son. From what
I've read recently regarding Inanna, Dumuzi and Gilgamesh, this wasn't
the case at least not at first.

According to the Epic of Gilgamesh (see
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/GILG.HTM or
http://novaonline.nv.cc.va.us/eli/eng251/gilgameshstudy.htm), his
mother was Ninsun, the "Cow Goddess" while his father was Lugalbanda
was a "shepherd" and Dumuzi was either a "fisherman" or a "shepherd"
(see 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 ). Dumuzi became
king by marrying Inanna, who was already queen, even though she had a
brother Utu who could have become king.

According to ancient Sumerian texts, Inanna left Dumuzi alone in her
kingdom where she went to visit her sister, Ereshkigal. When she
returned, she found that her servant, Ninshubur, had mourned for her
while her husband, Dumuzi, had assumed the throne for himself. This
must have angered Inanna because she had Dumuzi sent to the underworld.
One must assume that this meant she had him killed.

I find it interesting that Gilgamesh appears in the Saga of Inanna
while Inanna appears in the Epic of Gilgamesh, which suggests that they
were both actual people and contemporaries. In the Epic of Gilgamesh,
it is said that Inanna desired Gilgamesh and offered to make him King.
Given that Gilgamesh appeared after Dumuzi in the Sumerian king list,
one would presume that Dumuzi was either already dead at this point or
Inanna was already looking for his replacement. In any case, it is
clear that one became king in ancient Sumer by marrying the queen.
Perhaps a polygimus queen in ancient Sumer could have had more than one
king.

In the story, Gilgamesh refuses Inanna's advances, presumably fearful
of what had happened to Inanna's last husband, which might be a
reference to Dumuzi. Gilgamesh, having defeated the "demon" Humbata
in Iran, was sufficiently loved by the people of Uruk that he could
assert power as a king without having to marry the queen. That
Gilgamesh would refuse her angered her so much that she sent an assasin
(the "Bull of Heaven") to kill him. Gilgamesh and his friend (lover?)
Enkidu teamed up against the Bull of Heaven and Enkidu died shortly
afterwards, perhaps due to injuries.
Clearly, Inanna is the same powerful, vengeful queen in both stories.

All the political infighting described in these stories may have been
actual history and, if so, it describes the transformation of Sumer
from a matriarchy to a patriarchy, with Gilgamesh's son, Ur-Nungal
becoming the next king following Gilgamesh's death. At the beginning
of the Epic, Gilgamesh is a cad who has sex with other men's brides
before their wedding. (Presumably he could do that because he was the
son of the Goddess Ninsun, who had been queen while Lugalbanda was
king, making him a prince.) Enkidu presumably came down from heaven to
tell Gilgamesh that he shouldn't do that and Gilgamesh, presumably,
agreed, but in the centuries that followed Sumer and, later, Babylonia
became notorius for having maidens give themselves up to strangers as
sacred prostitutes, presumably in honour of the goddess Inanna. How
ironic! The name of Inanna was being used to justify the subjugation
of young women to the whims of men! (I should point out that there's a
difference between a female ruler choosing to have many male consorts
and common women being forced into prostitution!)

Oh, by the way, as I have pointed out in previous posts, there are
plenty of online resources that claim that Inanna=Isis=Venus and
Dumuzi=Osiris=Adonis. I have also seen claims that
Gilgamesh=Horus=Hercules. From the little I know, the similarities
between Greek, Egyptian and Sumerian mythologies seem striking. What
happened thousands of years in Sumer may indeed have affected Western
thinking to this day.

Martin

The Sumerian Kings List
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_king_list) may have been
perpetuating the myth that Sumer had always been a patriarchy, the idea
being that if the rulers of Sumer had always been male then they should
always be male, with power being passed from father to son. From what
I've read recently regarding Inanna, Dumuzi and Gilgamesh, this wasn't
the case at least not at first.

According to the Epic of Gilgamesh (see
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/GILG.HTM or
http://novaonline.nv.cc.va.us/eli/eng251/gilgameshstudy.htm), his
mother was Ninsun, the "Cow Goddess" while his father was Lugalbanda
was a "shepherd" and Dumuzi was either a "fisherman" or a "shepherd"
(see 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 ). Dumuzi became
king by marrying Inanna, who was already queen, even though she had a
brother Utu who could have become king.

According to ancient Sumerian texts, Inanna left Dumuzi alone in her
kingdom where she went to visit her sister, Ereshkigal. When she
returned, she found that her servant, Ninshubur, had mourned for her
while her husband, Dumuzi, had assumed the throne for himself. This
must have angered Inanna because she had Dumuzi sent to the underworld.
One must assume that this meant she had him killed.

