This is pretty fascinating…would anyone know of a more comprehensive book on ancient Mesopotamian: history, peoples, religion, and culture? It is so foundational in the west
The references section is odd to me — it is both present and missing what is clearly either one authoritative source or a whole month or more of research. I wonder why it isn’t included.
> Ritual cross-dressing was part of her cult worship, and transgender individuals were included in her priesthood.
They don't cite the transgenderism. It is dangerous to take our view on an issue and cast that back on a much older culture. Cross dressing and even using different pronouns did not coincide with transgenderism across cultures. Indeed, many times this happened merely in a stage context. I would like to see a citation here.
The other problem is that they are using slightly contradictory myths about Inanna to suggest she's not entirely feminine.. but myths are local. Myths are not coherent. There is no "keeper and editor of Inanna myths". Different people write different little stories and they have different ideas. You can't treat contradictory myths as being meaningful information on the nature of the deity in the general populace. Most of the prominent works do paint Inanna as a woman and a biological mother - not a eunuch.
> It is dangerous to take our view on an issue and cast that back on a much older culture. Cross dressing and even using different pronouns did not coincide with transgenderism across cultures.
Isn't that what you're doing here, though? Taking a modern understanding of transgenderism (pronouns, cross dressing) and using that to reject the presence of transgender individuals in her historical worship?
> There is no "keeper and editor of Inanna myths". Different people write different little stories and they have different ideas. You can't treat contradictory myths as being meaningful information on the nature of the deity in the general populace.
Given you (rightly) reject the idea of a single version of Inanna myths, what do you mean by "the nature of the deity in the general populace"? Different people had different myths, and so there isn't a single "nature of the deity in the general populace". Instead there were a lot of different, conflicting natures that different people held.
If I talk to you about the story of Demeter and Persephone's descent, that is a coherent story. If you present that story to me and I counter with "Ah but these people over here believe Demeter and Persephone are the same person!" I haven't one-up'd your story.
That some distant group of people had contradictory beliefs about a well known myth doesn't mean there isn't a widely accepted canon.
Nor does this mean that in that common canon that we've secretly revealed that Persephone is Demeter in disguise. In the main canon, they ARE mother and daughter.
The existence of what is basically fan fiction doesn't mean the canonized works are less canon or that people aren't aware of the main canon!
What does it mean for a canon to be "widely accepted" when we're talking about fragmentary historical documents? Believed by the most people (how would we know)? Discovered first (an accident of archaeology)? Part of the literary chain that leads to the stories we tell in modern times (but which "we")?
I think this concept is less simple than one might want.
8 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 21.9 ms ] threadedit: I would be surprised if this wasn’t one of the primary sources, and it cites its sources: http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/amgg/listofdeities/inanaitar/
> Ritual cross-dressing was part of her cult worship, and transgender individuals were included in her priesthood.
They don't cite the transgenderism. It is dangerous to take our view on an issue and cast that back on a much older culture. Cross dressing and even using different pronouns did not coincide with transgenderism across cultures. Indeed, many times this happened merely in a stage context. I would like to see a citation here.
The other problem is that they are using slightly contradictory myths about Inanna to suggest she's not entirely feminine.. but myths are local. Myths are not coherent. There is no "keeper and editor of Inanna myths". Different people write different little stories and they have different ideas. You can't treat contradictory myths as being meaningful information on the nature of the deity in the general populace. Most of the prominent works do paint Inanna as a woman and a biological mother - not a eunuch.
Isn't that what you're doing here, though? Taking a modern understanding of transgenderism (pronouns, cross dressing) and using that to reject the presence of transgender individuals in her historical worship?
> There is no "keeper and editor of Inanna myths". Different people write different little stories and they have different ideas. You can't treat contradictory myths as being meaningful information on the nature of the deity in the general populace.
Given you (rightly) reject the idea of a single version of Inanna myths, what do you mean by "the nature of the deity in the general populace"? Different people had different myths, and so there isn't a single "nature of the deity in the general populace". Instead there were a lot of different, conflicting natures that different people held.
That some distant group of people had contradictory beliefs about a well known myth doesn't mean there isn't a widely accepted canon.
Nor does this mean that in that common canon that we've secretly revealed that Persephone is Demeter in disguise. In the main canon, they ARE mother and daughter.
The existence of what is basically fan fiction doesn't mean the canonized works are less canon or that people aren't aware of the main canon!
I think this concept is less simple than one might want.