ABSTRACT
Scholars who work in some of the disciplines which make up the field of Near Eastern studies are generally inclined to emphasize the distinctive nature of its various parts, rather than to discern and discuss the broad similarities which may link ideas across cultural boundaries. This is an admirable stance, especially as the disciplines emerge as independent subjects of study. Autonomy is not only an academic desideratum, but is seen as a cultural and historical virtue. But this tendency is paralleled by a similar tendency to isolationism between different disciplines which might benefit from cross-fertilization. Those who are afraid to make mistakes will usually contribute little to the sum of human knowledge. They will play safe, never stepping out of line from the current view, never challenging the paradigm. Many volumes are published each year in which all that has been achieved is a slight rearrangement of the pieces on the board. Consensus is the order of the day. Real contributions are commonly made by those who are prepared to take the risk, and not only to challenge the consensus and rattle the bars of the paradigm-cage, but also to speculate and ask new questions about an old problem, and even identify new ones. For we have come of age, as a new millennium dawns! There is no reason to fear the similar, or to argue that the barriers that have been halfconsciously erected must be manned at all costs, to preserve the integrity
of the disciplines. It is increasingly difficult to see them as anything more than conveniences, useful up to a point, but able to be called into question when larger patterns can be discerned. Patterns, and ‘patternism’, are the bane of some scholars. Certainly, if used in an uncritical way, glossing over significant differences, and over-emphasizing as fundamental those similarities which are to be judged rather as superficial, claims to see broader connections between apparently quite distinct phenomena are to be treated with the utmost caution. But caution is not to be confused with narrowmindedness.1 The fact remains that the human mind works by the detection in or imposition on all it experiences of patterns of recognition, seeking to incorporate the new and unknown into the framework of previous experience.2 In this paper I shall present a survey of comparative points generally conceded, or at least recognized as viable options among a range of possibilities, and assess the case for the recognition of specific events in prehistory as the cause of the composition of some of the most widespread mythic themes of Eurasia. I must first acknowledge that much of the ground-work has been done by others, and part of the exercise is drawing attention to work that may have escaped the attention of colleagues. But on top of the debt which will immediately be obvious to my readers, I believe that there is now reason to erect the superstructure which I shall propose, for which I do not claim all the credit. At least it should serve as a topic for further discussion.