I find it interesting that Gilgamesh appears in the Saga of Inanna
while Inanna appears in the Epic of Gilgamesh, which suggests that they
were both actual people and contemporaries. In the Epic of Gilgamesh,
it is said that Inanna desired Gilgamesh and offered to make him King.
Given that Gilgamesh appeared after Dumuzi in the Sumerian king list,
one would presume that Dumuzi was either already dead at this point or
Inanna was already looking for his replacement. In any case, it is
clear that one became king in ancient Sumer by marrying the queen.
Perhaps a polygimus queen in ancient Sumer could have had more than one
king.

In the story, Gilgamesh refuses Inanna's advances, presumably fearful
of what had happened to Inanna's last husband, which might be a
reference to Dumuzi. Gilgamesh, having defeated the "demon" Humbata
in Iran, was sufficiently loved by the people of Uruk that he could
assert power as a king without having to marry the queen. That
Gilgamesh would refuse her angered her so much that she sent an assasin
(the "Bull of Heaven") to kill him. Gilgamesh and his friend (lover?)
Enkidu teamed up against the Bull of Heaven and Enkidu died shortly
afterwards, perhaps due to injuries.
Clearly, Inanna is the same powerful, vengeful queen in both stories.

All the political infighting described in these stories may have been
actual history and, if so, it describes the transformation of Sumer
from a matriarchy to a patriarchy, with Gilgamesh's son, Ur-Nungal
becoming the next king following Gilgamesh's death. At the beginning
of the Epic, Gilgamesh is a cad who has sex with other men's brides
before their wedding. (Presumably he could do that because he was the
son of the Goddess Ninsun, who had been queen while Lugalbanda was
king, making him a prince.) Enkidu presumably came down from heaven to
tell Gilgamesh that he shouldn't do that and Gilgamesh, presumably,
agreed, but in the centuries that followed Sumer and, later, Babylonia
became notorius for having maidens give themselves up to strangers as
sacred prostitutes, presumably in honour of the goddess Inanna. How
ironic! The name of Inanna was being used to justify the subjugation
of young women to the whims of men! (I should point out that there's a
difference between a female ruler choosing to have many male consorts
and common women being forced into prostitution!)

Oh, by the way, as I have pointed out in previous posts, there are
plenty of online resources that claim that Inanna=Isis=Venus and
Dumuzi=Osiris=Adonis. I have also seen claims that
Gilgamesh=Horus=Hercules. From the little I know, the similarities
between Greek, Egyptian and Sumerian mythologies seem striking. What
happened thousands of years in Sumer may indeed have affected Western
thinking to this day.

Martin

Ah. I just found an interesting connection.
http://www.pinn.net/~swampy/inanna2.html claims that the "Bull of
Heaven" was Gugalana, the husband of Ereshkigal, which meant that
Inanna had sent her brother-in-law to kill Gilgamesh. It also states
that Inanna went to see Ereshkigal to help her mourn her husband's
death, who would have been killed by Gilgamesh and Enkidu. Thus, we
have to assume that Inanna was still married to Duzumi when she offered
to marry Gilgamesh, which meant that she was polygimus. That might
have been what Gilgamesh was refering to when he refused Inanna's
advances and not that Dumuzi had already been killed.

Martin

Nobody has commented on this topic so I did some more websearches and
came up with some fascinating "data".

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%2Fwww.arthistory.sbc.edu%2Fimageswomen%2Fegyptmatriarchy.html

"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."

I've seen it suggested that Gilgamesh and Horus, the first pharoah of
Egypt, were the same person. This makes sense if Inanna and Isis were
the same person. The following quote from
http://www.ejfi.org/Civilization/Civilization-12.htm makes startling
sense then!

"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.

To be honest, yes, matriarchy makes more sense, to me anyway. How much
are we men willing to sacrifice for the love (ie sex) of a beautiful
woman? If property is passed from man to son then women will marry
rich men to get the property whereas matriarchy allows "free love" with
women choosing to have sex with any man she desired because, regardless
of who she had sex with, the child would always be hers. She would
thus feel free to approach men based on her own sexual desire and not
simply as a result of what she wanted to get out of the relationship.
Isn't this better for everybody? Patriarchy is an example of men
shooting themselves in the foot, going for the property for themsleves
and their children and foregoing what they ultimately want (ie great
sex).

Martin

p.comm

There is a LOT of evidence for matriliny. Matriarchy based on a patriarchal
paradigm didn't exist. Evidence also includes mass graves of male bones
thrown about hap hazardly - but not so on the female homestead.

Also, the Sun was always a goddess at first - the moon was either also a
goddess, or a god. That got switched during the advent of patriarchy. You
can see that in languages that still use gendered nouns. Sun is a female
word.

Slowly, things got more patriarchal as men took over the work women did -
because their old jobs, hunters, became obsolete.

--
http://innsmouth.rules.it
or http://www.geocities.com/trip_to_innsmouth
http://lovecraft.shows.it
or http://www.geocities.com/lovecraft_was_here