How did the Sumerians/Mesopotamians see Myths?

[david]

I hope this is the right place for this thread, and I haven't been here in quite awhile, so, hopefully, this hasn't been asked before, but, does anyone know, or have any ideas, about how the Sumerians, or any other Mesopotamian people, saw their Myths?, by that, I mean, would they have as seen them as acurately describing the activities of the Gods (e.g. in the Descent Myth, would they have saw it as describing the journey Inanna did make, etc), or would they have taken a more allegorical approach, like some other cultures and philosophers (for example, in ancient Greece, quite a number of philosophers didn't view the Myths as acurately describing their Gods, and found allegorical interpretations, etc).

I would be really interested for any answers you can give, as this topic really does interest me.

Thanks for any help.

[amarsin]

It's a good question, but I don't know if we have any real answers. At least, nothing off the top of my head jumps out at me.

Two things are important to remember: First, there were a wealth of stories about god and heroes that we just don't have. For Sumer, most of what we have is "Nippur-centric". We have no myths of, say, Shara, the patron deity of Umma. Or of Ishkur, or of Utu. They were no doubt out there. They just haven't been recovered.

I bring this up to suggest that we aren't getting the whole story about Mesopotamian myth.

Second, I'm not convinced that what IS preserved from scribal material was really a part of the common, lay-person's cultural landscape. I mean, we have a "myth" (or whatever you want to call it) called Enlil and Ninlil. It's an odd story. Was it something you could ask the little Nippur farmer about and expect an educated reply? Or would he have a completely different tale to explain the relationship of the two Nippur deities?

I don't know. There may be a way to better answer your question, and I'll think on it. But like I said, nothing jumps out at me.

[david]

Nov 25, 2008 18:48:15 GMT -5 amarsin said:

It's a good question, but I don't know if we have any real answers. At least, nothing off the top of my head jumps out at me.

Two things are important to remember: First, there were a wealth of stories about god and heroes that we just don't have. For Sumer, most of what we have is "Nippur-centric". We have no myths of, say, Shara, the patron deity of Umma. Or of Ishkur, or of Utu. They were no doubt out there. They just haven't been recovered.

I bring this up to suggest that we aren't getting the whole story about Mesopotamian myth.

Second, I'm not convinced that what IS preserved from scribal material was really a part of the common, lay-person's cultural landscape. I mean, we have a "myth" (or whatever you want to call it) called Enlil and Ninlil. It's an odd story. Was it something you could ask the little Nippur farmer about and expect an educated reply? Or would he have a completely different tale to explain the relationship of the two Nippur deities?

I don't know. There may be a way to better answer your question, and I'll think on it. But like I said, nothing jumps out at me.

Thanks for the reply, I really appreciate it, I was just wondering whether the Myths (e.g. Descent of Inanna, Nergal and Ereshkigal, etc) held religious significance, or if they were primarily literary creations, political creations, etc not intended for religious uses.

I think I remember someone saying Mesopotamian Myths were seen in a similar way to how the statues of their Gods were seen, on one level, as statues, but, on another, as being "real", in a sense (I'm not sure if I've explained that very well).

Thanks again for your reply.

[xuchilpaba]

Well, this is me speculating from a outsider's point of view... But I did notice that there are references to certain locations mentioned in some myths, sometimes in allegory, tie in with some of the actual locations of Mesopotamia. I can't say if this means they taken as more literal or not. or if this had a more political motive and was biased towards certain locations and deities.

[us4-he2-gal2]

Hum - Amarsin is edging us toward the right perspective with Sumerian literature I believe. If the basic question is 'Was the Sumerian literature religious in nature?' the answer is not simple or basic, but must take into account some of the qualifying considerations given above.

Indeed the myths, one division of the literature, are largely "Nippur Centric", in that a good many of those tablets containing the myths come from Nippur - in specific, many come from the "tablet house", an archaeological dig spot at Nippur which hit upon an ancient scribal complex. Much of this material we have recovered was the work of ancient students, or scribes or teachers - the cuneiform elite of that day who, as Amarsin says, were likely among the few besides their patrons who would have access to these myths in the sophisticated and educated form we read them today.

The function and application of mythical literature such as Enlil and Ninlil or Enki and the World Order, has been assessed at by experts as something akin to "court poetry" and is considered material for the entertainment of royalty or of the upper classes. So yes, the myths were literary creations which often had political or propagandistic overtones. Not all literature is myth however - We might assess the composition "The Building of Ningirsu Temple" differently, as this was recorded nor on some practice piece of clay, but two huge cylinders (Gudea"s Cylinders) which were ceremonially enshirined in the temple itself. The long narrative contained thereon is of a semi-histographic nature, it combines Gudea's relgious experience with events and undertakings that actually did happen (he did actually build the temple.) Along the way we do pick up valuable hints about Sumerian religiousity (i.e. Communication with the divine through prophetic dream for example) and we do see aspects of temple religion and ritual (see lines 871-924). But again, we cant speak of one "Sumerian religion" because commoner's were all but excluded from these priviledged and sanctified worlds. We learn here only something of the temple religion and of a kings relation to the city god, again which could easily be misleading to our impression of the (all but invisible) common religion.

Also: You would be better off with the hymns in trying to assess something as indicative of religion.