WikiProject Ancient Near East	(Rated B-Class, Top-importance)	Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
Ancient Near East portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Iraq	(Rated B-Class, Top-importance)	IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles
Iraq portal v • d • e Sumer is part of the WikiProject Iraq, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Assyria	(Rated B-Class, High-importance)	AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyrian articles
v • d • e This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, or visit the project page.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

	WikiProject Disambiguation	DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:DisambigProjectDisambiguation articles
v • d • e This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Version 1.0 Editorial Team     (Rated B-Class)
	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. High This article has been rated as high-Importance on the assessment scale. This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. This article is a vital article.

Archives 1900 bc
Archive 1

Contents 1 comment 2 Language and writing 3 Date 4 Propaganda? 5 "cuneiform ... pre-dating Egyptian hieroglyphics by at least seventy-five years" 6 Sumer City List 7 Culture 8 City Population 9 Lugal-Ane-mundu and Eannatum - First Empire? 10 Passing off Akkadian, Babylonian, Hurrian, Elamite, Assyrian sources as Sumerian sources 11 Sumerian cities 12 Contradictory derivations of KI.EN.GIR 13 Shinar 14 Sumer may not be the oldest Civilization 15 Later Mesopotamian Gods 16 "Earliest known civilization" POV yet again 17 Ready for upgrading the quality of the article yet 18 A Sumerian Observation of the Köfels' Impact Event 19 February 2009 Edits 20 "Black-faced foreigners" 21 comment 22 Sumerian read right to left 23 Recent changes

[edit] comment

The Sumerians called their society the "Kengir League" (Hallo & Simpson, ANE, pg. 43). The simple substitution of K --> S gives "Singir League" = Sngr (Egypt), Sanhar (Hittite), Shinhar (Bible). Cf. En-Si = En-Si-Ki; could the original name have been ~ Si-Ki-Engir ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.68.244 (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the wrong page for indulging in personal speculation, even if you're right. There's plenty of places on the internet where you can do that as much as you like, but our talkpages are strictly for discussing improvements to the article - which is only supposed to reflect ideas found in sourced, published material. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The Ubaid Period began 5900 BC. I suspect 5300 BC is UNCALIBRATED BC date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.68.244 (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt the Sumerians had a heliocentic model of the solar system. Is there proof? 24.205.91.162 22:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no proof. In fact they were undoubtably geocentric believers as their

cosmology and their astronomical records clear show. John D. Croft 17:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Have changed "Sumerian speakers spread down into southern Mesopotamia because they had developed a temple-centered social organization for mobilizing labor and technology for water control, enabling them to survive and prosper in a difficult environment."

to read

"Farming peoples spread down into southern Mesopotamia because they had developed a temple-centered social organization for mobilizing labor and technology for water control, enabling them to survive and prosper in a difficult environment." as there is no evidence to show that the first farmers spoke Sumerian. In fact, the absence of Sumerian language in historic times in the Samaran region suggests that the first farmers were not Sumerian speaking. John D. Croft 17:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Have reinstalled my map, in place of the current one, as it shows sites that were not found in the one that replaced mine. John D. Croft 17:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There has been some research by linguists to link Sumerian to the current language family of Hungarian and Finnish (Magyar), is this of interest to mention at all? --stasis101 22:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sumerian is established now as language isolate! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscientific_language_comparison

First: above link points to a complete propaganda page. It has been discredited on the talk page.

Second: the page above link points to does not talk about Sumerian as a 'language isolate'.

Third: Sumerian is NOT a language isolate. It is well and alive continuing in Hungarian. This was proved by Prof. Dr. Badiny-Jos on the 29th Orientalists World Congress, 1973, Opening Session. The title: "New Lines For a Correct Sumerian Phonetics To Confirm With The Cuneiform Scripts". Prof. Badiny was a Dr. of Sumerology, a student of Anton Deimel - the Father of Sumerology. Prof. Badiny used Deimels 'system' in proving his theory. Besides Samuel Kramer himself says that Sumerian is the relative of Hungarian. Additionally Prof. Deimel agrees that Sumerian is relative to Hungarian. So why would it be dead or isolate? And yes, it is VERY important to mention this otherwise the article becomes a propaganda. (Magi)

Sumerian language (which became extinct as a spoken tongue circa 2,000 BCE), is in no way related to Magyar (a language that is first found in Hungary in the 9th and 10th century after Christ!). To claim any difference runs counter to contemporary historical comparitive linguistics, and is held only by a small group of Hungarian nationalists. See the Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary for reference.John D. Croft (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Language and writing

