Essay Contribution by Edin Beslagic
November 29, 2006

A Sumerian Chicken or the Egg Question : Journal Article Review

    This journal article discusses a heated question debated by scholars of the Sumerian culture throughout centuries: who were the Sumerians? While this question can be answered with a map and a timeline, it needs to be combined with: “where did the Sumerians come from?” The contemporary scholars from this article are divided on the question of whether Sumerians immigrated into Mesopotamia or if their culture evolved from the ancient people living in the region. Evidence that these scholars used to make their determinations is comprised of archeological remnants of material culture, the evolution of the written language, hermeneutics, and geology.

    Using these criteria, this journal article presents several different prevailing theories about the Sumerian origin and evaluates their credibility. The ancient Sumerian culture is divided both temporally and physically by three periods named after their place of discovery: Ubaid (4500-3750 B.C.), Uruk (3750-3250 B.C.) and Jemdet Nasr (3250-2500 B.C.). This is where the real problem starts. By dating and separating these particular stages of the Sumerian culture, scholars directly imply that there is a cultural progression from one step to the other. However, there is no exclusive linear evolution between these individual excavation sites. In fact, linguistic and archeological evidence suggests that the comprehensive Sumerian culture was a composite one. Assuming that these sites are linear in progression would be like trying to explain how humans evolved from Neanderthals by examining remains of both species that share both physical space and radiocarbon dating. In fact, newly discovered evidence doesn’t help answer any questions but rather forces even more to be asked. Archeological finds are unique enough to permit a casual analyst to conclude that the three subcultures are not only discontinuous but entirely separate. Still, an astute observer would note the fine differences between the excavation sites – such as cultural continuity across time, style and origin of pottery, naming differences, physical locations and other details and conclude that there are striking similarities. This article goes into detailed analysis of multiple scholars and what related evidence they use for their own origin theories.

    One of these theories was synthesized by Henri Frankfort, who suggested that Sumerians were already in Mesopotamia at the beginning of the Ubaid time period. He based this idea on the fact that the Sumerian culture is continuous from 4500 B.C. to 2500 B.C. by analysis of pottery; however, his evidence does not explain why the middle archeological period, the Uruk (3750-32500 B.C.) is discontinuous in style. His theory is complemented by another scholar, E. A. Speiser, who further developed parts of it and demonstrated that continuity is not always apparently straight-forward. Cylinder seals existed during the Uruk period but their particular type (a roll as opposed to a stamp seal) did not tie them directly to the Ubaid sites.

    Two excavators, Seton Lloyd and Fuad Safar, added fuel to the fire by discovering a site with seventeen layers of continuous temple rebuilding, confusing archeologists by demonstrating an extremely long period of cultural continuity where one wasn’t thought to have existed. This continuity was demonstrated by both artifacts and architecture. Adding to the material evidence, linguists such as Benno Landsberger, have been trying to figure out how exactly were ancient lexicons mixed and why certain names of cities belonged to the wrong culture. Residents of these ancient sites used vocabulary that came from two separate languages. The linguists speculated that invading people renamed or kept ancient names despite being overwhelmingly populous in a region. This concept of inheriting an existing culture is believable because it is seen presently in the world (example: Mississippi river in the United States was named by the Native Americans). Linguistics offer weak evidence but allow new theories to be constructed and later affirmed by physical discoveries. Physical evidence usually stands on firmer ground; for example, two credible geologists, G. M. Lees and N. L. Falcon proved that Sumer (in the South) was dry a thousand years before the Ubaid culture developed. This discovery contradicted the classical theory that the area was submerged and thus upset the established geo-historical chronology of many scholars. If this summary is confusing so far, it is because it accurately presents issues of determining the Sumerian identity.

    Luckily, the author of this article uses his expertise and takes the liberty of weighing all of the presented evidence for the reader: he pronounces S. N. Kramer the victor of this large academic disagreement. Kramer produced Northern Iran as the origin of ancient Sumerians. His evidence consists of vast linguistic similarities between Sumerian and various languages spoken in the northern Iran region. Also, he thought the convenient geography would have protected migration from that direction. To connect those concepts, he used material evidence linking various divisions of the Sumerian culture across their time divisions. His argument is weakened, however, by the fact that the consensus of scholars do not agree upon a probable migration source.

    That is alright for Kramer because his colleagues seem to pick and choose evidence as they see fit. This behavior constitutes pseudo-historical analysis at best and should be addressed in future publications by their respective authors. One famous archeologist, Leonard Wooley, placed the origin of Sumerians (based on invalid relative dating) in present-day Afghanistan for the sole purpose of connecting them with the ancient cultures from the Indus valley. Despite the contrary evidence (such as a static cultural continuity in places such as Eridu), Wooley’s argument is oddly validated by the journal article author. Completing this circuit, the very author of this article is guilty of anachronism. He wrote that the geological discovery of Mr. Lees and Mr. Falcon took place in 1952 and that it turned the dominant geological theory upside-down. He failed to mention that the theories which he is contradicting with that evidence were published in 1932 and 1949, well before the geological discovery was made. This prevents the original authors from either updating their findings or defending them.

    So where did the Sumerians come from? By a brute force count of guesses from this text, a reader could assume that the ancient Sumerians came from northern Iran. Unfortunately, there is something incredibly flawed about quantifying guesses when it comes to seeking the truth. A hundred people may think that both apples and oranges are colored a sublime shade of purple, but none of them would be correct. This journal article left much to be desired, such as locating updated versions of the 1932 theories and comparing them to modern discoveries. Also, a chart of excavated discoveries would have helped illustrate the confusing display of evidence since many of the contradicting theories have overlapping details.

    Sorting it all out is not anyone’s guess, however. Most readers should defer their judgment to field experts as they have both a superior overview of facts and background knowledge to make the right call. My personal thought is that the Ubaid culture is close enough to the 10,000 B.C. marker on a timeline. Therefore, can scientists use modern mitochondrial DNA studies to determine migration directions of the indigenous people?

Source:
The History Teacher Vol 5. No. 2.
January 1972.
“The Sumerian Problem.”
Jonathan R. Ziskind.
Pages 34-41.