|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Apr 28, 2012 22:36:11 GMT -5
Thread Orientation: This thread aims to weigh and explore the proposals for the reading and interpretation of the signs used in the spelling of the name of Enlil, and the implications of this for Sumerian religion. The Name of Enlil Again As some of you may have read already, my board address on April 25th responded to the discussion of the name of Enlil (see reply 3-8 on the Theology thread). In response, I favored the input of Xianhua Wang - as I personally don't have insight into the archaic forms of the relevant signs, I favored Wang mainly as his presentation seemed to be the most recent and taking into account recent decisions and fresh data. In a field that is constantly maturing, these are important factors. However, little did I know that Steinkeller was aware of Wang's opinions as early as 2008 (apparently there was an early draft of the thesis or some such) and has since issued a defense of his original position - I have been reliably informed as of yesterday by our Harvard insider. So I am looking over Steinkeller's very recent position on this. Secondly, I have just found a rebuttal to this defense by Englund. Proposal to Advance I will sum both of these very fresh positions on this very old issue - and afterwards, I suggest we a) obtain working examples of all variants of the archaic cuneiform for E2 and KID and b) examine, especially in so far as CDLI allows, all original tablets used by these parties to make their case for the reading of Enlil. The tablets will confuse, but they won't lie. Whose interpretation is most true to the data? To start with: I will copy my summary of Wang's view on this from his 2011 thesis on Enlil. This is the summary that appeared on the enenuru April 25th group email (to follow in the next post - Steinkeller's new input) : _____________________________________ Summary of Wang's Stance Regarding signs used in the spelling of the name then, I refer to Wang 2011, the monograph on Enlil which sums and qualifies just about all important scholarship on the god. It becomes apparent that Steinkeller’s ideas about it originate from a 1988 unpublished paper on Enlil and Ninlil. Wang states that Steinkeller combats the traditional view, that Enlil means “Lord air”, by observing that “throughout the third millennium Enlil’s name was written with the sign combination dEN.É but not dEN.LÍL(KID)" - Wang comments: "This somehow incorrect observation suggested to him that “Enlil’s name is a logogram, whose literal sense is ‘master of the household, paterfamilias.” Wang lightens “incorrect assessment” to “somewhat inaccurate” in a footnote; either way, however, it’s worth noting his justifications. First, in classical the Sumerian of the later periods, the name of Nippur was written EN.LÍL.KI , and the name of the god himself, AN.EN.LÍL (that is (d)Enlil). Thus the city was called ‘the place of Enlil' (Wang 2011:41). Wang interprets the presence of the EN.KID writing already in the Uruk III period, in the Archaic City List and on the Archaic City Seal (in both cases, the city is referred to). While the latter source is quite controversial in any attempt at interpretation, the instance on the Archaic City List is a little more secure and also quite important – its excavation number is W21126. See CDLI : www.cdli.ucla.edu/cdlisearch/search/index.php?SearchMode=Text&txtID_Txt=P000508 As the author explains, the word in question which appears in W21126 was initially read EN.E2 in the 1970s, and this was based off of an excavation photo – however, Englund later traveled to the Iraq museum and examined the fragment himself, whereupon he changed his reading of this text from EN.E2 to EN.KID (=NIBRU). This finding was apparently published in 1998, well after Steinkeller’s view was formed (1988) which may explain some of the disconnect. While other scholars have been looking for EN.E2 in archaic texts based on the original interpretation of W21126, Wang re-evaluates the Archaic Administrative texts, looking for EN.KID. Interestingly, he is able to cite 6 further examples of EN.KID from this corpus. Among much other evidence, some a matter of interpretation, the author gives two inscriptions from the first and second part of the ED period, in order demonstrate that up until the ED III period, the writing of Enlil’s name was (like the writing of Nibru in Uruk times) EN.KID (Wang 2011: 87). The first is the inscription of Pabilgagi (ED I), I believe it is on the back of what is often called an alabaster “bull man” from Umma – the piece seems to be in the George Ortiz collection: www.georgeortiz.com/3D/015/index.htmlThe inscription reads: "For Enlil [EN.KID]. Pabilgagi, king of Umma.” The second is the inscription of Ur-Nanše (URN 26) - Although the line drawing at CDLI doesn’t look like KID to me, Wang insists that in the drawing of Sollberger 1956 the sign appears as KID (perhaps reference with the actual item would be useful here). www.cdli.ucla.edu/cdlisearch/search/index.php?SearchMode=Text&txtID_Txt=P22236 In any case, Wang gives sufficient data and analysis to question Steinkeller's long held views on the EN.E2 / EN.KID issue - again however, much of the data hinges no interpretations of archaic broken signs and is debatable. This issue does not really impact the 7 points Steinkeller made for early theology and is something of a side issue in so far as I can see.