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Date

I removed the date. --Vonones 04:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any Reliable source for an "Armenian" origin of the Sumerians? Is this theory just a rehash of the Book of Genesis, or is there some other primary source used to support this theory? If so, this should be stated. Til Eulenspiegel 04:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What Armenian origin? I never said that. --Vonones 04:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, are we on the same page??? Or perhaps in some parallel universe??? Til Eulenspiegel 04:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What Armenian origin? of the Sumerians? I wrote they descended from Armenia, not Armenians since there were no Armenians during that time. --Vonones 05:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If you insist repeatedly that the Sumerians "came from Armenia", my friend, that is what is known as an 'Armenian origin". Til Eulenspiegel 05:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that is the region, not the people you said Armenian origin of the Sumerians, I said they descended from Armenia that is a major difference. --Vonones 05:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There are claims of origin or whatever you want to call it, "Nevertheless, it may be deduced that the earliest Sumerians who introduced civilization in our world were around 85% Austric and 15% Armenian Aryans." Tracing the Origin of Ancient Sumerians By Ashok Malhotra --Vonones 05:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't want to "deduce" anything here. This is Wikipedia. It has not even been established with anything like a reliable source that Sumerians were indeed "85% Austric and 15% Armenian", as your favorite but highly questionable source asserts. Til Eulenspiegel 05:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• According to Sir Leonard Woolley's thesis (a world renowned British archaeologist who excavated in Mesopotamia for decades) The Sumerians themselves were the descendants of the Armenian Aryan settled communities in Armenia... --Vonones 05:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That is pure nonsense from the mainstream POV, but it should certainly not be presebted as a fact. Til Eulenspiegel 05:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I know that, but I am referring to the area known as Armenia, again Armenian and Armenia are very different Armenia as in land, Armenian as in people. I brought up those references because you wanted them, I did not even add those to the article. Also the second one is pretty reliable right? you obviously do not like it though your own POV let me guess this is your expertise thats why? --Vonones 05:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, there are just as many "scholars" and "sources" who think the Sumerians came from the south, from the west, from the east, from the Carpathian basin, and even (yes, I'm not kidding), from outer space. There are those who say they never came from anywhere but were always there, and those who disagree. However, the available records do not allow any of these 'pet hypotheses' to be proved, and that's a fact. Til Eulenspiegel 05:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

My latest quick research showed it is agreed between historians that there location is not precise or it was in Mesopotamia and Armenia. --Vonones 05:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's painfully obvious that it's not your "area of expertise". At first you tried to write several times that the Sumerians descended from Armenia "1500 years ago", or in the year AD 507. Your authority for this statement is apparently the same one who claims the Sumerians were "Aryans". Does he really say this? Has he even looked at the Sumerian language vis-a-vis the Aryan languages to state this? Til Eulenspiegel 05:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No that was only one source for the 1500 years ago. Thats why I removed it and rephrased it with other references. I'm not claiming it I use scholarly/historian references. --Vonones 05:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the most accepted hypothosis of there ancestory was they are desendent of the Ubaid culture that evolves some 7,000 years ago. Enlil Ninlil 06:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

the sumerian name for god was "dingir" dingir-tenger-tangra-tengri ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.139.211 (talk) 13:36, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Actually, 'dingir' means something like deity or fairy. God doesn't have a name but called as 'Creator' = 'TE-RAM-TU'.(Magi)

[edit] Propaganda?

Physical anthropologists have studies the skulls of Ancient Sumerians and arrived to certain conclusions. However, an editor is now edit-warring to prevent the inclusion of this information:

"It can be shown that Sumerians who lived over five thousand years ago in Mesopotamia are almost identical in skull and face form with living Englishmen." (Carleton Coon, The Races of Europe, p. 83)

