|
Post by madness on Sept 7, 2007 9:32:45 GMT -5
Among the mystical works of the Mesopotamians is the technique of deriving mystical significance by manipulating sexagesimal numbers to turn one number into another. A popular example of this ( Cuneiform, Reading The Past series, p. 21): There is a famous case of numerical manipulation in Assyrian history. Sennacherib had sacked Babylon in 689 BC. His son Esarhaddon on succeeding to the throne in 680 BC in a dramatic shift of policy decided to embark on its restoration, and justified it by announcing that whereas the god Marduk had decreed that the city should remain desolate for seventy years he had now relented and turned the number upside down. So seventy became eleven.This is a simple case of numerical manipulation. Here the cuneiform for the number 70 is represented by a vertical wedge (60) plus a slanted wedge (10). If the two cuneiform marks are switched, as Marduk does, it becomes 10 plus 1 (remember that a single vertical wedge can mean either 60 or 1). There are much more technical examples of this kind of manipulation in the i.NAM.giš.hur.an.ki.a series of the Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars, which deals with the phases of the moon. I might go into these later. Most of the mystical numerology that I have seen only involves the deities. What I am interested in is to see if the Mesopotamians had a numerology system for the mortal, something that would compare to modern gematria. So far I have only come across one example, involving Sargon II, Another Look at Large Numbers in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, JNES 53 no. 3 shows, p. 207: In the month of Abu, the month of the descent of the fire-god, destroyer of growing (cultivated) vegetation, when one lays (lit., who lays) the foundation platform for the city and house, I laid its foundation wall, I built its brickwork. Substantial shrines, built firm as the foundation of eternity, I constructed therein for Ea, Sin and Ningal, Adad, Shamash, Urta. Palaces of ivory, mulberry, cedar, cypress, juniper, and pistachio-wood I built at their lofty command for my royal dwelling place. A bit-hillani, a copy of a Hittite (Syrian) palace, I erected in front of their doors. Beams of cedar and cypress I laid over them for roofs. 16,283 cubits, the numeral of my name, I made the circuit (lit., measure) of its wall, establishing the foundation platform upon the bedrock of the high mountain. 15
15 Luckenbill, Ancient Records, vol. 2, §121.It is then suggested that Sargon's "numeral of my name" 16,283 is derived from the total of the numerical value of the cuneiform wedges of his name, however this theory does not seem to have been proven, and the phrase has remained an enigma. Two ways of writing Sargon’s name in cuneiform: 1šárru-GIN 1LUGAL-GI.NA Well I can’t see any numbers in that. I'm hoping that there are other examples such as this one that can shed any light on this, though it seems unlikely. Now there is in modern numerology an obsession with "Chaldean Numerology," supposedly originating with the Chaldeans themselves as the name would suggest. I have not been able to find any information proving that this is the case; it may well turn out to be another pseudo-history dead-end, the system more or less looks like a butchered version of gematria.
|
|
david
dubĝal (scribes assistent)
Posts: 43
|
Post by david on Sept 7, 2007 18:50:06 GMT -5
Thanks for the interesting info, do you (or anyone else) know if the Mesopotamian's attached the same importance to numerology as Jews do (for example, gematria, etc).
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Sept 8, 2007 0:53:59 GMT -5
Ah wonderful post Madness! I love the topic, the presentation, this pictures - you've spent some time here. I take this as a proposal to discuss numerology and this proposal is very good ;] Youve managed to hit on something I have little idea about, but since Im going to the library this week, my contribution to this thread will be to replace these words with further reading on late Mesopotamian numerology..should be within a week, if successful.
Nice work! Also this makes me think of attempts at reviewing the Mesopotamian or Sumerian number system as it appear in the cuneiform (for the Sumerologistics board)
|
|
|
Post by madness on Sept 8, 2007 2:43:30 GMT -5
What I am also interested in is the absurdly long reigns of kings in Sumerian and Babylonian king lists. See the Sumerian king list for example. etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.2.1.1#Are the numbers simply made up in order to embellish the truth, or is there some kind of mystical mathematics behind it?
