Talk:History of Sumer

message: This section needs to adopt the accepted periodisation into Early Dynastic I, II and III, and explain the differences and developments over these periods.  For example, walled cities appear to have developed only towards the end of the Early Dynastic II period, with the construction of the walls of Uruk - attributed to Enmerkar.
John D. Croft 22:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure this can be done without deleting or suppressing any existing information. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Changes

message: The original scholar to identify Aratta and Urartu was, guess who, yes, that's right, none other than Samuel Noah Kramer himself, the eminent authority who first translated Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta in his 1952 monograph.  In his stating that "Aratta" is the Sumerian equivalent of "Urartu", he was only the first of MANY authors (Armenian or otherwise) to do so. 
If you actually bother to look up scholarly literature on the subject of Aratta, all you will find is speculations about its actual geographic location based on the actual geographic clues given in the epics.  We have yet to see even ONE source backing up User:Sumerophile's OR assertion.
However, with an arrogance I have never seen here in 3 years of editing, Sumerophile will not admit Prof. Kramer's referenced view into this article, and insists on substituting his own unreferenced view in its place, refusing to cite it and even removing standard requests for cites.  User Sumerophile, our articles are not supposed to contain our own personal opinions, they are supposed to contain references reflecting the same published opinions that anyone researching would find in the scholarly literature - EVEN IF YOU DO NOT 'LIKE' THEM. That's usually about the first thing one learns from editing Wikipedia for any length of time, but you still just do not seem to get it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only name I believe I have called you is Sumerophile... I apologise for any other names that might have slipped through, but I usually look over my edits before hitting send. I have shown you equal respect to what you have shown me by constantly reverting and refusing to listen to what I am trying to say.  If I am not mistaken, this was one of the main reasons SN Kramer gave for placing "Aratta" near Lake Urmia in NW Iran, in the territory of later "Urartu", in his breakthrough 1952 monograph, Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta: a Sumerian Epic Tale of IRAQ and IRAN (hint hint: he was so assured of this, that he included these very geographic references in the title of the first ever English translation to be published...!)  Even if this view had later been unanimously rejected, which it hasn't, it would still deserve mention out of historiographic interest.  There have been many scholarly views published on the question, and it is hard to support suppressing all mention of those views you personally disagree with, as you determine.  That attitude is enough to ruffle my feathers.  I only want the article to accurately reflect the scholarly literature, with references, and have never once stated what my own theory on Aratta is, if any...  I have never seen anyone even once trying to draw a link here with "Mountains of Ararat", that must be in your head what you are fighting against to accuse me of some kind of "agenda", but my only agenda is that we all leave our personal views and uncited opinions out as editors, and instead reflect what the actual, scholarly, published sources say. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, have you ever actually read Kramer?  Just where have you been getting all of your knowledgeable "facts" that you continually grace us with anyway, I have yet to see you refer to a SINGLE source!  If you read these things somewhere, we'd love to know where!  The fact is that Kramer never changed his location of Aratta: He always placed it in NORTHWEST IRAN.  Which is exactly where my edit said he placed it.  Which is sourced to his 1952 monograph, "Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta: An Epic Tale of Iraq AND IRAN; his later 1963 words could also be added.  Sure it's speculation, but it's also referenced, relevant, and nobody ever said it was anything other than speculation.  How have I misquoted him?  How hard-headed can you get when you don't have any references for your position, and the ones you keep removing, refute your unreferenced position?  What more would it possibly take for you to get it? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for "taking my word for it", but why then do you keep removing the easily-verifiable reference to Kramer's consistent view that Aratta is in Northwest Iran?  I'm not going to get drawn into a debate about whether or not Urartu extended as far as east of Lake Urmia, we have other  article that should hopefully enlighten you on that. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what you are accusing me of but the only thing I am trying to verify with this edit is: Samuel Kramer, who first translated them (Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta: a Sumerian Epic Tale of Iraq and Iran, 1952) believed 'Aratta' to have referred to a location in NW Iran.   That is not an opinion, it is an easily verifiable statement, and removing it without cause is against policy.  But thanks for your expert advice on "how citation works", maybe next time you will come to the table with a few of your own instead of relying on your personal authority. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of the Aratta = Urartu idea