The 1939 Time article quoted may be anti-Nazi "propaganda" but it is certainly factually correct. The date of Coon's studies unless newer reliable sources contradict his view. MoritzB 19:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the 1939 TIME article you are using as a reference is "anti-Nazi" propaganda; it actually sounds strikingly reminiscent of what the Fuehrer's doctors themselves were desperately telling the world, about how all the people of Ancient Mesopotamia were essentially Nordic, since no-one else could have possibly founded civilization, ho hum, yawn. It all sounds rather quaint now, considering how much vastly more we know about Sumer today. The Nazis looked long and hard trying to establish a connection between the "Nordic race" and all of the Mesopotamians peoples (Kassites, Sumerians, Hurrians, etc.) but these 1930s sources have to be taken with a grain of salt today, not proclaimed reliable. Who in the last 40 years has claimed that the Sumerians had a "Nordic skull shape"??? ROFL!!! Your TIME Magazine source doesn't even specify Sumerians per se, it merely repeats the claim circulating in numerous sources of the 20s and 30s (eg Max Muller, et al) that all "Mesopotamian" peoples were similar to Teutons. Til Eulenspiegel 21:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this anti-Nazi propaganda? "If Anthropologist Coon thus makes short work of perverted Nazi claims of "race purity," he also offers no help to that school of racial opinion which would combat anti-Semitism by denying that any such thing as a Jewish race exists."

Furthermore, Coon does not say that the Sumerians were Nordic. According to Coon: "The Sumerians were Mediterraneans skeletally. So were the ancient Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Children of Israel, and the Arabs of the early Islamic period whose skeletons I had the privilege of measuring at Nippur. A Mediterranean is a white man of variable stature - as whites go, usually short to medium; his bones are light, but strongly marked for muscle attachments if these muscles have been well developed through use."

(C.S. Coon, Caravan : the Story of the Middle East, 1958, pp. 154-157)

Lastly, Wikipedia is about verifiability. The article and Coon's books satisfy WP:RS MoritzB 21:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I would disagree that a 1939 political propaganda piece satisfies RS or NPOV; the Sumerians are now known to have caleld themselves "the black headed people" and outdated attempts to connect them with the Anglo-Saxons are purely misleading, as any reliable Sumerologist will assure you. There is no serious consensus for Coon's views in 2007. Til Eulenspiegel 21:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The original sources are C.S. Coon, Caravan : the Story of the Middle East, 1958, pp. 154-157 and Carleton Coon, The Races of Europe, p. 83. They satisfy WP:RS. I provided the Time article because it is available online, also. MoritzB 21:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

After reading Carleton S. Coon, I am more than ever convinced that this is far from mainstream or up-to-date wrt what we now know about Sumer. Til Eulenspiegel 21:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Then please provide reliable sources which prove that. Coon's views about evolutionary history are dated but that has nothing to do with craniometry. MoritzB 22:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The burden is on you to find a reliable source for the more bizarre claim, not on me, my good chap. Why not look into what mainstream sources more reliable and up-to-date than a "social darwinist" like Coon say about the ethnicity of Sumerians? Til Eulenspiegel 22:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Donald Mackenzie said that "it seems doubtful, therefore, that the ancient Sumerians differed racially from the pre-Dynastic inhabitants of Egypt and the

Pelasgians and Iberians of Europe. Indeed, the statuettes from Tello, the site of the Sumerian city of Lagash, display distinctively Mediterranean skull forms and faces." (p.8, Myths of Babylon and Assyria) Mackenzie's work is older.

I am not aware of any later scholarship about the physical appearance of Sumerians. Thus, it seems that we have to accept Coon's/Mackenzie's view. MoritzB 22:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

We "have to accept" this outdated view, just because -you- are "not aware" of the scholarship? Are you a Sumerologist? How can you form a consensus on your own? In 1939, in wasn't even common knowledge yet that the Sumerians called themselves "the black-headed ones". That revelation came along with Kramer, probably the top specialist in the field of Sumerology. You should read what he wrote about their appearance and ethnic affiliations, for starters. In the meantime, I see no consensus among editors here for adopting these out of date fringe views of social darwinists. We can possibly mention them as a historical interest and state that they were views of social darwinists in the early 20th c. like Coons, but it would not be NPOV to adopt a disputed POV as if it were indisputable. Til Eulenspiegel 23:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Coon wrote his book years after Kramer and definitely agreed that the Sumerians were dark-haired. What is your point? Coon was the head of American Association of Physical Anthropologists and a very respected scientist.

Whether he was a "social darwinist" is irrelevant.

