Talk:Sumer/Archive 1

message: I'd appreciate not being described as "mangling" anything (JDG). Domestication of animals and crops almost certainly predates the Sumerians (Emmer wheat ca. 7800 BCE, einkorn wheat ca. 6500 BCE). As for writing -- yes, at the moment it appears that cuneiform predates hieroglyphics, but that's by no means hard and fast. +/- 50 years is hard to justify at dates of 5000 years ago.
--Danno 05:03, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Danno, I guess that was a bit harsh. But you might think about giving at least a tiny indication of why you've blown something away... About these questions, I read a very recent article by one of the leading people in the field. She traces the wheat mutation to a region of modern Armenia and believes that a number of different pre-Sumerian cultures harvested the mutant strain where it grew. A few may have carried seeds to other areas, but it was on a very small scale and sporadic. She asserts that true cultivation and selective germination began with the Sumerians. So most of this depends on your definition of 'domestication'. For me, it has to be systematic and it has to include conscious selection of traits... The 50 years thing is there because Egypt specialists say they have nailed the advent of hieroglyphics to a very narrow period, and the earliest iron-clad dating of cuneiform is also pegged with a claim of high accuracy to half a century earlier. Note the paragraph says "at least 50 years". If we relax our standard of proof just a smidgeon, the most likely lead time would be 125 years. JDG 00:03, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Domestication, Writing

message: I think it's taking it a little too far to say that all Sumerians shared a gloomy world view.  After all, the only Sumerians whose thoughts and emotions we can know were the ones who expressed themselves in cuneiform.
Therefore, it makes more sense to say that Sumerian SCRIBES had the morose perspective... a condition often shared by pundits and commentators throughout the ages, down to our own time.
----
Rather an elegant observation!  And doubtless with some truth in it.
But I think we ought to consider that literature was largely oral in early civilizations.  It's likely that the Epic of Gilgamesh, which is about as gloomy as a modern existentialist philosopher, was not a library piece for the educated few, but was probably written down only after generations of oral recitations, like the Homeric epics.  Great swathes of ordinary people must have been familiar with it, and something in its basic philosophy must have been congenial to them.  
So, although generalizations are hazardous and generalizations about whole civilizations exceptionally so, I think it's fair to suggest that the Sumerians were collectively a little more toward the depressive end of the mood spectrum.  Or the realistic one, depending on how you look at it.
(BTW, shouldn't something be said about Sumerian mathematics and astronomy, especially the 360 degree circle?  This article more or less summarizes what I've read elsewhere:  360 degree circle). RivGuySC 00:57, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Gloomy Worldview

message: FWIW, I'm moving here the following request, which an anonymous user had placed into the article:
:Hi, I was just looking on the site and somehow I was able to edit this. I was wondering if you could add anything about scribe schools, and maybe the way they were built? -- by User:68.80.137.244 (Talk)
--Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scribe schools 

message: The biblical Shinar means Babylonia as a whole, not just Sumer, which is Southern Babylonia.  The Tower of Babel (identified with the Etemenanki ziggurat in Babylon), for example, is placed in Shinar, and the city of Babylon is in Northern Babylonia (the region of Akkad).--Rob117 19:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shinar 

message: »The Sumerians practiced the same irrigation techniques as those used in Egypt.[29] American anthropologist Robert McCormick Adams says that irrigation development was associated with urbanization,[30] and that 89% of the population lived in the cities.« 
I find it hard to believe that 89% of Sumer's population lived in cites. This source suggests that at least half of the population of early Middle-Eastern civilizations lived in the countryside.
Joeldaalv (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that it's true for early Middle-Eastern civilizations overall that half lived in the countryside.  But I also would say Sumer was a major exception, being an early urbanised area. That's just the way I read it to fit all the sources. Cheers Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sumerian civilisation is associated with the disappearance of rural villages that were common during the Ubaid period, and the movement of populations into walled towns and cities.  This is associated with evidence of increased violence, and possibly the beginning of professional soldiers with the beginning of the Uruk period.  Uruk grew to a city of 50,000 people, the biggest in the world at that time, and had cultural if not political hegemony over the whole of Mesopotamia, creating what some have called the first "World System" (See World-systems theory.  It was not by accident that Inanna, the titulary goddess of Uruk, numbered amongst her attributes the Goddess of War.  It is possible that war, as we understand it, began in pre-Dynastic Uruk. John D. Croft (talk) 06:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Level of urbanization? 