message: Due to the bickering over one small part of this article, the passages mentioning Aratta have gotten mangled. I removed one footnote that discusses the existence of Aratta, which not only duplicates material appearing later in this article but links to an unrelated passage at the beginning! (Since it's possible that there was a citation here that was later lost, I put a "fact" tag as a clue to a future editor.) Likewise, the section which mentions Aratta -- which consists of about two or three sentences in this entire article & has been viciously fought over by both of you -- needed its references matched to the proper statements. Blindly reverting other editors is not going to make this article better! -- llywrch (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up 

message: Following is the WIkipedia policy definition of "Original synthesis":
:"Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly."
:"Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. This would be synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which constitutes original research.[6] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."
:The argument that Aratta is a poor match for Urartu because of an alleged lack of minerals, even assuming it were a solid and correct argument, meets the definition of "ORIGINAL SYNTHESIS" because this argument has never before appeared in any published source we know of.  Wikipedia is by policy not allowed to be used as a publishing website for new theories that have never appeared in print, therefore policy says this novel research argument HAS TO GO. One editor is insisting that this novel research be allowed to remain in the article even though nobody before Wikipedia has ever before published such an argument, but at least three editors have explained why this contradicts policy, to no avail. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Original Synthesis 

message: The ongoing content dispute has now turned into a full fledged edit war. I submit that the two users involved hammer it out here as the effect on the article is wholly disruptive. Strongly recommend consulting WP:3O or WP:RFM to help reach a consensus between the editors. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Msalt (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You would think that an editor harassing and wholesale disrupting another editor's work would be slapped on the wrist for his behavior, but now we have a footnote removed which was his entire aim in the first place. Disruption and tantrums are the way to go. Sadly, I'm not very good at that. Sumerophile (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protected due to edit warring 

message: A question for Sumerophile. When you refer simply to "Oxford" what book do you mean? the article currently refers to a book published by Oxford University Press entitled "Egypt, Greece and Rome". It's an important question because books from that publisher are definitely within the category of reliable sources. But full references are always needed. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably the ETCSL? (I'm not exactly sure where you're referring to.) It's a compilation of Sumerian literature put together by Oxford University. The reference to it in the article has been removed now. http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/ Sumerophile (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxford? 

message: I just noticed that the sections on Lugal-Anne-Mundu, Kug-Bau and Akshak seem to have got out of chronological sequence, after being moved around quite a lot. Lugal-Zage-Si followed directly on Urukagina of Lagash, as the text correctly indicates, whereas Lugal-Anne-Mundu, Kug-Bau and Akshak came before Lagash and were right after Enshakushanna (2nd Uruk), also as the text indicates.  Could an admin please restore those three sections to before Lagash? Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually they are (and always were) arranged by dynasty - it's far clearer to keep the dynasties together, than to split up the 1st Lagash dynasty and have to come back to it repeatedly. Sumerophile (talk) 03:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not "clearer", it is misleading and makes no sense whatsoever to suggest that the two "Lugals" who dominated Mesopotamia (Lugal-Anne-Mundu and Lugal-Zage-Si) came together in sequence, when in fact they were separated by the entire dynasty of Lagash coming in between them.  It is also misleading and makes no sense whatsoever to suggest that Lugal-Anne-Mundu, Kug-Baba and Akshak intervened directly between Urukagina and Lugal-Zage-Si, when Lugal-Zage-Si was Urukagina's direct successor.  And no, that's NOT the way this article has "always" been -- I originally wrote most of the basic outline for this article myself, I should know.  This request is for an admin, who can easily become satisfied of these facts by reading what the sections in question themselves do say. I am not asking the admin to split up the Lagash dynasty, that is NOT what I am suggesting at all. Leave the Lagash dynasty intact, let's just get the sequence correct, it looks so sloppy now.   First Enshakushanna (2nd Uruk) dominated Mesopotamia, then Lugal-Anne-Mundu dominated Mesopotamia (Kug-Bau and Akshak also arose at this time, before Lagash), THEN the Lagash dynasty dominated Mesopotamia, and THEN Lugal-Zage-Si dominated Mesopotamia, then Sargon and the Akkadians.  These facts are indisputable, and we can do better than present a skewed, inaccurate picture. 
This article has been on full protection for two months, but given the total lack of cooperative spirit among editors that led to its being locked, I do not think it would be wise to unlock it any time soon. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting admin to move Lugal-Anne-Mundu to correct spot 

