Talk:Inanna/Archive 1

redirecting to Ishtar
Fine by me - it wasn't until after I wrote the stub that I realized how similar they are. It would be great to have a description of the differences between Ishtar and Inanna. Unless/until we do, a redirect is probably better than a stub. FreplySpang (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

no sources at all? I'd hate to disfigure the article with unsourced, but there really should be some references. dab (&#5839;) 21:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, although there are similarities between Inanna and Ishtar, Inanna is both regionally different as well as from a different period. Ishtar is from the north-western region of Sumeria/Babylonia, where Inanna originates in Uruk (Warka) which is in the south-west quadrant. Ishtar is also a "younger" diety, and her aim rather different from what Inanna was to provide to her followers. Too often I see divinities pigeon-holed into boxes of purpose, when careful research into the cultures they originate from show that they were, like humans, multi-purposed.

Added reference to the major myths concerning Inanna
The reference told nothing of Inanna's mythological importance appart from the acquisition of the Me.

John D. Croft 03:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent major revision
Just wanted to point out that the major revision done yesterday was by me, "Tadorne". In the middle of working on the page my computer crashed, I returned to Wiki but forgot to sign in again before plugging in the changes. -- J. Sheldon 06:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed a paragraph

 * Inanna is the Great Goddess of Sumeria. She is the mightiest deity of the Sumerian pantheon, surpassing An the Sky God. She was called "Queen of Heaven and Earth", a title later given to various goddesses, including Mary. She was the all-powerful Goddess of Love, War, Sex, Beauty, Fertility, the Earth, and of Life.

The "mightiest" and "all-powerful" bits seem to contradict my Ancient Iraq book not to mention the rest of this article, and the rest of this is covered in more detail in the article already. ArgentTurquoise 02:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it depends on what time period you are referring too. In 3000 BCE (circa Warka Vase), she is definitely not the "mightiest" and "all-powerful." However, by 2000 BCE a fairly good argument could be made for her becoming the mightiest and all-powerful. See the epic poetry of Enheduanna. I am about to start work on my thesis on Inanna, so hopefully I will be able to contribute significantly in the future. A lot of what the thesis is on is the change in Inanna over that time period, and how she rose to the top of the gods and goddesses. - I probably didn't respond in the proper way to this post, forgive me, I'm still learning.

Inanna's descent to the underworld
I just wanted to notify people that I was responsible for the major rewrite of the section of the article about Inanna's descent to the underworld. Contact me if you have any concerns. --The Great Honker 22:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Revision of descent myth 8/4/06
I cleaned that myth up to fit with the version from the original text (http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/section1/tr141.htm) there is no reason to revert the whole thing to something that is not refrenced. I would like to be shown what is wrong with my version here on this page if it is so off. Thank you. User:Thegingerone

Response to Thegingerone's reverts, request for comments by other Wikipedians
My reference is the textbook cited in the following bibliography: Powell, Barry. Classical Myth: Fourth Edition. Upper Saddle River,NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003.

Your comment about cleaning up the myth to "fit with the original text" is problematic in that many mythological texts cannot be read in its original version without losing some of its quality and probable intent, especially with incomplete texts, such as this one. Also, reading the text in its original form would not only require a complete text, it would also need to be read in its original language by someone familiar with the language, grammar, and phrasing of the language the text was originally written in. Otherwise, denotation often takes precedence over connotation, and metaphors familiar to, say, Sumerians, seem confusing to us.

I would also like to politely add that your version is unclear in many sections as well as confusing. For instance:

"The Sumerian version (there was also a version written for Ishtar) starts off with no particular reason for Inanna 'The Goddess from the Great above' set her mind 'to the great below'. And with that she headed for her sister Ereškigal's or Ereckigala[6] kingdom in the Underworld. She abandoned all her offices of power and took her 7 divine powers."

