There are various other sources that nourish history, there are various different momenta. But the point is to determine the main source of the flow, and its strength in supporting and leading on the small rivers and lakes of other sources that, just on their own account, may not be of much consequence. However on meeting in the main channels and accumulated behind dams, they can be transformed into energy.

History is mostly being reduced to mean only as much as is supposed to serve to underline the assumption that the age of those who write it, is the decisive and crucial one. [...] Any understanding of history approved by the political authorities of a given regime is bound to be instrumentalised in legitimising the system as it is, even if it has the highest scientific ambitions. What they do is none other than the practice of Sumerian priests. The use of scientific information probably makes it even more dangerous. In our scientific era the embellishment, exaggeration and demeaning of information inflicts greater damage on society than the mythological and religious influences. If mythology and religion are an opiate, then manipulative academic studies are a dagger stabbed into the core of society. Whilst it may be comparatively easy to cure the numbing effect of opium it is much more difficult to heal the piercing and mortal effects of the dagger. The most fundamental reason for regimes based on modern science and technology reaching such enormous dimensions of exploitation and oppression, is closely connected to the methods in which science as been employed and practiced, and not to the undoubtedly barbaric methods of torture and the like that the regimes apply. The responsibility of science and its representatives for all the wars, including the two world wars, poverty, environmental pollution, gender inequality, the balance of nuclear horror, excessive population boom, technological madness and the like is not less than that of the politicians and military commanders, it is certainly more. The priests of science have succumbed to this state of affairs. To point a finger at Antiquity and the Middle Ages and immerse oneself in the clear waters of ‘scientific methods’ does not in reality lead to a catharsis of the present civilisation. This is not an exaggeration. All comparisons indicate that the twentieth century caused more destruction, torture, starvation and disease than all the preceding centuries combined. What this proves is that: if there is to be a genuine responsibility towards history and society, the fundamental paradigms of our era, their methodologies, outcomes and by-products, their scientific methods and especially their practices, should be radically revised. Unless this is done those responsible will not be cleared of the accusation that they have not caused any lesser harm than that caused by any caste of priests or magicians. 

What I’m trying to say is that behind every damaging and painful development there is a plan or programme designed on the desk of a scientist who has completely forgotten moral values, and who never questions whom and for what purpose he serves. What lies beneath this is a twisted understanding of history and society, flawed by a lack of proportion. The historical importance of basing a reconstruction of social development on Sumerian society and its emergence from Neolithic society may be better understood in the light of this criticism: As the history of civilisation begins with Sumerians, Sumerian civilisation in turn derives its sustenance from the agrarian-village revolution, the centre of which was located in the fertile environment of the land between the Tigris and the Euphrates. Since 10,000 BC this land has nourished all the civilisations that it created at the expense of its own fertility. She is the mother that gave birth to civilization. Here is the land and the people with which written history began, and where the dialectical principles of history can first be observed. I am not stating this out of sentimental or patriotic motives. I am doing this in order to satisfy the needs of the criticism I briefly stated, which is generally accepted in our modern era. I repeat the vital necessity for a correct beginning to the analysis of civilisation. It is a well-known fact that in order to describe a historical and social entity, we have to conceive its beginnings correctly. If history and society are not analysed correctly they will never be rescued from being a permanent source of danger and crisis. [...] Basing social projects and programmes on incorrect historical views and abstract schema has always produced bitter results in various types of social movements and state structures [...] In so far as the foundation is constructed incorrectly, and if relevant adjustments are not made when and where appropriate, collapse is inevitable. None of the preceding eras has experienced the truth of this rule as we have in the modern era.

There are various other sources that nourish history, there are various different momenta. But the point is to determine the main source of the flow, and its strength in supporting and leading on the small rivers and lakes of other sources that, just on their own account, may not be of much consequence. However on meeting in the main channels and accumulated behind dams, they can be transformed into energy. History also has the aspect of being a main stream. [...] The main river of the historical flow reached our modern era by being fed from numerous branches. It may have been temporarily suspended in whirlpools, or may have slowed down at times, but eventually it has grown bigger and faster. The fundamental duty of historians is to establish which societies contributed to the flow within the context of time and location. [...] Although it may be important to discuss whether development is a linear process or one in spiralling circles, this is of secondary importance to the method. [...] One of the other conclusions of my approach requires appreciation in direct proportion to its truthfulness and merits. Although history is a comprehensive whole, each element has its own place and value within it. The value of even the smallest society or ordinary individual cannot be denied. Just as history is reflected in society and society is reflected in history, so society manifests itself in the individual and the individual reflects itself in society. As an expression of the application of the dialectical method to history, the most fundamental conclusion that historical materialism will reach, lies within this formula.