message: This page was blocked on March 5 to end an edit war between two editors. The editors bickered a little on talk for the next two days, and now in four months there has been virtually no edits to the talk page, and no discussion whatsoever. WP:edit war says page protection is useful "when there is reason to believe that the involved parties will take the opportunity to resolve the conflict. Blocks are preferred when there is evidence that a user cannot or will not moderate their behavior, often demonstrated by an inflexible demeanor, incivility, or past instances of edit warring and unchanged behavior."
It is clear that protecting this page for months has not resolved any disputes, and its time to use other methods of enforcement to deal with disruptive editing - and again allow other people to contribute useful information to the article after a four-month hiatus. Brando130 (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Though unbeknownst to me when I added my comment, other methods of enforcement have already been used, and one of the users that was involved in the edit war is already permanently blocked. All the more reason to resume useful contributions, imo. Brando130 (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that the page should be unlocked, but should add a caveat: despite being permanently blocked, that same user has continued to edit-war with numerous sockpuppets in violation / evasion of his block, including some still active accounts which are known now, and will surely be blocked again if it tries to resume the edit wars here. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the full protection from the article, to allow the page to progress.  I left the semi-protection and full-move protection to help prevent sock edits.  Let's now focus on improving the article! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @  05:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to unblock this page 

message: "In the possibly mythical pre-dynastic period" Does anyone know the intent of this statement? Is the info we have about this time based entirely on myths? Don't we have any hard data regarding pre-dynastic city-states? Logically if there is a dynastic there is a pre and post-dynastic period. Finally, how is this different than the Uruk Period? Nitpyck (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I do understand the meaning of the statement "possibly mythical pre-dynastic period".  The meaning is this: all the info we have about this time, consists entirely of names of kings supposed to have reigned before the time of the "Great Flood" or Sumerian Deluge myth, according to the Sumerian king list, as well as legendary sources.  It is not certain or agreed by anyone if these kings represent historical figures who were actual kings, or something else, or if their names were greatly distorted over time,  or if they are pure invented names as part of the myth.  There is no agreement on any of these  questions, only conjecture.  That's all you can find in sources regarding these kings, and we do have to reflect the sources.  Nothing archaeological attesting connected with any of these names or kings at all, at least so far.  Of course all of this assumes the normal understanding of "mythical" ie something that did not happen.  The most we can safely say, is that these kings, or names, are "possibly mythical" dynasty. B'er Rabbit (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would it be ok with you if I move the modifier "possibly mythical" from pre-dynastic period to Sumerian Kings List. That way it says (to me) that the period is real but the writings that exist are mythical rather than factual. (Didn't a lot of these early kings live for 3,600 years?) If this seems picky just see my chosen name. Oh if it's not ok I won't touch it. Nitpyck (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would not be ok, because many of the later periods in the Sumerian King List include archaeologically attested kings.  Sargon I for example.  Three reasons why it is appropriate to say the pre-dynastic kings are "possibly mythical" are (1) the impossibly large numbers that you mentioned, (2) the fact that none of the pre-dynastic kings have been identified with kings for which archaeological evidence has been found, and (3) it was customary in the pre-dynastic periods to sign documents with cylinder seals that contained geometrical designs, but not personal names.  Hence, even if the grave of one of the pre-dynastic kings were found with his unique seals buried with him, there would be no way to identify him with a personal name in the king list.  The pre-dynastic names may have been nicknames coined by pre-dynastic story tellers, telling stories that were orally transmitted until about 2600 BCE when writing was capable of recording the full flow of human speech.  Later names in the king list that have smaller but impossible ages were probably mistranslations.  One of the impressive things that was learned in the past 20 years by archaeologists who deciphered early clay tablets containing numbers, is the fact that there was no one standard number system in Sumer.  Each city had multiple number systems which differed from city to city until numbers were standardized as the sexagesimal system.  See History of writing ancient numbers.  Greensburger (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  good enough for me- thanksNitpyck (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythical ? Pre-dynastic  