message: I have edited "The Sumerian language is generally regarded as a language isolate in linguistics because it belongs to no known language family;" to "Some regards Sumerian as a language isolate in linguistics because they believe it belongs to no known language family." I did that because it is the case. 
I have deleted "Akkadian belongs to the Afro-Asiatic languages." because it is irrelevant where Akkadian belongs to.This is a Sumerian page.
I have deleted "There have been many failed attempts to connect Sumerian to other language groups." because it is irrelevant. Who cares about failed attempts?
I have added info and reference about the relation of Sumerian lang. (Magi)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.122.121 (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Akkadians were well mixed in with the Sumerian population, and private and off-hand remarks do not constitute a scientific basis for making Sumerian a Uralic language. Sumerophile (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is a private remark about a presentation on the opening session of a world congress? Regarding the private letter of Deimel to Badiny it is still an expert opinion published in a book. As it is both are within Wikipedia guidelines. Please reinstall my edits.(Magi)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.95.112.161 (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

text: That would be, quite frankly, "crazy" - you are attempting to utilize fringe-element theories into hard scholarship that has been going on for centuries.  Akkadian, while a Semitic language, incorporated the odd Sumerian here and there.  The point being, Sumerian to this day has not been identified positively with any other known language group, and certainly is not based in any Semitic language.   These nationalists trying to claim Sumerians as Latvians or Magyars or ______ whatever are doing a disservice to serious scholarship. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sumerian is well documented as having many words that are ancestral to all modern European languages. It is clearly an early cousin and close cousin, to the original Indo European Language that spread across the Eurasian continents. It may even be directly ancestral to many Southern European and Indo Languages. It was a superstrate language in Sumeria and was imported most likely from Anatolia along with the dominant technology that came with it. The Sumerians dominated the indigenous Akkadian and Elamite inhabitants for several centuries before they simply merged with them and Akkadian become dominant as was natural due to their larger numbers. The Hittites(Katti), an IndoEuropean people, have art religion and culture that are closely related to Sumerian.--94.31.12.66 (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If it were "well documented" as you say, that Sumerian is related in the same language family with Indo-European, etc, I'd think that would already be in the article ..  So where exactly is all this stuff "well documented" then?  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Holy cow, Batman!  You've established all this as fact in the face of the mainstream scientific opinon, have you?  Wow.  On the other hand, set aside the dogma and delve into the solid scholarly tomes, and spend less time on the 'net looking at lunatic-fringe theorists.  HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language and writing 

message: Surely there's something wrong or missing here?  Who can resolve the beginning of either of these to within seventy-five years?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.39.33.125 (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "cuneiform ... pre-dating Egyptian hieroglyphics by at least seventy-five years" 

message: I have recently created the Sumerian city articles Kuara, Kisurra, Dilbat, and Marad and moved all coordinates to their appropriate pages. Therefore I have removed the unneeded coordinates for the cities in this Sumer article. I have created a list that looks better, but may need to be modified, as I do not know how to create a two-column list to discern Major cities and Minor cities. Thank you. -Kain Nihil 13:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I would propose moving Awan and Hamazi to the "major column", since at one time these were independent city-state kingdoms with dynasties of their own, while Borsippa perhaps ought to be "minor" for the same reason... Til Eulenspiegel 13:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually looking over the list, a few others on the "minor list" were once proper city-states, while a few on the "major" list weren't, like Girsu. Surely Umma was quite powerful at one time to be "major".  Really I would like to see a listing of all the city states that were ever sovereign, followed by the ones that never were. Til Eulenspiegel 13:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sumer City List 

message: Can anybody extend the caption of the gold statuette with a reference to where it can be found? Baghdad? Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.194.186.2 (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture 