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Apr 29, 2012 12:28:53 GMT -5
Steinkeller Reacts - Original Position Reinforced: As explained in the above post, I will now sum Steinkeller's most recent response to some of his colleges challenges concerning the reading of the name Enlil in early periods. This response came in the Festschrift in honor of David I. Owen - Why Should Someone Who Knows Something Conceal It? Cuneiform Studies in Honor of David I. Owen on His 70th Birthday , published 2010. Interestingly, listed in the Bibliography of this paper is Wang's Metamorphosis of Enlil, published 2008 (this must be the version of the thesis as it appeared prior being published in AOAT 2011) - so it's possible some of the impetus for Steinkeller's response here could have come from the Wang positions summed in the above post. An additional piece of field history is supplied by the author - in footnote 2 he mentions that his original position on this was, indeed, contained in a paper he read in 1988 but never published. Why wasn't the paper published? It seems it may have had something to do with a respect for the aging (but still great) Jacobsen. He states: "Had I known that this meeting would be attended by Thorkild I would have kept this paper for another venue. In order not to aggravate our disagreement further, I had refrained from discussing the matter as long as Thorkild was alive. I wrote about it later (but only very briefly) (Steinkeller 1999:144 n. 36)." And that is the footnote we have seen Wang respond to above. Interestingly, as is sometimes noted, Jacobsen's paper "The lil2 of Enlil2" was in fact a direct response to the Steinkeller 1988 talk, where he was an unexpected guest - for Jacobsen, Enlil was always to be understood as "Lord Wind". In any case, as will be seen, Steinkeller has less problem disagreeing with his more recent opponents on the reading of Enlil - i.e. Englund. One last aside, but one I think worth mentioning, is how to fairly assess the ongoing debate - is it all about ego or being right? Steinkeller begins his article by expressing a more noble motivation behind all of this: "..the knowledge of what these signs really are is not just philological pedantry or an exercise in one-upmanship, since the archaic logographic writings of divine names and toponyms are an invaluable source of information on the political and religious realities of the archaic age...The early history of Nippur, which came to dominate the political and cultural scene in Early Dynastic times, is still shrouded in mystery. Hence the obvious interest in the logogram that was used to write Nippur’s name, as well as that of its chief god Enlil." (Steinkeller 2010: 239). I agree that it is about truth and not ego, in that what really matters is the pure academic truth behind all of this process. Steinkeller's view of the data: 2010 The author introduces the study itself with a bit of a mis-statement: "As observed first by this author, in the ED III – Ur III sources Enlil’s name is written consistently with the sign É. " While in fact, his wording in 1999 (note 36) implies quite a wider stretch for this reading, namely, it included the ED I and ED II periods (presumably): "throughout the 3rd millennium Enlil's name is consistently written with the signs dEN.E2, and not dEN.LIL2.." (Steinkeller 1999: n. 36). Oddly however, as will be seen below , Steinkeller, in actuality, attempts demonstrate something more akin to his first position - EN.E2 from Archaic down to Ur III even! (?) Steinkeller on the writing of Nibru in the Archaic City List: Like Wang and, Englund before him, Steinkeller also sees the signs on the Archaic City List as "crucial" to determining how Enlil/Nibru was written before the EDIII period. He recounts the history of interpretation just as Wang (fragment W. 21126 contained a writing of Nibru first read by Green as EN.E2 in 1977, revised by Englund to a reading of EN.KID)... here is where Steinkeller differs: "Englund then chose to analyze the sign in question as a