|
|
|
Post by belmurru on Sept 10, 2007 11:56:11 GMT -5
Hi all, see the work of Laurie E. Pearce on the "Number-Syllabary Texts" for up to date stuff (up to the 1990s anyway). These texts are all very late - Seleucid period, and all come from Babylon apparently - e.g. - "Cuneiform Cryptography: Numerical Substitutions for Syllabic and Logographic Signs" (Ph.D. Thesis, Yale University, 1982) "Cuneiform Number Syllabaries", Iraq 45 (1983) pp. 136-137 (survey of 4 "Number Syllabary" texts) "The Number-Syllabary Texts" Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 116, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1996), pp. 453-474 The "number syllabary" is Syllabary A (S a) with the signs in one column paired with numbers in another. There are 211 signs in Syllabary A. There were, to 1996, 5 known texts of this genre, with identical pairings. The reasoning behind the system is still obscure. Syllabary A - www-hep2.fzu.cz/~piska/cuneiform/CUNSYLA4.PDFHer comments in 1996 were: "(1) there existed one consistent system of pairing numerals with S a signs; (2) the numerals associated with each S a sign bear no relationship to the ordinal position of the syllabic sign in S a ; (3) the numeral paired with each S a sign does not reflect the number of wedges used to write the sign. Thus, it remains uncertain how the decision to assign a particular numeral to each sign was made. I surmise that the choice was an arbitrary one, made by the compiler/creator of the text(s)." (p. 461) She also points out that there is no example of these number-sign equivalents being used in any other context. For Sargon's name-number, there is a small history of interpretation. Pearce notes them all in note 40 of her 1996 article - (1) F. Delitzsch, "Soss, Ner, Sar," Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Alterthumskunde 16 (1878), 63 (2) F. Peiser, "Ein Beitrag zum Bauwesen der Assyrer" MVAG (Mitteilunger der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft) 5.2 (1900), 50 (3) F. Hommel, "Die Zahl 'meines Namens' in Sargons Zylinderinschrift," OLZ (Orientalistische Litteratur-Zeitung) 10 (1907), 225-28 (4) E. Unger, "Dur-Sarrukin," Reallexikon der Assyriologie (1936), 2:249-250 (5) E. Weidner, "Silkan(he)ni, König von Musri, ein Zeitgenosse Sargons II," AfO (Archiv für Orientforschung) 14 (1941-1944), 49 (6) David M. Fouts, "Another Look at Large Numbers in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions," JNES 53 (1994), 207 with note 16. Fouts' note sums up the attempts from Delitzsch and Hommel - "Delitzsch (p. 63) had attempted to divide Sargon's name into the three parts: the determinative, the name for king, and the root kûn". He notes that Weidner didn't accept this solution, and as far as I can tell, there is no consensus on the topic to this day. As for the incredibly long regnal spans of the King lists, I think this is much more discussed. Two articles I have are a brief one by John Walton in Biblical Archeologist (Fall 1981) pp. 207-208, where he compares the antediluvian lists of the bible with that of the Sumerian King list, and suggests that the two lists show the same numbers, only one read decimally, the other sexagesimally. I haven't read any critical commentary on this theory. The other is by Dwight W. Young, "The Incredible Regnal Spans of Kish I in the Sumerian King List," JNES 50 no. 1 (1991), pp. 23-35. He gets into some complex mathematics, and I haven't studied it so I can't comment on it. Finally, for general comments on gematria and cuneiform, including extensive discussions of numbers as god-names and their occasional use in personal names, see the classic articles by S. J. Lieberman, "A Mesopotamian Background for the So-Called Aggadic 'Measures' of Biblical Hermeneutics?" HUCA (Hebrew Union College Annual) 58 (1987), pp. 157-225, and S. Parpola, "The Assyrian Tree of Life," JNES 52 (1993), pp. 161-208, especially page 182 notes 87 and 88. That's all I have for bibliography - when I get a scanner I'll put up some of the older ones since they have cuneiform fonts in them which explain the theories about Sargon's name. Ross
|
|
|
Post by amarsin on Sept 11, 2007 10:21:10 GMT -5
Re the Sumerian King List and the long reigns, it's important to remember that there are several versions of the list, and there is often little agreement among the witnesses as to the kings or their reigns. I'm more inclined to think that there isn't much significance to them beyond to express what appears to have been a general cultural idea that a long time ago, the world was a stranger place and people lived for a long, long time. I am completely unconvinced by Walton's argument in Biblical Archaeologist. All he does is add up the Genesis years to arrive at a certain number. Then he adds up the middle 8 antediluvian kings from one exemplar of the SKL and gets another number. Then he 'converts' the bigger SKL number from a sexagesimal system to a decimal one, and notes that the resulting new number is pretty close to the Genesis one. Of course, the individual reigns don't match up at all. That is, the Genesis order is: 912-905-910-895-962-365-969-777. The SKL order is: 28800-36000-43200-28800-36000-28800-21000-18600 So Genesis goes from 912 down, up, down, up, way down, way up, down. But that doesn't match the SKL order at all. Walton tries to gloss this by saying that there is "internal fluidity which is characteristic of genealogical tradition." Perhaps, but