message: What was the size of the Sumerian city population ?
--Blain Toddi (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: City populations are variously estimated by the size of the city and the density of houses per hectare.  Uruk is believed to have maintained a population of 50,000 for a long period, making it the biggest in the world at that time.  Mesopotamian cities were generally larger than those elsewhere. If you are interested I'll send you the spreadsheet on city size.  John D. Croft (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  City Population 

message: Til Eulenspiegel brings up an interesting point, for which I don't have the answer and would like to ask about here: did Lugal-Ane-mundu of Adab precede Eannatum of Lagash? From what I know of the king list and archaeological date ranges, I can't tell. And also did LAM's conquests extend beyond Sumer and become an empire? Sumerophile (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I know, Eannatum reigned just before Lugal-Ane-Mundu. Lugal-Anne-Munda (c.2400-2310) conqueror of Adab while Eannatum reigned (2455-2425).  I have computerised the Sumerian kinglist as a spreadsheet I can send to you if you want it.  My email is jdcroft@yahoo.com.  John D. Croft (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lugal-Ane-mundu and Eannatum - First Empire? 

message: It is well known that the Sumerian pantheon, mythology and culture was in many ways adopted by Sumer's predecessors and neighbors. However, retroactively labeling sources from the above cultures as "Sumerian" is simply falsehood.
:We have no idea of the religion of Sumer's predecessors.  Most early Gods have good Sumerian names, although Inanna, the Sumerian goddess par excellence has a non-Sumerian name, possibly related to Hurrian Hannahannah. It may have come from Hurro-Urartuan speaking Subartu, who may have been the original farmers of the region.  John D. Croft (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Passing off [[Akkadian]], [[Babylonian]], [[Hurrian]], [[Elamite]], [[Assyrian]] sources as Sumerian sources

message: Is there a reason for the cities to be listed from North to South?
The progression of settlement and culture in Sumer was broadly from South to North. If there are no objections, I'd like to reverse the order of the cities. Sumerophile (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A good idea.  Feel free.  John D. Croft (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sumerian cities 

message: I have corrected the contradictory origins of the word KI.EN.GIR.  John D. Croft (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradictory derivations of KI.EN.GIR

message: John, why are you changing the reference to Shinar to make it sound factual? 
NJMauthor (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Shinar

message: The statement, "land of the Sumerian tongue"[2][3] possibly Biblical Shinar), located in southern Mesopotamia, is the earliest known civilization in the world" cites Sumer as the oldest civilisation in the world. However there are earlier known civilisations like the Indus Valley Civilisation (pls read Mehrgarh) whose cities predate those of the Sumerian Civilisation. Eridu, which dates to 5400BC is considered one of the oldest cities of Sumerian Culture. However, Mehrgarh existed around 7000BC, which is about 1500 years earlier. Mehrgarh not only had proper townplanning and roads, but also one of the oldest granaries ever discovered. Perhaps you should change Sumer to "One of the earliest known civilisations in the world".
Ambar wiki (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that timestamps had not yet been implemented in the 6th millennium BC - so there is room for disagreement among scholarly sources on questions like "who was there first". I agree that "one of the earliest" is safer for NPOV though. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sumer may not be the oldest Civilization 

message: Why does the image "Geneology of Later Mesopotamian Gods" belong in this article? This is an article about Sumer, not Babylon or Assur. NJMauthor (talk) 04:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As the author of the graphic, it contains all the names in Sumerian of the Sumerian divinities, as well as their Akkadian names and functions. John D. Croft (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Later Mesopotamian Gods 

message: I know this has been discussed at length, but an anonymous editor is repeatedly altering the intro to state that Sumerians are not "among the earliest", but undisputedly "THE earliest" civilization.  The only problem is, that POV is not undisputed.  In fact, it is hotly disputed.  Therefore we have to adopt the more neutral language explaining that it is "among" the earliest, which no one should seriously disagree with, since this wording does not specify if it is the strictly earliest to "qualify" or not, which is unknown.  I suggest reading the article "civilization"; a major requirement for it, similar for the requirement for "history" as opposed to "prehistory", is the development of writing and records.  We have to be consistent with our other articles stating the accepted view that the Sumerians and Egyptians (and perhaps others) developed writing roughly within a few hundred years of 3500; therefore this is the final requirement for "civilization", and the edits stating that they were the first "civilization" in 7000 BC or 5000 BC (when there are no written records) is inconsistent with the definition of civilization as including literacy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The anon is clearly not interested in taking part in discussion or in responding to my above paragraph; but rather, despite having been blocked once already, he continues to edit war his substandard version relentlessly, at first commenting with half-baked racial insults blindly directed at me, and now with no kind of explanation whatsoever.  There is no chance this juvenile behavior will be tolerated here; any changes to the status quo of the lead information will need to be accompanied with at least some discussion or explanation at a minimum, if they are to be longstanding ones. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Earliest known civilization" POV yet again 