variant of KID. However, this decision was entirely arbitrary, since, from the formal point of view, this sign is more akin to É than to KID. For this reason alone, therefore, it should be analyzed as a graphic variant of É." (Steinkeller 2010:240). Whether Steinkeller is correct or incorrect here may be born out in the process of examination to follow in later posts. However he makes one additional point which cannot easily be disputed - it is a point of logic that I have marked in red: to be considered as we go: "The latter conclusion is further dictated by purely common-sense considerations. If the Uruk III writing was in fact É.KID, this would mean that the original spelling of the god’s name was syllabic (En-líl). This, in turn, would necessarily require us to assume that, for reasons unknown, the writing was transformed into the logographic EN.É in the Fara period,to be eventually changed back to En-líl sometime during the Old Babylonian period. Needless to say, such a convoluted development is illogical and, therefore, not very likely." (Steinkeller 2010:240) Other data cited by Steinkeller for Archaic EN.E2: Steinkeller now discusses three inscriptions (2 ED I, 1 ED II) to support the claim that Enlil/Nibru was written EN.E2 in the archaic period - pg. 240. ( And thus, evidently, his claim now expands from ED III-Ur III (as stated in the introduction) to Archaic to Ur III (?)). Steinkeller 2010 Item 1) The Sealing from ED I UR: CDLI - N/A Wang: Alternate interpretation p. 53 Period: ED I, Ur. Steinkeller: "A sealing from Ur, dating to the ED I period, records Nippur’s name: Nibru(EN.É) (Fig.1). The second sign is certainly É, and not KID. Here note that the checkered pattern is limited to the front (top) half of the sign. This is the standard form of the sign É throughout the third millennium. In all probability, É depicts the façade of a temple or other public building. In contrast, in KID, which depicts a reed mat, the checkered pattern is applied throughout the sign." Steinkeller 2010 Item 2) ED I Kudurru CDLI: Entry hereWang: N/A Period: ED I, Umma(?) Steinkeller: "An “ancient kudurru,” MS 2482 in the Schøyen Collection, names, before Enki and Inana, the god Enlil (or Nibru (iv’ 3). Another mention of Enlil in found in iii’ 9 of the same text. See Fig. 2. In both instances the second sign is a clear É." EN-E2/KID? from MS 2482 (CDLI image) Steinkeller 2010 Item 3) The Pabilgagi inscription (on alabaster figurine (bull-man?) CDLI: N/A Wang: (See above post - and/or Wang 2011: 87) Period: ED II (?) , Umma. Steinkeller: "Importantly, the second sign of Enlil’s name is the same graph that appears in the Uruk “Cities List.” Since examples (1) and (2) establish that, in the ED I period, Enlil/Nibru was written with the sign É, it follows that, in the present example, which is later than (1) and (2), the graph in question is likewise É.21 This, in turn, confirms my original conclusion that the Uruk graph is a variant of É and not of KID." inscription of Pabilgagi (drawing from the back of the "bull-man" ____________________________________ Still to come... Summary of Englund's 2011 response to Steinkeller 2010 - available here.
|
|
darkl2030
dubĝal (scribes assistent)
Posts: 54
|
Post by darkl2030 on Apr 30, 2012 0:26:32 GMT -5
Note also that according to Steinkeller, the name of Ninlil is, significantly, consistently written with KID/LIL2. This would mean we were dealing with a phonetic spelling -- or actually more accurately, a phonetic compliment. Though Steinkeller doesn't mention this in this context, "Ninlil" was a sort of artificial creation to pair with Enlil and grafted onto Ninhursag, former patron of Tummal near Nippur. There is actually no evidence that Ninlil's name was ever pronounced "Ninlil" and the only phonetic writings giving her name indicate "Muliltu" or "Mulissu." This is much like Enlil's name is never known to have been pronounced "Enlil," and a very early source from Ebla gives his name as I-li-lu, potentially from a Semitic reduplication Il-iluu "God of gods."
