Talk:Inanna/Archive 2

Inanna and Ina-Ina Word Correspondence
It is possible that the Sumerian name Inanna is of Malayo-Polynesian origin. Malayo-Polynesian was the language spoken by an ancient seafaring people who sailed the Pacific and Indian oceans, and even settled the island of Madagascar near Africa. In some Malayo-Polynesian languages spoken in the Philippines, Indonesia, Madagascar, the word ina-ina, meaning "like a mother" or "foster mother"; and the word nana, meaning "aunt" or "lady," which are derived from the root word ina, meaning "mother," appear to have a word correspondence, both in sound and meaning, to the Sumerian name Inanna, who is sometimes described in Sumerian literature as a representative mother or wife. Another Malayo-Polynesian and Sumerian word correspondence is the Sumerian name Tiamat.


 * I suspect this is a coincidence. The Austronesian languages are said to come from Taiwan/China. ArgentTurquoise 02:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I would not discount this connection, if you look at Polynesian mythology, there are many connections to Ur. But in the reverse direction to the above writer. Polynesian prehistory goes back 16,000 years to Lai Lai (genetics say that they were near Taiwan 6,000 years ago, in S.E. asia 11,500 years ago (Melanesian Y chromozome of Polynesians)and through extrapolation - the Middle East 16,000 years ago. Lai Lai may well be Ninlil - the mother of many nations. Ina or Hina the moon goddess of Polynesian mythology is most certainly Inanna the moon goddess of Mesopotamian mythology. The way such cultural diffusion would have occurred would have been during periods of past globalization when sea trade between the ancient East Asian civilization (Jomon) and Persia would have been commonplace. Unfortunately mainstream academia fail to accept global sea trade prior to Columbus. Until this myth is busted there is no hope of getting to the truth obehind these ancient connections. Genetics does admit that humans did diffuse out from Africa via the Middle East as little as 50,000 years ago. They even admit there was a bottleneck where human population arose out of seven women (7 daughters of Eve) Ancient Mythology of the Gwion Gwion (Kimberlies have paintings 20,000 year old depicting the dance of the 9 maidens - maybe two lineages are already lost. The Indonesians have a similar legend of 9 mothers of 9 nations coming from the south (Australia), suggesting that Australia was also an interim crucible of civilization between 40,000 and 20,000 years ago (the Uru civilization - possibly from where Lord Anu (in Hebrew texts) came from). Changing sea levels have all but obliterated any evidence of these previous rises in humanity. There have been many beginnings, let us not ignore the fact that these ancient people were thinking feeling human biengs capable of cognitive thinking just like you and me. Ships were not a difficult invention. Megalithic monuments around the world prove that these people had a deep understanding of the stars and were capable of trans oceanic celestial navigation. Peter Marsh www.polynesian-prehistory.com 58.169.182.62 (talk) 10:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Nanna (Suen) and Ninlil
Re statement that the Inanna and Dumuzi story "prefigures" ...."Nanna (Suen) and Ninlil" story: Is this correct? They are both Sumerian, so could Nanna (Suen) and Ninlil reference be moved next to the Inanna and Dumuzi one. Text edited to correct this. 8 July 2007

Enheduanna
The preistess Enheduanna has alot of hymns and history concerning Inanna, could we make her a section maybe? Xuchilbara 16:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the inclusion of her name would be relevant, but you must make sure to note that she was Akkadian, and was thus influenced in her impression of Inanna by the traits of Ishtar. NJMauthor (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Holy Virgin?
You call Inanna a "Holy Virgin," but her temples were of the first to practice prostitution as a magickal act of fertility. You even say, in your second paragraph that she was of the habit of "dragging young men out of the taverns to have sex with her." This is not the act of a Virgin; it is the act of a Whore. If you're going to use the word "virgin" you're going to have to take it out of its moedern context and explain that you mean she never married, not that she never had sex. If you don't, you compare her to the Virgin Mary, but they're nothing alike.

Marian cults are descended from fertility cults of the Near East and Egypt.