it still doesn't explain why the numbers themselves don't match up. That is, in the SKL, the number 28800 shows up three times. According to Walton's math, 28800 when converted into decimal is 800. Which three numbers among the Genesis years match up to this? It can't be done. So all Walton is left with is assuming that somehow, a scribe knew that the total of the SKL was a certain number, though he misread it and made it decimal (?!), and then fixed (at random?) the lengths of years of the Genesis patriarchs to match this total, even if the internal lengths of each patriarch didn't correspond to any SKL lengths? Even if we exclude the rather dubious proposition that a Biblical scribe somehow had access to the WB prism (or a duplicate), this idea is so far-fetched as to be completely untenable. Young's JNES article, though I only just now skimmed it, seems to suggest that the years for the kings of Kish (who come after the flood) may have derived in part from some sort of scribal mathematical games. Though I'd have to sit and work through this a bit more, it seems like a convincing (if on the surface, at least) proposition. (For those interested, a hodgepodge composite of the SKL is here.) There certainly is much to be said about the SKL, though I am more inclined to think that different witnesses served different functions for different peoples who bothered to put it into writing. Obviously, there is a Mesopotamian cultural tradition imperative to make lists, and certainly one to record rulers in order of succession. Young's ideas may apply to some (or most?) exemplars, though I'd also say that Michalowski, in his "History as Charter," JAOS 103 (1983): 237-248, is correct that it served, at least to the post Ur III kings, some sort of propagandistic function, too.
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Sept 13, 2007 2:21:51 GMT -5
Wonderful contributions! -- Thanks everyone for the work on this thread. I have been suitably inspired to spend hours in the library and am quite interested in exploring numerology - first with specific interest to the SKL and its regnal spans (whatever there significance.). As these are topics I havent studied previously, Ill start with what to some will be back reading, to others (admittedly myself) some first views of this material - of the non-popular variety..
- SKL = Sumerian King List, t.2.1.1 - [1] First though, S.N. Kramers well known comment is insightful, part of which reads: " To be sure, this unique document is actually a mixture of fact and fancy, the author seems to work under the delusion that all dynasties he lists followed each other in strict succession, when in fact most of them, if not all, were contemporaneous to a greater or lesser extent. "The Sumerians,1963, pg 36) History as charter: Some Observations on the Sumerian King List Piotr Michlowski JAOS 81 1983. After reviewing the article you've mentioned, Amar-sin, it certainly contains some excellent insight and theory. Ive noted some points below which should be useful to those of us building an academic understanding of the SKL, some "Background", and hopefully Ive captured the essential of Michalowski's proposals as well. Ultimately, my next few post here will aim to build a context for an intelligent consideration of Young's ideas about the SKL (good citing here Ross!). Ive used my own numbering for notes. Some of Michalowski's Introductory comments: (Background) "The text which we know as the Sumerian King List has been with us for quite some time. Seventy-one years ago V. Scheil published the first manuscript of the composition but the text truly made its imprint on the field of Assyriology due to the pioneering efforts of A. Poebel and, most importantly, those of T. Jacobsen, who published his now classic treatment of the "List" in 1939. [ 2] Since that time the King List has been dissected and commented upon there has been, surprisingly, little critical literature on the subject. Most studies of early Mesopotamian history have in one way or another made use of this text and while one often encounters isolated comments on the "tendentious" nature of the composition, to this day we lack any comprehensive modern study of the non-philological aspects of the King List. " Difficulties in assessing historical merit: (background) Michalowski then proceeds with a broad discussion on the interpretation of textual sources, real vs fiction. As the SKL is often termed a histographic work, he calls question to what extent the list preserves historic information, and explains "texts are stories, or narratives,or whatever one may wish to call them" - and so have some fictitious elements, to include the SKL. Making its interpretation difficult as well, is that though it is a list constructed by means of an unrelenting repetition of formulas "It cannot be easily classified as a chronicle, as an annal, or as any of the other of the traditionally designated forms of elementary historical narratives...." Further its stated "the sources of the King List belong to a class of tablets which cannot be easily classified within the bounds of our present knowledge of Sumerian literary tablets." To all that can still be added "there is at present, considerable disagreement on the date of the composition of this document" [ 3] Comments about the sources of the ancient compiler: "The likeliest source for the sections containing information from the Old Akkadian