Interesting, and possibly a problem, is that Enlil has an emesal spelling of his name, which is "Mu-ul-lil2," and in a lexical list, Mu-le-el. /Mulil/, though admittedly these sources are much later (from the second millenium). So, Ninlil's "real name," Muliltu, would appear to be an Akkadianized feminine of this form. The emesal form of "en" is "u3-mu-un," Enki as another example is "Umun-ki" (UMUN = the U sign). So what exactly the relationship betwen "Illil" and "Mulil" is a question, whether the scribes later artificially analyzed the name En-lil2 and produced the emesal form, or what exactly the existence another pronunciation of his name in a "dialect" of Sumerian attests as far as the ultimate etymology of the god and his ethnic origins.
Another question would then be how/why the KID sign was given the phonetic value "lil2," and what relationship this has with the use of this sign to spell a word /lil/ 'ghost.' Does it have anything to do with the fact that Il-ilu's name ended with "/lil/?" The sign is certainly similar to E2.
I also haven't had a chance yet to check out the ED writings of lil2, in Nlnlil's name and apparently in the personal name Ur-Es3-lil2-la2 "Man/dog of the haunted chapel."
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on May 1, 2012 16:13:04 GMT -5
DarkL: These are some great suggestions and insights regarding Enlil/Ninlil. I think I would delay in depth discussion of the pronunciation of the name, and maybe even of the contrasting information of the name of Ninlil, until a solid foundation on the archaic spelling of Enlil can be made. Or as close to solid as possible. So for now... _________________________________________________ Englund 2011 Vs. Steinkeller 2010 As explained above, last year Robert Englund made a direct response to Steinkeller 2010 in a Cuneiform Digital Library Note (a CDLN) located here. This becomes very interesting because, as many of you know, Englund is basically the leading expert on archaic cuneiform. A great thing about Englund's reply is that whether we prefer his interpretations, or Steinkeller's - or neither! - is, Englund has fully immersed his reply in the CDLI data base and drawn up charts directly connected with documented tablets from this web resource.. so we gain quite a window into the data here. His note is, indeed, practically an invitation to use CDLI's resources in the investigation of archaic cuneiform. Englund is quick to endorse Wang's discussion on these subjects: "this excellent study should be the basis of subsequent discussion." Of course, as Wang supported and followed Englund's findings on the issue of the Archaic City list, for example, this is not surprising. Englund responds to Steinkeller 2010, on the writing of Nibru in the Archaic City List: Steinkeller painted Englund's reading of the relevant sign in the Archaic City list as being "arbitrary" and stated the data shows that the sign resembles E2 more than KID. In response, Englund admits that he, and other authors who worked on ATU 2 and 3 (volumes dealing with cuneiform from Uruk), had to "make decisions about a number of [graphic variants] that were at odds with the leveling intent of ATU 2." In other words, if confronted with a number of similar seeming signs they had to decide whether to treat these signs as variants (I believe he means). And this is probably what Steinkeller is getting at in terms of "arbitrary" - but this hardly means that the decisions made were wrong in any or all cases(!). Importantly, Englund explains the conventions used in labeling the proposed variants of KID: KIDa, KIDb (Uruk III forms), KIDc and KIDd (Uruk IV forms; the Uruk III period KIDe was added later..) Englund's article very conveniently provides a CDLI search string link, isolating all late variants of KID: Again, Englund states that he feels KID~a is the best fit for the sign he inspected on fragment W 21126 in Baghdad (the key piece of the Archaic City list). What he isn't sure about is whether KID~a or KID~b is the true predecessor of the KID = reed mat sign of later variations. I'm not sure yet what the implications of this uncertainty are. Englund on the other data cited by Steinkeller for Archaic EN.E2: Englund is not entirely dismissive of Steinkeller's three examples of the archaic