-What is meant by "The Sumerian version... starts off with no particular reason for Inanna 'The Goddess from the Great above' set her mind 'to the great below'."? What does it mean for Inanna to "set her mind" to the "great below"? And what do you mean by "...starts off with no particular reason"?

-Because of the confusing statements I discussed in the above bullet, it is unclear why "...with that, she head for her sister Ereskigal's or Ereckigala kingdom in the Underworld." It should be made clear why Inanna is making her journey to the underworld, and the reason is not just because she "set her mind (to it)."

-You say "She abandoned all her offices of power and took her 7 divine powers." What were her seven divine powers? Is it necessary to include that?

-The entire section seems hurried, and the writing in itself is done in a "This happened, and then this happened, although some people say this happened, and then this happened" sort of pattern, which makes the text not read very well.

-Something else that contributed greatly to the confused, hurried, and jumbled feel to the writing were the frequent grammatical and spelling errors littered throughout, such as "gatekeepr," "seperatly," and others. Although it was easy to figure out the intention of the writing, it made me feel as if I was in an Internet chat room instead of reading an online encyclopedia.

Due to these reasons, I am reverting the text back to my version (while remembering to cite my source). I would greatly appreciate the comments of other Wikipedians who have compared our versions as well. --The Great Honker 06:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to The Great Honker's revision
We have to find some sort of comprimise because we cant just both 'switch' between our versions as we fancy (and it seems thats what you want to do.) For starters your source is faulty in relation to mythology. MANY and I mean MANY wonderful books are published for all sorts of mythologies but they are never fully true to the original texts. My version was my words of the original version from the Electronic Corpus. I felt it would be pointless to copy and paste that because its a hard to read (for people not familiar with Sumerian styling) and has little breaks. It also is just what it is; it assumes the person knows a few other things about these Gods then described.

Id like to respond to your quote: ''Your comment about cleaning up the myth to "fit with the original text" is problematic in that many mythological texts cannot be read in its original version without losing some of its quality and probable intent, especially with incomplete texts, such as this one. Also, reading the text in its original form would not only require a complete text, it would also need to be read in its original language by someone familiar with the language, grammar, and phrasing of the language the text was originally written in. Otherwise, denotation often takes precedence over connotation, and metaphors familiar to, say, Sumerians, seem confusing to us.''

I agree you cant read anything straight up which is why as I explained above I didnt copy and paste. I tried to interpet the best I could. Also this text is far from 'incomplete' originally...its one of the more well preserved stories though true it isnt all there. To get the full extent of it one would have to read most mythologies in relation to Inanna and Dumuzi and even his sister! We have to be able to choose what is good enough and basic enough to present here. I dont think the original texts need to be written after reading a full version of the Sumerian language text. It would help but it isnt taking much more away then any other mythology author (though a few do speak that language and I commend them for it.) Im cleaning my own version up now to try and explain some of the symbolosim but you cant say at every turn it should be explained. This is a simple Wikipedia article. And I would also like to point out your version doesnt explain ANY of the symboloisim (fertility and crops is the most popular one.) So to discount my version for that is pointless.

There are different versions of the myth floating around. I wondered if the bull line was just found because I have old printed off versions that did not include that line. A few other sources give Inanna's response at the first gate to just let her in or she'll break down the gate and the dead will outnumber the living. I included both of those in my first gate response. If you actually venture to read the text I linked (and even if you are able to speak Sumerian I dont know if you are or arent...either way both versions are there) it does start out just the way I said. However I will clean it up.

I dont think there's a need to explain the 7 divine powers because in any version of the text it is not explained what they are and that could mean anything from any of the mes and Ive seen some authors say that those powers were in relation to the items she took (possible but Im not sure thats how I feel...also there's technically 9 items listed.) Whatever they may be its pretty irrelavant to the story at hand or anything in relation to Inanna really.

I will clean up my spelling; cant really fix the grammar by myself. It was written when I found I disagreed with the version presented which honestly wasnt a time I intended to write out a mythology. I will try to clean up my style as well.

