pfw
interested
The Sumerians predate Ancient Egypt by quite a bit,invented writing, accounting (bad, bad people), were the first to combine farming with permanat settlements, invented irrigation and cities... (ok, the Indus Vally may have beaten them to that but the evidence I've seen isn't amazingly convincing). And to top it all off they did all this slowly by trial and error with no suddden, hard to explain, explosion of technology...What I'd like to know is why do they so often get ignored in discusions about were/why the (for example) Egyptions suddenly got all their writing and building skills from- when Egypt suddenly learnt to write and build- the building technique was remarkably similar to the Sumerian technique and architecture. The written language is extreamly similar to the Sumerian when you take into account the different mediums used...Why go for a long, convoluted route via ice ages, lost civilisations somehow retaining (but not using ????) their skills etc? Surely Sumeria, via trade, invasion or whatever other means, is a much neater, believable and realistic proposition? (David Rohl's 'LEGEND' suggests this very point but it seems to get lost in this clamour to 'prove' Atlantis or whatever...)Just wondering...