E2 in the name of Enlil - but what he does do is argue that all three examples *could* also be taken to be KID~a. This would effectively nullify Steinkeller's article. On Steinkeller 2010 Item 1): Englund: " no. (1) is a seal rendering that could be E2, could be KIDa—one needs merely move on from this seal to the second in Matthews’ convenient compilation of Ur City Sealings (1993: 61 and fig. 12 nos. 1-2) to find the presumably intended rendering of KIDa in the sequence Ur – Larsa - Nippur." On Steinkeller 2010 Item 2) Englund: " no. (2) (now CUSAS 17, 104), based on the much better images available at <http://www.cdli.ucla.edu/P251646>, could be E2, could be KIDa." On Steinkeller 2010 Item 3) Engund: "no. (3) may be KIDa, at least according to the hand drawing fig. 3..Read E2 or KIDa as you will, all three corroborate nothing at all." _______________________________ To follow below... A slide by slide comparison of the forms of archaic KID, E2 and Steinkeller's examples
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on May 1, 2012 23:59:28 GMT -5
Evaluating the Evidence So Far : One step in considering the two arguments summed above, would be to look at the key pieces along with the archaic signs for E2 and KID - I have adapted these from the CDLI resource cited with the images. So here is the question - which signs seem the best fit? And are these indeed, as Englund states, equally applicable (thus rendering Steinkeller's examples moot?).SO - what do you say?
|
|
darkl2030
dubĝal (scribes assistent)
Posts: 54
|
Post by darkl2030 on May 2, 2012 19:41:57 GMT -5
I think the first two are quite plainly "E2-a." None of the supposed KID variants have squares in the first half and rectanges in the second half, whereas E2 clearly always does. Therefore, since "KID-a" replaces E2 in what is clearly the spelling of the same word (Enlil/Nirbu), "KID-a" should be analyzed as a variant of E2. This is just parroting Steinkellers argument, of course.
If one were able to find an example of a clear "LIL" or "KID," (spelling something other than Enlil/Nibru), that used "KID-a," then the issue would be more complicated, but that doesn't seem to exist.
|
|
darkl2030
dubĝal (scribes assistent)
Posts: 54
|
Post by darkl2030 on May 5, 2012 15:00:29 GMT -5
The deeper problem with Englund's reasoning is that his claims are not falsifiable. There's no possible way to disprove such wishey-washey reasoning as he gives. It is very poor philological practice to say "Well, it could be E2, could be KID-a." I suppose by that logic these signs "could" be "SA" or maybe even something completely different like "A" or "RI." Sure, the sign "could" be anything because "anything is possible," however, so-called "KID-a" and "E2" are clearly different and distinguishable signs. Unless the signs are too damaged to read it should be perfectly possible to decide on a reading.
I think its a pretty basic principle of philology that the reading is based on the shape of the sign, not "presumable intent" as he invokes for seal impression (which to anyone's eye's is e2, plain as day). One really would expect better from a man of Englund's stature, but I suppose the usual standards for academic quality don't apply since he's chosen to simply self publish in his own journal.
Here I think Englund's article can pretty much be discarded outright.
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on May 7, 2012 9:51:24 GMT -5
DarkL:
First I have to say that I have stupidly neglected to include a line drawing of W 21126, the Archaic City list, in my above posts - this is of course the key piece of evidence and so it should definitely be included! I have inserted the picture in to the above Summary, and into both Steinkeller and Englund's arguments. Comparison of the W 21126 line drawing with Steinkeller's evidence is important in qualify his statements.
I will say though that it's not certain to me at the moment that KID clearly replaces E2 in the spelling of the name of Enlil - that E2 was the original spelling. In the evidence given by Steinkeller, only item 1 looks more like E2 to me. Item 2 seems to have faded vertical lines on the second half - maybe it was supposed to be a KID~B? Nothing in item 3 looks more E2 than KID and maybe more the other way around.