message: Could not find this via search.  Thinking that this would be a huge add on for Ancient Astronomy and the Cuneiform script or under Sumer page.  The meteor clipped a mountain!    Thanks, Marasama (talk) 05:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: highly dubious. A 7th century BC document giving details of a 32nd century BC(!) event? Academic reviews are needed. dab (𒁳) 10:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Sumerian Observation of the Köfels' Impact Event 

message: Subsequent to my previous comment, I made the following deletions: 1) The paragraph beginning, "Alternatively, the Sumerians may have been ..." under the section "Population". 2) The link to "Marsh Arabs" under "See Also".  3) The link "<I>[http://www.laputanlogic.com/articles/2004/01/24-0001.html Living Sumerians , the marsh arabs in southern Iraq</I>" under the section "External Links - Language".  Dram Attruth (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  February 2009 Edits 

message: According to Babylonian historian Berossus, the Sumerians were "black-faced foreigners".[ref] http://books.google.com/books?id=dmLgeHTmp7cC&pg=PP1&dq=Berosus,+black-faced+foreigners#PPA242,M1 Man, God and Civilization
Is there any source for this besides John G. Jackson, who is a non-neutral Afrocentrist.[ref] http://africawithin.com/jgjackson/jgjackson.htm There seems to be no source for or information regarding this quote on the Internet. The given source itself says only that <I>"They are described in the Assyrio-Babylonian inscriptions as a black faced people[...]."</I> It makes no reference to Berossus or gives an example of any of these claimed descriptions.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Berossus+Sumer+%22black-faced+foreigners%22
Searching for this on Google gets only 427 total hits, most mirrors or quotes from Wikipedia. On the third page, Google displays "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 27 already displayed." "Berosus" with one "s" gets only two hits. I can find no sources for this quote and if anyone can find them, please post them.  I have removed the quote since the book does not use those exact words or give an Assyro-Babylonian inscription that says this. 67.39.203.9 (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Black-faced foreigners" 

message: "Sumar" IS a valid alternate spelling, and I made the original edit in good faith in an effort to improve the page.  It is true that Sumer is the most common spelling, however "Sumar" has been gaining increasing acceptance among scholars as far back as 1987.  I can only assume that Til is from the old school.  In an effort to keep Wikipedia up to date, I have changed the article back to Sumar and also added a valid reference which clearly uses the alternate spelling of "Sumar."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraftwrk5 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have yet to see that spelling ANYWHERE, let alone a reputable scholarly source.  What the ...HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: comment

message: I realise I have some responsibility to explain my recent changes.
The hatnote I believe ought to be non-controversial, it follows from changing Sumeria to a redirect to this article.
I do not believe that this article is unduly short, it is already fairly lengthy, although possibly some parts could do with improvement.  I also made some basic copyedits. PatGallacher (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that we are now discussing at Talk:Sumeria whether that page ought to be a disambig or a redirect.  Third opinions welcome. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: I am removing the following sentence from the opening: "particularly along the waterway now known as the Shatt al-Arab, from its Persian Gulf delta to the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates." First of all, all the maps in the article clearly show that there were no cities along Shatt al-Arab. And as I remember(and what is supported by one of the maps), it is because this river didn't exist back then, Persian Gulf was in its place coming deeper into land. RlyechDweller (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shatt al-Arab 