period to the time of the Isin dynasty are the date-lists. Such date-lists exist and, for the most part, it is not difficult to reconcile the data of the King List with the information which can be independently gleaned from these sources." [ 4] Michalowski states the consistent use of this type of dating began with the Akkad dynasty - and notes the sections of the SKL with fewest problems date to the periods when year-dates were in use. Other sources for the OB ancient compilers of the king-list, were possibly votive triumphal inscriptions from the Pre-Sargonic, Sargonic and UrIII periods. Its interesting to note that of the sixty or so names of rulers in the pre-Sargonic sections of the list "only approximately six are presently attested in contemporary texts." Ideological context: Here Michalowski builds ideas earlier developed by J.J. Finkelstien,[ 5] and before him T. Jacobsen and F.R. Kraus , in regards to the propagandistic nature of the SKL. The basic proposal is that the King list is "an expression of the idea of centralization of power in the hands of one dynasty, ruling from one city, an idea which found its roots in the period directly following the "expulsion of the Gutians" and which was ultimately realized as a legitimation of the Isin dynasty." [ 6] Attempt to sum Michalowski's furthering of this idea: As is related, Mesopotamia was ruled by a variety of competing kingdoms following the fall of the Third dynasty of Ur, (outside of a brief period of hegemony). Its accepted that the kingdoms of Old Babylonia were ruled by kings of Amorite origin (the nature of these origins is a matter which is "difficult to gauge" however.) Still, Michalowski takes pains here to demonstrate that Amorite rulers of that time were in most cases descendants of a royal line within their respective tribe. This is indicted in some royal inscriptions which for these kings will sometimes include designations such as "heir of Samium" thought to refer to some tribe. The author calls therese designations "Amorite titles", and concludes "I am suggesting that these titles provide a form of "genealogical charter" for the legitimation of kingship: it was not enough to be king, one had to claim descent from the proper lineage within the Amorite tribes." The ideology of the King List and related documents vs the historical charter of genealogical thought- (In plain english = Rulers inclinced to fabricate their legitamacy vs Rulers with some sort of acknlowedged royal pedigree) A reason for SKL propaganda: Michalowski's points to the fact that this type of "Amorite title" propaganda is noticeably absent in the case of Isin, whose founder Ishbi-Erra was "either not an Amorite or, more probably, was from the wrong lineage within his own tribe, having attained high status and, eventually, control of Isin only through his service to the kings of Ur." Its suggested then that the drive to create the king list, was in some sense derived from a need to compensate for the royal legitmation present outside of Isin. Very interestingly, Michalowski states "the fiction that each city of Mesopotamia in turn held the bala, the turn of office, not only provided them with an alternative genealogical charter which was not available to them, but it also served to bolster their claims of hegemony over all the territories which had once been under the rule of the UrIII dynasty." It is added that the composition "The lament over the destruction of Sumer and Ur" , and particularly Enlil's verdict "Since the days of old when the land was founded until (now) when the people have multiplied, who has (ever) seen a reign of kingship that is everlasting" , reflects the same ideology as the SKL and that is - the ideology of Isin. The basic proposal the author makes, is that the writing of the SKL was a conscious attempt to link Isin dynasty with the Ur III kings, and to that end the author states, it should not be surprising that the order of certain dynasties, the names and even the presence or absence of some groups of rulers are minor details from the point of view of the function of the list - which leads him to the strongly worded statement "the text should forever be banished from the reconstruction of early Mesopotamian history." (Any oversights above? )Following in coming weeks, I hope to look at: -The Antediluvian Kings: A University of California Tablet, by J. J. Finkelstein Journal of Cuneiform Studies, 1963 The American Schools of Oriental Research -"Remarkable Numbers" in Old Babylonian Mathematical Texts: A Note on the Psychology of Numbers, by Jens Ho̵yrup Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 1993 The University of Chicago Press -A. Westonholz, "Early Nippur Year Dates and the Sumerian King List" JCS 26 (1974) 154-6 Notes: [ 1] I here credit Amarsin with the invention of the Enenuru text link - wish I had computer smarts. [ 2]: T. Jacobsen, The Sumerian King List [Assyriological Studies 11] 1939. [ 3] For a recent survey of various opinions on the subject, see D. O. Edzard RIA 6 (1980) 80-f. [ 4] 3. See R. Borger, HKL III, 37 par.19 also A. Westonholz, "Early Nippur Year Dates and the Sumerian King List" JCS 26 (1974) 154-6 [ 5] J.J. Finkelstein "Early Mesopotamia. 2500-1000 B.C [ 6] By roots of of the idea of centralization of power extending from one dynasty after the Gutian period, I take Michalowski to be refering to the riegn of Ur-Nammu, who established his rule throughout Sumer.