message: Re: the following text: The first settlement in southern Mesopotamia was Eridu. The Sumerians claimed that their civilization had been brought, fully formed, to the city of Eridu by their god Enki or by his advisor (or Abgallu from ab=water, gal=big, lu=man), I intend to delete the text in parentheses on an alleged Sumerian word, Abgallu.  The author of this statement seems to have conflated the Sumerian abgal with its Akkadian translation, Apkallu, and to further have assumed, incorrectly, that the Sumerian was spelled syllabically, and that one could derive an etymology from such syllables. The Sumerian word, however, is abgal, not abgallu, and it is a reading of a compound logogram spelled with the 2 signs NUN-ME, for which see the standard academically-accepted work on signs and their readings, Rykle Borger (2004), Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexicon, Munster: Ugarit-Verlag, s.v. NUN, no. 143, p. 283.   The exact same information, i.e. that abgal is spelled NUN-ME may also be found in another academically-respected work on signs, Rene Labat 1994), Manuel d'Epigraphie Akkadienne, Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, S.A., s.v abgal in the index.--Mother of Otherness 03:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abgal 

message: I modified this, using the extensive list in Andrew George's work, which I included in the footnotes. -Mother of Otherness 07:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  City and Temple listing 

message: The graph about Sumerian cities is completely pointless when it is not indicated which colour stands for what.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it, it's apparently original research, I see no factors despite the caption anyway.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 17:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graph 

message: I have just been 'chasing down' a personal query on a city/place-name I have not previously encountered - Larak - clearly shown situated on the middle Tigris on the accompanying map. However, when I type in the 
name "Larak" Wiki takes me to Larsa, which is of course in a quite different location. I am puzzled: could someone please clarify this discrepancy?Geoff Powers (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Larak