message: What is the correct English pronounciation of the word 'Sumer'.   Exactly the same as the season , summer ?   Or different ?Eregli bob (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I always assumed it was /SOO-mer/. I think it comes from an earlier pronunciation /SHOO-mer/ in Assyrian.  What does answers.com say?  The Egyptian form was probably pronounced like /SAHNG-ar/. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronounciation 

message: The Neolithic Ubaid period should of course be mentioned as the predecessor culture, but the history of Sumer is not usually taken to include it. There was a cultural break between the Ubaid and the Uruk periods, and "Sumer" usually covers the Uruk period plus the dynastic period of the 3rd millennium. --dab (𒁳) 07:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ubaid period

message: Under religion there is the line "Sumerians believed that the universe consisted of a flat disk enclosed by a tin dome."  If they were in the chalcolithic stage then they likely did not yet use tin. Perhaps this is a typo and the word "thin" is intended.  If so then this begs the question "Why thin?"  Was there some other space (Heaven?) outside this dome. Some elaboration would be helpful
Alexselkirk1704 (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Tin?

message: How do people know the Ubaidans did not speak Sumerian? As they did not write I find this claim highly suspect. Further, the Britannica article does not cite the source; it only quotes two books as contributing to the article, and I suspect the authors of the article and/or the books have an agenda. Britannica, or so I've heard, is extremely biased.
As there can be no DEFINITIVE proof of the language of ANY pre-historical people, I'm removing all references to the language(s) of pre-Sumerians. You cannot deny that I am correct and that the Ubaid language portions are highly speculative. If you do then you are BIASED.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.56.129 (talk) 06:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee, if I say you are wrong, no matter what evidence I have, I must be biased? Although I don't like using encyclopedias as sources, it is considered a reliable source by editors here. I've replaced what you deleted but provided a different source. If you don't like that one, complain at WP:RSN, don't keep deleting material you don't like. Dougweller (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Britannica's claim smells extremely fishy to me, too.  For any subset of scholars to proclaim to have inferred some knowledge from such barest threads, about what language was like in prehistoric times before written records existed, just smacks of the extreme of scholarly hubris and recklessness.  The Ubaids very well could have spoken Sumerian or anything for all we know. 
The origin of Sumerian language is a contentious topic with multiple scholarly opinions, not one about which there has ever been any kind of unanimity, so all povs in the article should be rewritten in "attrib style", not "endorsement style". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that there are two issues here, not one. The origin of the Sumerian language is one issue, the language spoken by their predecessors another. They may be related of course, but they aren't necessarily the same issue. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Acient Mesopotamia: new perspectives By Jane McIntosh: "Southern Substrate. A handful of words with no affinity to any known language occur in Sumerian texts. These include the names of some plants, animals, and natural features, and a few other words, including some associated with date cultivation. It is thought that these words belong to a substrate language spoken by the indigenous pre-Sumerian inhabitants of southern Mesopotamia." Is it really controversial to say that the pre-Sumerian inhabitants didn't speak Sumerian? If it is, then we need a reliable source saying it is. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Dougweller.  Your post is widely discussed amongst Sumerophiles and there are contradictory theories held there.  Many believe that in addition to plants and rivers, the names of both the Tigris and Euphrates are of non Sumerian origin, as was the name of Inanna and many agricultural and artisanal crafts (eg Tibir = metal-worker/smith).  These have been equated with the proto-Euphratean or proto-Tigrean, although others claim these categories do not exist.  Certainly the Sumerians speak of three groups co-existing in Southern Iraq, themselves, the nomadic Martu, and the mountain dwelling Subartu.  Some have seen these as coming from an early Hurro-Urartuan language which makes sense if we think as some do that Hurro-Urartuan languages come from the first farmers in the region and spread down in the Zagros foothills.  Sumerian language at the same time is sometimes claimed to be the indigenous language of fisher-hunter people with farming introduced as an ad-stratum.  Certainly, the indigenous culture of hunter-gatherers in the area belonged to the Arabian bifacial tool culture, and had links all around the eastern Arabian shore of the Persian gulf as far as Oman.  Sumerians themselves claimed to have come from Dilmun which is equated with Bahrein (although Rohl attempts to identify it with Armenia and Ararat). John D. Croft (talk) 08:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do they know? 