Besides, the Sumerians were surely dark-haired like most people in the region. Can you name any references at all which might dispute Coon's and Mackenzie's views?

http://www.zwoje-scrolls.com/zwoje35/sh14.jpg

Leonard Woolley's reconstruction of a Sumerian queen.

http://www.zwoje-scrolls.com/zwoje35/text11p.htm

MoritzB 00:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant that Coons was a social darwinist; it qualifies him under WP:FRINGE. My point is that there is no consensus in the field whatsoever asserting any close affinity between Sumerians and the English or any other Teutonic peoples, and your edit is misleading to suggest there is. Til Eulenspiegel 00:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Carleton Coon wasn't a Social Darwinist and even if he was it would be irrelevant. Even Marxist sources are not considered WP:FRINGE on Wikipedia as it is sufficient that the studies have been published in peer-reviewed journals or by reputable publishers. MoritzB 00:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

A compromise: "The Sumerians were a Caucasoid people of Indo-European stock and resembled modern Arab inhabitants of the region".

Source: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-6682(193110)2%3A22%3A2%3C187%3AMS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8

Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza speculates that Kuwaitis may be their descendants. The History and Geography of Human Genes, p. 252.

For the record, Coon also had the view that Sumerians resembled Arabs (and Englishmen) closely. MoritzB 00:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"The Sumerians were a Caucasoid people of Indo-European stock and resembled modern Arab inhabitants of the region." First of all, cut the "Indo-European stock" bit. That's hogwash. Indo-European is a reconstructed language group, to which Sumerian DEFINITELY does not belong. And second, insert the word "probably" after the word SUmerians, since it is far from a certainty, and there is room for doubt. Then we might have a compromise. Til Eulenspiegel 00:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"The Sumerians were a Caucasoid people and probably resembled modern Arab inhabitants of the region. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza speculates that the Kuwaitis may be their descendants." This should be OK.MoritzB 01:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

the whole question is flawed. there isn't a single idenfifiable "descendant" population of "the Sumerians", and I do suspect Cavalli-Sforza is being quoted out of context. The entire thing should just be removed as irrelevant and misleading. dab (𒁳) 07:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No. The Kuwaitis are genetically distinct from their neighbors in some respects according to Cavalli-Sforza and he speculates that Sumerian descent might be the reason. Please read the book if you don't believe me. Scholars have also written a lot about the topic and we might include some other theories. At least the Turks claim that the Sumerians were ethnically Turkic. MoritzB 14:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Everyone has, Armenians, Turks, Scots etc have claimed they are descendants of Sumerians most likely nationalism or outdated context. --Vonones 01:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As far back as Sumerian civilization existed, it is likely an inordinate number of different races have direct Sumerian ancestry and have sprung completely from them, of entirely different facial-cranial morphologies and skin tone colorations: Identical ancestors point. The genetic component of anyone back then is nothing like the genetic components of any group now. 4.255.49.173 (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "cuneiform ... pre-dating Egyptian hieroglyphics by at least seventy-five years"

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)

This wording seemed ludicrous to me too. I have Been Bold and deleted it from the article. 132.244.246.25 (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the contributor must have meant Sumerian Hyroglyphics, which are well know to pre-date Egyptian hyroglyphics and which were most certainly imported into Egypt via Sumeria/Syria.--92.2.106.120 (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sumer City List

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)

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)

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)

Whatever you feels appropriate. Awan does not have an article though just a disambi. page. If no one makes one soon I'll get around to creating another sumer (major) city article. -Kain Nihil —Preceding comment was added at 13:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Culture

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)

[edit] City Population

What was the size of the Sumerian city population ?

--Blain Toddi (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Which city population? NJMauthor (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Lugal-Ane-mundu and Eannatum - First Empire?

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)

[edit] Passing off Akkadian, Babylonian, Hurrian, Elamite, Assyrian sources as Sumerian sources

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.

For example: The Enuma Elish, Akkadian and Babylonian versions of Ziusudra's flood myth, Akkadian and Babylonian versions of the Epic of Gilgamesh, Hammurabi's Code, etc. are all NOT Sumerian documents and must be labeled as non-Sumerian sources if used in this article.

Documents with the names Ishtar, Nergal, Marduk, Ea, Anu or other Babylonian and Akkadian name variants or singular dieties are also suspect. If a "Sumerian" document features the fully-developed city of Assur, something is amiss. If, in the "Sumerian" document, the Absu or Tiamat are anthropomorphized, something is probably off.