|
|
|
Post by cynsanity on Sept 13, 2007 12:35:38 GMT -5
First of all, I completely agree with Amarsin. second - I don't know if this really counts as a valid contribution, but when we were discussing the SKL and the UrSKL in a history-lecture a few years back, my professor mentioned that he (and seemingly some other scholars) believed that a) I'm more inclined to think that there isn't much significance to them beyond to express what appears to have been a general cultural idea that a long time ago, the world was a stranger place and people lived for a long, long time.
(amarsin), b) Young's JNES article, though I only just now skimmed it, seems to suggest that the years for the kings of Kish (who come after the flood) may have derived in part from some sort of scribal mathematical games. Though I'd have to sit and work through this a bit more, it seems like a convincing (if on the surface, at least) proposition. (amarsin), c) that the names of the earliest kings in the SKL and UrSKL seem to be not the kind of personal names that we are used to, resp. that we know from the 4th (partly and only a few) and particularly the 3rd millennium. Granted, name-giving traditions change over the time, but the argument my prof made seemed quite convincing to me - the names, in his model, would reflect "tribes" with a certain totem (I distinctly recall him saying that the names resemble/are animal names in a lot of cases). Of course, the extremely long periods of kingship are still quite impossible, but taking into account the scribal mathematics, and maybe some writing errors or a tendency to embellish upon the past would, in my opinion, makes sense. Now if I only get to ask the guy, he took a free semester and is on holiday... And I have no cuneiform SKL lying around, so I can't check up on that at the moment... (this seems to be the thing that I say most).
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Sept 19, 2007 13:12:56 GMT -5
Early Nippur Year Dates and the Sumerian King List by Aage Westenholz, Journal of Cuneiform Studies, 1974 The American Schools of Oriental Research Westonholz here puts forth a small 3 page piece, with some thoughts on the influence of year dates on the forming of the Sumerian king list. Despite my current weakness on what I think will become something to really study when it comes to examining Sumerian history, I believe Westenholz is in the below is referring to date-formulas, a technique of time stamping administrative and economic documents that began in approx. 2500 B.C. Years were distinguished and named based on outstanding religious and political events as in 'the year so and so did this.' The date-formulas discussed below deal with kings before Naram-Sin, however after it may be that more reliable information is found in date-lists, or compiled lists of of year-names current in a given reign or succession of reigns * as Michalowski commented "The likeliest source for the sections containing information from the Old Akkadian period to the time of the Isin dynasty are the date-lists." ( *The above samples Kramer 1963 p.35) Westenholz relays that in published and unpublished tablets from Nippur, there are 19 'year dates' (I understand as date formula) belonging to kings and reigns from before Naram-sin. In these early year dates there is: 1. Enšakušanna is mentioned in one to have besieged Kish (TuM 5 158: 10-12, cf. ; OSP 1 101 = PBS 1/2 97 iii 4-6) and in another to had defeated Akkade (TuM 5 82:7-9) 2. Lugalzagesi in a line possibly referring to his ascendance to kingship (TuM 5 82:7-9) 3. Sargon is said to have raided Urua (TuM 5 181:10-11, cg 86:8-9 ) and Elam (TuM 85 iv 1-3 ) and conducted a campaign against Simurrum (TuM 5 151:10-12) Ive added in some notes from the SKL: 1. Despite some differences I believe the king here mentioned is from the second dynasty of Unug (Uruk)corresponds to line 186 of the SKL as displayed at ETCSL: 186-192. In Unug, En-šag-kuš-ana became king; he ruled for 60 years.