message: dispute of claim that swastika is a reconstruction (citation 10) - "Stanley A. Freed, Research Pitfalls as a Result of the Restoration of Museum Specimens, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Volume 376, The Research Potential of Anthropological Museum Collections pages 229–245, December 1981." This implies the swastika was painted on to the bowl by someone at the Pergamon Museum, which I'd be very surprised at.
dicussion on this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Samarra#swastika_on_Samarra_bowlQuaeroveritatem (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  swastika on Samarra bowl discussion 

message: Please rename the article as "Sumer Civilization".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.91.95.242 (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Why - for what purpose?  Fine like it is, I says! HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Civilization" word needed as the article title  

message: Kurd Sumerians?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orjins (talk • contribs) 07:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly. The Sumerians weren't Kurds, far too early. Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Kurdish Sumer

message: Usually we put the foreign-language text directly in the lead sentence instead of in a footnote. Here, I'm ok with not doing that if we can't just go (Sumerian: X; Akkadian: Y) but have to give a complicated gloss of the names. BUT: We shouldn't just repeat the exact same topic in an out-of-the-way footnote and a #Name section. The footnote should be removed from the lead altogether and the native names just merged into the #Name section. — LlywelynII 16:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. The Name/Origin of name/Etymology section should contain what's now in that footnote and the Sumerian/Akkadian names can be added to the lead without further explanation.--Zoeperkoe (talk) 07:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead section note

message: This page says: The end of the Uruk period coincided with the Piora oscillation, a dry period from c. 3200 – 2900 BC that marked the end of a long wetter, warmer climate period from about 9,000 to 5,000 years ago, called the Holocene climatic optimum.
But the Wikipedia page titled Piora oscillation says: The Piora Oscillation was an abrupt cold and wet period in the climate history of the Holocene Epoch; it is generally dated to the period of c. 3200 to 2900 BCE.
Which is it? WET or DRY? 
I don't have access to the book cited on this page, so I can't check it, but either the cite is off, or perhaps the info on the Piora oscillation page is newer, because WET makes more sense with other happenings of the time.
Hawa-Ave (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I might see if I can find it and check it, but in the meantime I wouldn't really trust the page on Sumer, it's sort of quite a mess... --Zoeperkoe (talk) 07:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Holocene Climatic Optimum was wet and warm.  The Piora Oscillation was colder and drier.  Hope this helps. John D. Croft (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piora oscillation - conflict with another Wikipedia page 

message: Could someone give us the citation for this.  Sargon of Akkad existed long before the hegemony of Babylon. I have also added references and removed the unreferenced section comment from 2012.  John D. Croft (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Sargon Transferring Hegemony to Babylon

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Sumer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://jwsr.ucr.edu/archive/vol10/number3/pdf/jwsr-v10n3-thompson.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There exists also other theories about their origin. There have been made studies on connecting the Tamil language to the Sumerian language, hypothesizing that the Sumerians were a Proto-Dravidian civilization.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Muvendar (talk • contribs) 
: This is a fringe theory. The sources you cite aren't modern research-based reliable sources. The century old PTS Iyengar book is obsolete. Catherine Acholonu's Afrocentric theories (Atlantis, magical Homo erectus etc.) are considered pseudo-history by mainstream historians. Same goes for Snethil Kumar - no decent historian believes that Tamil was spoken in 7000 BCE. The Austroid Origins of Ancient Sumer is self-published. utcursch | talk 22:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible theory about their origin 

message: the article as is now says that "sumer was the language of dolphins and fishermen". Seriously? Either "dolphins" here is a special archealogical term that non-specialists like me have never heard of and it refers to a tribe of humans, or that sentence really really needs to be expanded upon...88.195.243.29 (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  lanugage of dolphins 