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on History of 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/20101107074610/http://www.etana.org/coretexts/20340.pdf to http://www.etana.org/coretexts/20340.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110904172740/http://www.auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=556&journal=1&type=pdf to http://www.auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=556&journal=1&type=pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901081739/http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc022500.html to http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc022500.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716162233/http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/section2/tr211.htm to http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/section2/tr211.htm
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) 08:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I posted an edit indicating that the conversation is about that which is recorded, only to see it reverted with the message "“Supposed” is the right word to reflect that they may be mythical". Whether the recorded material is mythical or not is not the issue. The fact is that it is recorded. There is no evidence indicating that it is mythical or not. People 4000 years from now might find it difficult to believe that humans actually used 100 year old combustion technology after having developed quantum technology. They might consider the records of it "mythical", but they would still be records (and also true). The possibility of something being mythical doesn't nullify the fact that it is recorded. If the idea is to make a claim that something is possibly false, then it should be stated clearly. The reason this revert should be due to unsourced material that changes the idea, but in this case, there need be no source. The article and section both clearly indicate that the conversation is about recorded material (Sumerian History and King List). If the idea is to question whether the recorded material is potentially false, then this should be clearly stated, rather than being hidden in verbiage. A much better word to describe the thought would be "potentially mythical".  But again, this is conjecture, until it can be proven that either reigns are real, or fake. To say something might be false carries a burden of proof. Of the 2 references provided in the text, there appears to be no evidence substantiating whether the record is true or false. To say that it is "potentially false" is to make an unsupported assumption, thereby slanting the article one way as opposed to another, violating article neutrality, making it seem as though there is no way the length of reigns could be accurate. We do have the record. We do not have proof whether it is true or false. If the proof existed, I am sure the author of the source would be only too happy to inform the world.
What I was doing is called sticking to the facts as sourced. If someone is aware of a source that indicates the truth or falsehood of the accuracy of the list, that is irrelevant in terms of conveying the fact that the King List exists, but I would like to see the evidence, should it exist. If there is no source that can determine whether the information in the King List is accurate, my single word edit should stand. Of the reviews I am aware of for a source (https://www.librarything.com/work/1090200/reviews/173029788), there was concern that the author took the liberty to partake in speculation. That is what I see when using the words "supposedly mythical" to describe a record. In fact, I would be more likely to accept the usage "supposedly (or 'possibly') mythical lengths of reign", than "their supposed reign lengths". There is much more clarity when stating the issue clearly, but it also provides less cover for conjecture. If the source can't establish the truth or falsehood conclusively, any statements yea, nay, or anything in between are speculation, and could easily be construed as bending articles to suit an agenda, even if that agenda is skepticism. There is room for skepticism, yet the fact that the King List is a record resides well within the confines of the sources in particular, and the article, generally. Invoking skepticism takes neutrality out of the article (and trust away from Wikipedia), and places nothing but question marks in the mind, but every question inferred by the original text is one of doubt that is unsubstantiated. If a reader is unable to resolve a conflict of doubt in their own mind, the idea might be "We can help". In actuality, the doubt being "clarified" in a single direction - out of balance.  A reliable source will have researched well enough to make positive statements. "Could be", "might be", "possibly", and yes, "supposed" are not positive. Making statements using the aforementioned words falls outside the domain of what can be called "reliable". It would be an entirely different matter if there were no record. All would be speculation. The potential state of reigns is not known. The actual state of their being documented is fully known. The record "may be mythical", but it is a record. 
In view of the above, my edit referring to the actual known state is sourced in context, and the most accurate description by referent to the record. I would like to revert. BRealAlways (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, most of what's in the sections History of Sumer#Sumerian King List and History of Sumer#Antediluvian rulers should just simply be deleted from this article. These sections were copy-pasted into this article in 2018 (this edit and the next none) from other articles that have since been heavily revised to reflect the fact that, at least for the Early Dynastic period, the Sumerian King List has virtually nothing to do with history, and the antediluvian rulers are just purely fictional. Zoeperkoe (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Guidance at WP:SUMMARY. Doug Weller talk 17:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree too. I did wonder how it got there - there’s way too much coverage on these mythological rulers. DeCausa (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Update: a combination of edits from myself, ,  has excised the mythology and replaced it with a more historical and concise sub-section here. DeCausa (talk) 10:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I added a link to the SKl. Doug Weller talk 17:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

text: If you haven't already, you might want to read Sumerian King List and the literure mentioned in the references there to see why the SKL is not considered a reliable historical source for anything before the Akkadian period. Best, Zoeperkoe (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  as User:BRealAlways was editing at around the same time as the IP, he probably hadn't logged in yet. In any case, a referral to mythology is useful. And of course a big difference is that pseudoscience, etc are things people practice today. You don't practice mythology, people don't write myths. Doug Weller talk 10:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: A better way might maybe be to include a section on "available sources", where the usefulness of the SKL (and other documents) could be discussed. Best, Zoeperkoe (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not happy with that as a section heading and am not sure how to source it. I like the idea in general though. Doug Weller talk 12:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: At least for the ED period I read an article with a good section on exactly this topic (which, by the way, again includes the remark that the SKL should not be used for this period), and I think it can be found for other periods as well. There is also quite a bit of discussion to be found, for example, on the usefulness of royal steles. Wikipedia could certainly benefit from such a section - here or somewhere else. Zoeperkoe (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it’s a good idea. Michalowski’s chapter in the Oxford History of Historical Writng may be a useful starting point. But to be perfectly honest, that’s the least this article needs. It’s really a terrible article and needs a complete re-write. A lot of work though. DeCausa (talk) 12:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

text: An example: origin myths help build a national identity. Doug Weller talk 12:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sumerian King List