 * Agree. And following this theme .... the current text, describing Inanna as 'swaggering' and 'dragging men out of the taverns' reads more like a fantasy projection, using emotive language which gives an incorrect impression. If you read the footnote, the text quoted does not have the implications of lasciviousness and indignity. I think this piece should come out, or be completely re-worded, as it overlays something which I don't read in the original. And as you have pointed out, there are historical-cultural nuances in the words which are quite ignored by whoever posted the sentence.79.79.165.55 (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Review and revision re. modern cultural bias
The article mingles facts pertaining to a historic Sumerian deity from a culture that precedes our by 4,500 years, with interpretations based in modern mystical and feminist concepts. Both are obviously interesting topics; both will benefit from keeping them clearly separated here, making the intersection explicit, and keeping this well sourced. I'll start revising in this sense. Enki H. (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A call for critical review of ...
the following books... --124.78.214.145 (talk) 07:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_adv_b/?search-alias=stripbooks&unfiltered=1&field-keywords=&field-author=&field-title=Inanna&field-isbn=&field-publisher=&node=&url=&field-feature_browse-bin=&field-binding_browse-bin=&field-subject=&field-language=&field-dateop=&field-datemod=&field-dateyear=&sort=relevancerank&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.x=24&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.y=13

^^^^^ FYI
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+Inanna&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--124.78.214.145 (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Demeter and Persiphone
I notice the similarity between Inanna's descent to the underworld and the Greek myth about Demeter and Persiphone. I believe someone told me that this myth was the origin for the Greek one. If anybody knows of any source for this, it should probably be added to the article. And in case that can't be done, perhaps a note about the similarity and a link should be added. Hattmannen (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not that similar -- Persephone was powerless and abducted, Inanna went of her own will... AnonMoos (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Inanna as the star, Venus
I propose merging the content from Quotes supporting Inanna as planet Venus to section Inanna as the star, Venus. I would not oppose deletion of Quotes supporting Inanna as planet Venus if it is shown to be of no use to us. —  Jeff G. ツ (talk)   02:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

untitled section
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Goddess vectrot6@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.11.180 (talk) 06:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for removal of suggestion that "Ishtar" be merged into this article
I removed a suggestion that the article for Ishtar should be merged into this article. The following are my reasons for doing so:

1. Although Inanna and Ishtar are similar and related, they are still separate deities worshipped by people of different cultures. Inanna was worshipped by the Sumerians, whereas Ishtar was worshipped by the Babylonians. Merging the two articles together would be like merging the article for Venus (mythology) into the article for Aphrodite. It would be entirely counterproductive.

2. Although Inanna and Ishtar had similar myths and were often worshipped in similar ways, there were still major differences between the two cults. Merging the two articles together would undoubtedly give the readers the impression that the two goddesses were, in essence, fundamentally identical, which is not true.

3. Both articles are already fairly long. Merging Ishtar into Inanna would almost inevitably result in one of two loathsome probable outcomes. The first probable outcome is that we would end up producing an article that is so hopelessly long that it would no longer be readable. The second probable outcome is that we would end up deleting enormous quantities of valuable and insightful information. Both of these outcomes can be easily averted by simply refraining from joining the two articles together to begin with.

In summation, merging Ishtar into Inanna would be exceedingly foolish and counterproductive. The two articles should remain separate. Katolophyromai (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * At one point, there wasn't much distinctive content between the two articles, giving rise to the suggestion of a merge, but that's not the case now... AnonMoos (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I knew that the articles would end up being very different from each other once someone did some research and worked on them a little. At the time I wrote this I had no idea that I would be the one to do that, but I did know that there were enough distinctions between Inanna and Ishtar that, once the articles were expanded, they would begin to resemble each other less and less. There are definite similarities and Inanna influenced Ishtar very heavily, but they were separate in origin and remained somewhat separated for many centuries, even after being heavily syncretized with each other during the Sargonic and post-Sargonic periods. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Minor point - 'Ishtar' as a name is of Akkadian origin, not babylonian. So you should really be talking about Akkadian v Sumerian rather than Babylonian v Sumerian, which is generally anachronistic. VeritasVox (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I wrote this nearly two years ago when my knowledge of ancient Mesopotamian religion was considerably less than what it is now. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Okie doke. VeritasVox (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)