And of course, the key item W 21126 - how can that be argued to be more like an E2 than a KID? 0_0
I think Engund may come off as sounding 'wishy-washy' if you isolate his arguement as I have to just the key statements i.e. 'it could be one it could be the other.' But this is far from all he said. I am honestly of the opinion at the moment, that none of the signs under discussion conform precisely to expectations regarding form, and therefore, are not so distinguishable as one might be hoping; given this situation, Englund's article, which recognizes this possibility while simultaneously linking to a large database of examples (whereby on may attempt to gain some context) may make good sense here.
|
|
darkl2030
dubĝal (scribes assistent)
Posts: 54
|
Post by darkl2030 on May 7, 2012 16:50:13 GMT -5
What you're interpreted as "faded lines" are clearly just superficial marks on the stone. Lines incised onto stone don't "fade," and you can see more of the same "faded lines" on the blank part above the "EN" sign (where the DINGIR might usually go). The actual lines that belong to the sign are clearly far more deeply incised and therefore differentiable from mere scratches, the expected wear and tear on a 6000 year old peice of stone. At any rate, in KID-"b" the signs are clearly diagonal, at nearly a 45 degree angle, not straight. KID-b also doesn't have the prominent middle dividing line, seperating the first from the second half of the sign. They really look very different. www.cdli.ucla.edu/dl/photo/P000250.jpgLook in column three. First you get an E2, partially damaged but a clear E2 nontheless, then skip one more line down and find some KIDs, very clearly distinguishable. www.cdli.ucla.edu/dl/photo/P002179.jpgThis one is an even better example. Several E2s, one of them (in the box beginning with UD) is even exagerrated with the non-grid part taking up 75% or more of the sign, and a KID just below that one looks COMPLETELY different, not like the same sign at all!
|
|
|
Post by enkur on May 18, 2012 12:56:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by enkur on May 18, 2012 13:10:06 GMT -5
Moreover, E2 presents clearly in the name of Eannatum himself (e2-an-na-tum2) like in that of Enlil, yet the latter is read d en-lil2, not d en-e2 ...
|
|
ayurveda
dubsartur (junior scribe)
Posts: 6
|
Post by ayurveda on Jun 21, 2012 13:50:19 GMT -5
Re: This thread aims to weigh and explore the proposals for the reading and interpretation of the signs used in the spelling of the name of Enlil, and the implications of this for Sumerian religion. Phps I could add some interesting links here? like en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowl_of_UtuThe very subject could also be called “The name of Enlil?”. It was taken at length in a London publication of 1929 called” The Makers of Civilization” by L.A.Waddell, Ex professor of Tibetan etc. The index on p. 623 states for Enlil:” En-lil, reading for In-Sakh or King Sakh,q.v.” It becomes clear that the author meant En-lil and his sons to be "The Makers of Civilization” and goes at length how he secured the foundation documentary bowl of the first Nippur Temple. It was first published by Hilprecht and purchased by Waddell from the Philadelphia collection, he travelled to Nippur and inspected the site and after his demise it was aquired by the British Museum, now exhibited as BM 129401 and 129402 in the same room where the famous lyres of Ur are. There is no doubt about the authenticity of the items. Waddell held that the first line of the inscription would be the oldest document sofar of the name of “En-lil”. The item is also found googeling under the title “Holy Grail” at the number British Museum BM 129401.In his writings Waddell held the opinion that from these signs the later names of Ea and Jahve were derived. Recent writings on Waddell see also www.gla.ac.uk/services/specialcollections/collectionsa-z/waddellcollection/www.sussex-academic.com/sa/titles/biography/Preston.htmmy 2 cents: The first sign on the stone bowl Ash or En would be the well known eight spoked wheel like sign, which now could be interpreted much better then ever before. The oldest archaeological record sofar seems to be some debateable 70.000 years ago in south-eastern Africa in a stone calendar structure called by its founder “Adam s Calendar”. The discovery is very recent ( appr. 20 years) and little scientific investigation is yet available. But photos shows clearly a circle of rocks placed to mark the solistices of the sun, an image of the earths motion around the sun in one year in eight imaginary sections. www.michaeltellinger.com/adams-calendar.phpThe