But I still feel my version is superior in ways that it goes by the original text, will (now) try to explain some of the symboloisim, and is much more complete. So thats why once finished Im reverting it.


 * EDIT** I should correct myself someone left some kind of a small explanation towards the end of the myth but they didnt clarify the vegetation thing (it was said but not explained.) Its cleaned up now...spelling and all!

user:Thegingerone

The Great Honker's Response to Thegingerone's Response to the Great Honker's Reverts of the Thegingerone's Reverts to the Great Honker's Text Concerning the Descent to the Underworld of Inanna
I agree that your new version is much better than your first, although there are probably a few minor things that I would like to fix that mostly concern phrasing, spelling, and punctuation; that is, grammar and connotation instead of denotation, which made up most of my earlier concerns (I can correct the aforementioned minor errors myself). Although I don't quite agree that your version is superior, I believe that it will do for now, especially as we don't want to attract the attention of any administrators by engaging in an edit war. --The Great Honker 20:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ginger's response to Honker's last response
Forgive me for my wording probably sounded snooty and I did not mean it that way. I guess what I meant was 'more accurate to the original' not necessarily better then yours in the 'Im better then you' way. Gotta quit getting on Wikipedia when I wake up LOL!

I understand :-). --The Great Honker 01:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyway that sounds fine; I welcome any helpful revisions to anywhere on this page and I hope we can make the Sumerian God pages excellent. -The Ginger One

Young Gods and Goddesses
I don't think it's appropriate to include Christ and Mary as a pair in the list of "The Inanna and Dumuzi story prefigures those of Cybele and Attis, of Aphrodite and Adonis, of Osiris and Isis, of Christ and Mary — all of them tales of a young god who dies, and a goddess who mourns him.", particularly because Mary was definitely not divine in the same sense as the other goddesses in the list. She is definitely considered a holy woman, and is revered in some Christian traditions, but she is not a goddess. Similarly, calling Christ a "young god" glosses over the complicated nature of the Holy Trinity (as seen by most modern Christians). I don't have a good way to reword the list without making it incredibly clumsy. Suggestions? UltraNurd 14:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with UltraNur that this should be changed, but rather for different reasons. Maybe I'm not reading it right, but it hardly seems like the Innana/Dumuzi myth fits in with the Dead God/Mourning Goddess theme. I highly doubt that Innana would mourn greatly when she was the one that consigned DUmuzi to the Underworld in the first place. Dead Horse 15:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts on it are that *technically* Christ and Mary do fit in the comparison because of the 'Dying God/Mourning Goddess' myth. *Technically* even if Mary isnt a 'Goddess' she is a holy person and the thoughts are the same. Also I dont agree with the 'glossing over' term. The myths of any of the above mentioned couples didnt go into great detail and comparisons and I dont think Mary and Jesus and the Trinity should be any different.

As for Dead Horses's comment thats a funny thing to mention. Towards the end of the myth Inanna is pretty pissed she doesnt ya know care what happened to Dumuzi. But in further myths (I think there's 4-5 other small ones off the top of my head...check the corpus) Geštianna's grief is shared by Inanna and Inanna does mourn Dumuzi. Honestly of the myths that have been found and interpetted the whole situation isnt settled (Does Inanna mourn or did she move on?) At least to my knowledge...[User:Thegingerone|The Ginger One]

My apologies. Perhaps that should be made more clear in the text, as my initial read through did not get me that impression.Dead Horse 06:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Third Opinion
Hi, I'm from Third Opinion, and this article was listed there some days ago. Has the argument cleared up or is my opinion still valueable? — [ Mac Davis ] (talk) ( Desk | Help me improve )

In my opinion we reached an agreement. What does everyone else think user:Thegingerone

Personally, I'm not familiar with the original text, so my opinion just doesn't count for much. I'd just ask for that the mourning aspect of Inanna to be mentioned a little more clearly. Dead Horse 02:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)