[ en-šakkan2-ša4-an-na] **However there is some problem or contradiction here in that a date formula seems to have him defeating Akkade which would need to be done sometime after Sargon. Ill have to look in to this. 2. 259-265. In Unug, Lugal-zage-si became king; he ruled for {25} {(ms. P3+BT14 has instead:) 34} years. 1 king; he ruled for {25} {(ms. P3+BT14 has instead:) 34} years. {Then Unug was defeated} {(ms. S has instead:) Then the reign of Unug was abolished} and the kingship was taken to Agade. 3. 266-296. In Agade, Sargon, whose father was a gardener, the cupbearer of Ur-Zababa, became king, the king of Agade, {who built Agade} {(ms. L1+N1 has instead:) under whom Agade was built}; he ruled for {56} {(ms. L1+N1 has instead:) 55} {(ms. TL has instead:) 54} years. Continuing on, other year dates are termed anonymous dates in that they dont mention a specific king, but mention an event that took place i.e "the year when A.-canal was dug." Unlike the king specific dates which generally speak of victory over such and such an enemy, the anonymous are more often concerned with peaceful activity. though an exception is given as: < mu > ensí Nibru[ ki] U r u - s a g - r i g 7ki - da ì - d a - t u š - a "The year when the ensi of Nippur besieged(?) U." (TuM 5 211 ii 1' -3'). (The author notes Urusagrig (U.) belonged under the administrative area of Nippur and is puzzled about why an ensi should besiege one of his own towns) Wesstonholz see's similar traits between the SKL and the early Nippur year dates, and states that both work on the assumption that "there is only one king of more then purely local importance at any given time." By this I would suspect he is referring to the date-formulas as items which mark the year by the actions of (one particular) king. All three featured kings are found in the SKL, and "both the King List and the year dates concur in the implicit fact that Nippur was never anything more than the seat of an ensi whose functions were of a purely religious and administrative nature." Westonholz draws some hypothetical conclusions: "The concept of a king of all Babylonia was an ancient one, based on the role of Enlil as the bestower of kingship. Presumably, any ruler who aspired to the prestigious title variously known as "king of Kish" or "king of the Land" had to be officially recognized and enthroned in Nippur. It would seem, from the phrasing of the transfer of kingship from one city to another in the King List ("City A was smitten with weapons; its kingship was carried to City B"). as well as from the account of Sargon's victory over Lugalzagesi, where he brought him captive to the entrance gate of Ekur, that little more than a military victory of the aspirant to the title over his predecessor was required as decisive proof that Enlil had chosen the victor to be "king of the Land." Such kings were then mentioned in the Nippur year dates, and such kings form the backbone of the Sumerian King List. The King List, as we have it now, is a heroic attempt to reconcile the concept of one king, chosen by Enlil, with the body of information pertaining to the Early Dynastic period that was available to the Old Babylonian compilator. Unwilling to discard any of this information, he had to put all the Early Dynastic kings in successions of each other." In Sum - To this point, it would seem the king list was compiled by the scribes of Isin who besides royal insciptions, could draw from date-lists after the Sargonic period, date formula's before, while certain of the ealriest non-personal names may reflect whats termed tribal influences. Still to come - getting numerical. *dusts off calculator* P.S. Comments/Corrections on date formulas etc. welcome.
|
|
|
Post by madness on Oct 10, 2007 9:16:01 GMT -5
While the king list is a result of mathematical elaborations, and we might not learn anything "mystical" from it, what does stand out to me is the difference between the antediluvian and postdiluvian reigns. The compiler of the list certainly viewed them differently, given the great difference in length.