message: Please see  Talk:Ancient_Mesopotamian_religion#Abrahamic_religion_and_mesopotamian_sexuality_morality Jytdog (talk) 05:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits re sexuality morality etc 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sumer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120821025411/http://members.optusnet.com.au/~gtosiris/page11-4.html to http://members.optusnet.com.au/~gtosiris/page11-4.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Sumer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140109135715/http://www.theeffect.org/resources/articles/pdfsetc/Eden.pdf to http://www.theeffect.org/resources/articles/pdfsetc/Eden.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222171110/http://journal.qu.edu.az/article_pdf/1035_402.pdf to http://journal.qu.edu.az/article_pdf/1035_402.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The subject page links "Arabian bifacial culture" to Ubaid_period. Is this supposed to mean that the Ubaid period is rated as a bifacial culture? Even the only one?  Tomdo08 (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the link. Note:Ubaid_period is already linked elsewhere in the text. Tomdo08 (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious: Arabian bifacial culture = Ubaid period 

message: The first three paragraphs of the Language and Writing section are completely uncited with bold claims. The second sentience outright claims that Sumerian is proven to not be the first writing system, but has no citation. Without any cites, half this section sounds an awful lot like self research.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.154.240.195 (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited Language and Writing Section 

message: This section presently consists of a fairly detailed description of a 1931 paper discussing an anthropological expedition to Sumer. In its present state, there are a few problems with it:
* as a previous editor noted in their edit summary, the conceptual framework used in the investigation is by now widely considered discredited by anthropologists
* the text does not present the expedition as being of primarily historical interest
* the length and detail of the text gives undue prominence to the work, given the above issues
The text could possibly be moved to a new section on the history of the study of Sumer, or incorporated into an article like the History of anthropometry, but I don't think it's justified here. Unless a good argument can be provided for keeping it, beyond the fact that the cited paper exists, I will remove it again shortly. LetsEditConstructively (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already removed the section in question. It really was problematic! I did not know that section was there, but it should never have been added to begin with. No respected anthropologist today still seriously classifies people as members of the "Mediterranean race." —Katolophyromai (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

text: It's OK to remove that section. Outdated racial stuff/concepts and pseudo-scientific content only cause future problematic edits and disruption. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , thank you for your notification of this discussion, however another user without waiting already acted without waiting me to participate. Simply reducing the topic to possible North African (an ammunition to Afro-centrists) and Indian (?) is weird. Your I don't agree with your second point, yes, the debate over the racial origin if the Sumerians are a primary historical interest, regardless being controversial; as well disagree with your third point, beucase it is not lenghty, but a perfect short, relevant summarization. I don't know on which ground judged Wario-Man that content "pseudo-scientific", however at least the information should be presented as one point of the research history, as the Mediterranean possibility is significantly appears in all related works.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phenotype 

message: In the last paragraph of the "Origins" section the link the Wikipedia article "First City" gets redirected to a regiment of the South African Army. That reference should probably be removed or changed to link to the "Oldest City" article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:22DB:5900:DCAA:77D3:6980:E604 (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad link 

message: Please read this:
https://www.atlantisfound.it/2021/01/23/sumerians-derive-from-atlanteans/
Best regards  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.171.209.160 (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New hypothesis: Sumerian called black-headed because they escaped from Atlantis - please read first 

message: The dates within the article should be changed from BC->BCE and AD->CE to reflect neutral academic terminology of the Common Era that does not carry with it any religious or ethnocentric bias. 
As this article has nothing to do with Christianity or Christian-influenced Western culture, there is no reason for the date notion to ve based around the birth of Christ (BC meaning Before Christ and AD Anno Domini, Latin for "in the year of our Lord."). Also because this article is related to the Sumerian religion, I believe it is extra important for there to be religious objectivity, making Before the Common Era/Common Era the appropriate choice. 
According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, chronological notation can be changed when it makes sense for the article. While it gives specific examples of when to use to Julian or Gregorian calendar, early societies in the Near East are not explicitly stated."For dates in early Egyptian and Mesopotamian history, Julian or Gregorian equivalents are often uncertain. Follow the consensus of reliable sources, or indicate their divergence." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Julian_and_Gregorian_calendars  Using BCE/CE also follows the standards set by the majority of leading manuals of style including those for Encyclopædia Britannica, American National Biography, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, MLA, Chicago Manual of Style, AP Stylebook, and more.
My previous edits reflect this change in date format in the articles, though a few of the file names were messed up due to the change so those should be addressed.
016bells (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year Notion to Common Era 