second sign of En-lil was understood by Waddell as “Sa”, a set of broken lines = = with various interpretations. Generally the meaning of this sign is still accepted today as Sa. My research into archaeo-music has convinced me there is a strong link between calendar buildings and earliest musical terminology, so that in Greek and Sanskrit alike a village is still called the same as a musical scale like a circular wall forming around an inhabitation. The same could apply to a temple and calendar structures. Thus for me the Sa sign ( = =) of the name of Sa GaGa could be the door stone in a wall, the observation stone through which the sun can be seen to shine at the solistices. In Mesopotamian musicology Sa is the name for string or even a scale, that surrounds the temple like a wall and which has a door. In musicology (harmonical symbolism) it was demonstrated how the “Sa” became the name of Jahve, but this would be phps much too lengthy and off topic here. The third sign is missing, broken off and was regarded by Waddell as GaGa corresponding to the “lil” of Enlil. If it were written together it would form a square with a straight cross intersection. Waddell held Ga to mean giving. The three signs viewed together could be interpreted as the sun at the solistice shining through an observation stone at the square altar of the temple. Thus the signs together would designate the purpose of what was to become of the building, namely a temple. The name of Enlil, the original meaning could have been : “When the sun (Ash, En) enters the gate, door (Sa) for the temple (GaGa) offering”. Although this interpretation was not exactly the meaning Waddell implied of the name, it could be most interesting that in his earlier book “The Phoenician Origin of Britons, Scots and Anglo-Saxons” (1924) pp.224 onwards he wrote about his investigations on Stone calendar circles and the Sumerian signs he discovered there, like the Observation stones at Keswick or Stonehenge. A square and an eye were being displayed , giving the meaning “seeing the rising sun at the solistice”. If we add the recent archaeological discoveries of Göbekli Tepe to the picture, we have to admit that in all of Waddells book this area played a central part, it was the northern, original Eridu, the “Hamazi” of the foundation inscription of the Nippur temple. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_TepeThus the earlier migration of modern men from Africa, in cave culture and at Göbekli Tepe could be needed to an understanding of the symbolism of the name? ;D
|
|
darkl2030
dubĝal (scribes assistent)
Posts: 54
|
Post by darkl2030 on Jun 21, 2012 16:47:20 GMT -5
First of all, lil2 and sa are completely different signs.
Second of all, whatever drugs you were on when you wrote that post, I'd be interested to try some!
|
|
|
Post by madness on Jun 21, 2012 20:34:51 GMT -5
I lol'd
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Jun 22, 2012 13:04:21 GMT -5
Ayurveda: Thank you for your suggestions. I was not previously aware of L.A. Waddell or his works and theories. I have glanced through some of the links you provide and in addition, I have read what appears to be a well researched wiki entry on Waddell and his scholarly career. As I would interpret your nickname as being of Indian of Hindu origin (I don't study this area of the world at all), I can understand why you may find Waddell's ideas so interesting, a man who first devoted himself to Tibetan studies, but was frustrated by the lack of early Tibetan materials that would inform the study of ancient India; he then went on to study the Indus valley seals and to learn Sumerian. Waddell's ideas seem to be all about salvaging his old ambitions with new approaches, and he goes on to propose that the Indus Valley civilization is actually a Sumerian colony, and that the Sumerians were Aryans who spoke an Indo-European language. I think that your angle may be at odds with that most often taken at this board for a few reasons. Firstly, Waddell is quite out of date and the truth is, the field of Sumerology has made significant leaps in the last decades. No one from the 30s is trusted without reference to more recent scholarship. Secondly, I think you've done a great job of exploring some of the data, even detailing the museum history of some objects. But there hasn't been much in the line of checking Waddell against the rest of the field - many of his idea's never gained any currency in the field and some scholars, even in those less certain times, were very critical of his work. George A. Barton, for example, commented on Waddell's article concerning the Tower of Babel and