This appears to demonstrate a belief that the time before the flood was a kind of paradise. All of the reigns of the antediluvian kings are a multiple of 3600, with the last two being a multiple of 3600 plus a multiple of 600. 3600 being the number of totality and perfection, and not a single king after the flood is multiplied by it.
|
|
|
Post by madness on Oct 23, 2007 7:11:24 GMT -5
Here is one of the tablets from the i.NAM.giš.hur.an.ki.a series, it is certainly the most interesting. From Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars pp. 30-33. K 170 + Rm 520 Obverse1. ["Fruit" is Sîn] because Anu called his name. All ..... both. Appearance on the 1st day: a crescent: Anu. 2. ["Cow(abkar)" is Sîn.] ab is arhu as cow; arhu(as half brick) is half shape. kár is the sloping form of the gána sign; pronounced karu: to damage, pronounced gana: area. A half crown on the 7th day: a kidney shape: Ea. 3. [(..)] Sîn is "Lord of Decisions(en.eš.bar)". eš is 30; 2 is - ēni, which is also lord(en). 0;30 x 0;30 = 0;15 To wear a crown on the 15th day: a circle: Enlil. 4. [(..)] Enlil is the brother of Ea. Nanna(ŠEŠ.KI) is šeš; brother is šeš. River is nāru; narru is Enlil. Lines 5 - 11: ...] . Names of Sîn. | ...] the pre-eminent god, the father of the gods | 60 | Anu | ...] ... he is a shepherd, "he is" means "universe", (so he is) king of the universe | 50 | Enlil | ...] . the king of the Apsû, the lord of the source | 40 | Ea | ... Anu] called [his name fruit.] Lord of the Decisions of the month | 30 | Sîn | ...]. lord, lord of the torch of totality | 20 | Šamaš | ...]. rain and ... , thunder | 6 | Adad |
ReverseLines 1 - 8: ...] | 10 | Bēl Marduk | ...] ... [... ...] | 15 | Ištar, lady of the gods | ...] .. he is lord of the weapon as his name says, called .. of Enlil | 50 | Ninurta son of Enlil | ...] ... heaven and earth.: you write (11) reversed, so he is lord of the 600 (Anunnaki) | 11 | Nergal Šakkan | ...] tab is two and 10 x 2 = 20. The comrades of Šamaš(20) | 10 | Gibil Nusku | ...] Heavens (šamê) means "of water"(ša mê)
...] Heaven is Girru.
... the x]th excerpt of i.NAM.giš.hur.an.ki is finished. | | Uraš ("Earth") means "create". Ki ("Earth") means "create". |
9. ...].. a secret of the scholar. The uninitiated shall not see. 10. A tablet of Nabûzuqupkēna, son of Mardukšumipīša, the scribe, descendant of Gabbiilāniēreš, the chief of the scribes.
|
|
|
Post by saharda on Nov 2, 2007 14:40:09 GMT -5
Thanks for the interesting info, do you (or anyone else) know if the Mesopotamian's attached the same importance to numerology as Jews do (for example, gematria, etc). Similar, but not the same is how I would put it. The Sumerians liked algebra in the same way that the Greeks loved geometry. The idea of numerology that can be used in the same way as in Quaballa is unfortunately imposable. The languages are radically different from each other. Written Hebrew looks and acts more like Egyptian lettering, where Sumerian Cuneiform is more similar to Mandarin (in that the Sumerograms and Chinese characters are each words or phrases and that a few characters can say volumes, but that there have to be volumes of those characters in order to do this.)
|
|
|
Post by saharda on Nov 2, 2007 14:43:48 GMT -5
What I am also interested in is the absurdly long reigns of kings in Sumerian and Babylonian king lists. See the Sumerian king list for example. etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.2.1.1#Are the numbers simply made up in order to embellish the truth, or is there some kind of mystical mathematics behind it? Correct me if I am wrong, but the numbers are there to provide an easy system of financial record keeping. Making distantly past kings have absurdly long reigns helps legitimize any business or institution that can date themselves to that period.
|
|
|
Post by madness on Nov 5, 2007 21:04:18 GMT -5
Re: Reply #6 by us4-he2-gal2
Jacob Klein summarises this in "The Birth of Kingship: From Democracy to Monarchy in Sumer" in Archaeology Odyssey vol. 4 no. 1 (Jan/Feb 2001)
"Most scholars believe that the king list was really a work of political propaganda, designed to help the rulers of the Isin dynasty in their bid to take over southern Mesopotamia. By weaving all of the disparate, often competing dynasties of ancient Sumer into a single seamless narrative, the authors of the list were trying to suggest that the rulers of Isin were part of a long and illustrious royal heritage—one that could trace its lineage all the way back to the time when "kingship descended from heaven." Not a bad qualification for leadership, by anyone’s reckoning."
|
|