message: 92.41.65.227 (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2021 

message: they are Vermindern (talk) 07:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  how is sumer 

message: I would like to add that the Mesopotamian god Haya was a deity of Sumer. I'd also like to add some more specific details about Haya and his role. FIxerUpperHumptyDumtpyFellOnARock (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2021 

message: I found spelling errors in the text, I would like to correct them. Thank you. 2001:569:7CEB:A900:ED57:5983:CA42:BDCE (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  20:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2021 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer#City-states_in_Mesopotamia
"The five "first" cities, said to have exercised pre-dynastic kingship "before the flood":"
There were several floods of the Tigris and Euphrates. Which flood? This section doesn't cite any sources.
: --Zoeperkoe (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "before the flood" 

message: (See edit request as well) 
I'm not sure what the relevance of this line is:
"The Sumerians had no knowledge of the existence of the hymen and whether or not a prospective bride had engaged in sexual intercourse was entirely determined by her own word."
It seems to indicate that the person who included this sentence has the mistaken assumption that the hymen is a reliable indicator of virginity. This myth has been disproven. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hymen and its references #2 and #8. However, I didn't want to just remove it in case it's a matter of further clarification being needed.
Digzignition (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The hymen and virginity 

message: Refer to line below under Culture -> Social and Family Life.
"The Sumerians had no knowledge of the existence of the hymen and whether or not a prospective bride had engaged in sexual intercourse was entirely determined by her own word."
The reference to the hymen has no relevance because it is not a reliable indicator of virginity. It's a myth that has been disproven in recent history. See the wiki page's summary section for quick information, or refer to sources #2 and #8 for more details.
I posted a message in the Talk section as well. Maybe it just needs a "clarification needed" tag for now. Digzignition (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2021 

message: "The Sumerians developed a complex system of metrology c. 4000 BC." Source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.100.133 (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sumer, Mathematics And Dating In General 

message: The article is misleading in that it seems to imply that cuneiform dates back to 3500 years ago when it's still proto-writing. The first cuneiform scripts appear 100-200 years after the use of hieroglyphics becomes common place. 2601:680:C200:45A0:44EA:E8AB:63DB:5E64 (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of writing 

message: In section 4.7. Fall and transformation it may be useful to note that the south-north population movement mentioned in the first sentence may have been the effect of the shift of the Euphrates bed and subsequent irrigation network collapse dated to the reign of Samsuiluna of Babylon.
Here is the link: https://archeowiesci.pl/en/1739-bc-year-when-the-sumerian-civilization-collapsed/ 83.5.156.81 (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Most historians have suggested that Sumer was first permanently settled between c. 5500 and 4000 BC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.85.253 (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

text: I've added the citation to Science, as it supports the claim that soil salinity was a factor in the decline of Sumer. I don't see that it supports the claim that "there is a long-lasting debate among scholars" on this matter, though. While I think that the reference you provided (archeowiesci.pl) is a reliable source, I would prefer an article published in a reputable journal to support this claim, because it substantially changes this paragraph. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2021 

message: Sumerian civilization 197.207.96.219 (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have suggestions to improve the article, this is the place to make them.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sumerian civilization 

message: This if course changes with the discovery of Gobekli Tepe which is believed to be 13,000 years old, 9,000 years before Sumer.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.0.73.117 (talk) 00:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume that this is a reaction to the claim that Sumer is (one of) the "earliest civilization". In the end, this comes down to whether or not Gobekli is considered "civilization". Better would be to remove claims like these from the lead altogether... Zoeperkoe (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earliest civilization 

message: Akkadian Empire | Main article: Akkadian Empire | The Akkadian Empire dates to c. 2234–2154 BC (middle chronology), founded by Sargon of Akkad.
Shouldn’t it be 2334? I mean the date of the beginning of the period. 178.235.180.203 (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Akkadian Empire 

message: Kurds are children of Sumerians.
Please check the numbers and words similarity between Kurdish and Sumerian languages. 185.244.155.190 (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2023 

message: :Sumerian King List has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by पाटलिपुत्र (talk • contribs) 12:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Sumerian King List]] has an [[WP:RFC|RFC]]