Thanks for taking the time to check your sources, people. We can make this article on Sumer a whole lot better if it's about Sumer. NJMauthor (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sumerian cities

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)

A good idea. Feel free. John D. Croft (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contradictory derivations of KI.EN.GIR

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

[edit] Shinar

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

[edit] Sumer may not be the oldest Civilization

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)

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)

[edit] Later Mesopotamian Gods

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)

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)

[edit] "Earliest known civilization" POV yet again

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)

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)

[edit] Ready for upgrading the quality of the article yet

Hi folks, what do you think? John D. Croft (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph, "Alternatively, the Sumerians may have been an indigenous culture of hunter-fishers who lived in the reedy marshlands at the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, as the Marsh Arabs do today. This culture contributed to a cultural fusion with northern agriculturists, creating Sumerian language and civilisation.[citation needed]" under the heading "Population" should be deleted. A) It is yet another attempt to associate the Sumerians with an extant people. B) Unsourced "alternatively"s can be multiplied endlessly. C) The "cultural fusion" speculated is prima facie absurd.

The link "[http://www.laputanlogic.com/articles/2004/01/24-0001.html Living Sumerians , the marsh arabs in southern Iraq" placed under "External links" should also be deleted. A) It explicitly claims that Marsh Arabs *are* Sumerians. B) Whatever "Laputan Logic" is, it doesn't belong in the same list as the other links which are serious Sumerian resources. Dram Attruth (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Dram Attruth

I agree. 142.68.225.222 (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A Sumerian Observation of the Köfels' Impact Event

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! [1] Thanks, Marasama (talk) 05:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

[edit] February 2009 Edits

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 "[http://www.laputanlogic.com/articles/2004/01/24-0001.html Living Sumerians , the marsh arabs in southern Iraq" under the section "External Links - Language". Dram Attruth (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Black-faced foreigners"

According to Babylonian historian Berossus, the Sumerians were "black-faced foreigners".^[1]

Is there any source for this besides John G. Jackson, who is a non-neutral Afrocentrist.^[2] There seems to be no source for or information regarding this quote on the Internet. The given source itself says only that "They are described in the Assyrio-Babylonian inscriptions as a black faced people[...]." 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)

Someone reverted this edit and put the "quote" by Berossus (which does not occur anywhere in the referenced book) back into the article. After reading more of this book, I am sure that it is an Afrocentric book. Jackson claims that the Sumerians, Babylonians, and Indians were "Negroid" and "of Kushite race" and asserts that Sumerians have an Elamite origin. On page 246, he also claims that Sumerians were from Africa, and that similarities with the Egyptian religion is due to a common Ethiopian origin. Since I cannot find the supposed quote anywhere (including this book), I have removed it. 68.76.108.136 (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

We need to be on guard for this kind of afrocentrist falsification. Izzedine (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] comment

"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)

• No, "Sumar" is not a widely used alternate spelling, nor is it even a neologism, but probably an uncommon misspelling, and your POV-pushing and personal attacks on editors is disruptive behaviour. Izzedine (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sumerian read right to left

This article has recently been edited by Classical Esther to claim that sumerian was read right to left. I removed the claim immediately, since it's obviously false. However, my reversion was reverted. Izzedine, you are apparently asking me for a source? However, I just want to remove the incorrect statement. If you want to keep it, you find a source :-) Wilstrup (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Provide a reference for what you are claiming. Simple as that. ^Izzedine 21:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • What am I claiming? It seems to me that you are defending the statement that sumerian was read right to left, which it wasn't. I'll leave the claim in the article for a few days. If it's still unreferenced by then, I'll remove it again.Wilstrup (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    • You're insisting you know the truth, so back it up with a reference. Otherwise don't complain about being reverted. ^Izzedine 22:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It is the information appearing in the article that requires a source, Izzedine. No source is required to remove it, if none is provided.

That said, I am now looking at sources to try to find what direction Sumerian was read in, and am finding all kinds of contradictory information. Apparently, as far as I am able to learn, cuneiform could be written in either direction at first, but they finally settled on the left-to-right standard around the time Sumerian faded and Akkadian grew in prominence. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

C'mon Izzedine. You've been a vigilant guardian of this page for years. I'm sure you know the direction of sumerian script. You just made an honest mistake, and reverted my change, without noticing that my change was itself a revert. Removing factual errors, like I did, does not require citations. Reinstating them, like you did, does. But peace. Let's leave the right-to-left claim for a while, and remove it if it's still unsourced in a week. Okay? Wilstrup (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing the right-to-left claim now. The reason I'm not replacing it with the real picture - initially top-down, later left-right - is that this seems to me to be a minor detail, and it is already adequately explained in the main article: Cuneiform. Wilstrup (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes

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)

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)