the name Shinar as follows: "It would be difficult to collect within the space of ten pages a larger amount of misinformation and misunderstanding than are compressed into the ten pages of this brochure.. this brochure illustrates that Assyriology has many pitfalls, and that he who would, by means of it, make contributions to knowledge should study phonetics and history as well as the syllabary." (Barton, JAOS 43, 1923) I can sort of see where you are going with the Adam's calendar thing, and to an extent archaic archaeology can help to inform some early Sumerian religious practice that occurs prior to the first written religious records. However, your example is a much wider comparative lens then is usually used in the field of Sumerology, a field that has become very introverted and hesitent concerning outside comparisons. This introversion itself is a likely a response to what are now judged to be the "wild" speculations of earlier scholars. DarkL and Madness: You know you are among my favorite contributors here at enenuru and your knowledge, sharpness and wit are appreciated - and as much as I'd like you to feel welcome, I still have reason to complain. I would like to make this board thrive - In the last 1 month, 30 days, there have been only 7 or 8 posts that I didn't make myself and most of them were 1 liners. So whether you like his information or not, the one sizable post made by a member this month has been Ayurveda's. Surely if anything is cause for concern, it is the tactless treatment of new members, who I am actually hard at work trying to recruit 0_0 Or should we just sit here in a unanimous silence.
|
|
ayurveda
dubsartur (junior scribe)
Posts: 6
|
Post by ayurveda on Jun 22, 2012 16:02:29 GMT -5
us4-he2-gal2,
thx for the abundant comments, but due to myself leaving for a holiday I can answer now only very short, phps more at a later time?
I think one can get this first impression if one has to hurry through the matter. I see it as : “nobody yet can interpret a text to satisfaction, it is yet unknown- but Waddell must be wrong”. I knew this attitude from the beginning and did not want to introduce this topic here. But Waddell laid great stress on his interpretation of the signs of the name of Enlil, and it is difficult to find exclusive treatment of this subject anywhere. Therefor I had to introduce Waddell at length in order to stress that he was well aware of the importance of the signs and it would be of great interest to see different opinions, todays inteerpretation.
Myself has been drawn mainly to study mathematical fragments in ancient Indian music, which music history reflects very much the same as Sumerian mythology on music i.g. Eridu and Uruk, Ur. I often take Waddell as a guide for difficult historical questions. What the learned wiki commentators leave out is that Waddell understood the immense importance of Indian Puranas (history mythologies), he found in the Vishnu Purana the kinglists preserved which he showed to be identical with the virtually unknown Sumerian lists of his time. So the first king in both lists was identical, what we call today by the name of Enlil, so he claimed to have aquired the “Holy Grail” of understanding against the rest who could not follow him out of mere misinformation. He reconstructed about 2000 years of kinglists and proved many Indian gods to have been Sumerian humans. This was phps much to advanced for his time and even for today.
|
|
darkl2030
dubĝal (scribes assistent)
Posts: 54
|
Post by darkl2030 on Jun 22, 2012 16:58:09 GMT -5
There are in fact many recent treatments of the signs of the name of Enlil and probably more to come. Wadell's "interpretation," however, must be thrown back into the compost heap from which all ideas and fantasies originate. His views would not have been seen as accurate even back in the 30s.
"The first sign on the stone bowl Ash or En would be the well known eight spoked wheel like sign, which now could be interpreted much better then ever before" Ash is but a single horizontal wedge, and En too (a completely different sign that could never, even in a broken context, be mistaen for Ash) looks nothing like an "eight spoked wheel." Such a description fits the sign "AN/DINGIR" which is used as a determinative for a deity and which is in origin a depiction either of a star or of the planet Venus.
As mentioned already, SA is not the same as lil2, though might be mistaken for each other if halfway broken. Enlil's name, however, is never written with sa.
"Ga-Ga" looks nothing at all like lil2, nor does it mean to give or refer to an offering.
The interpretation of Enlil as "When the sun (Ash, En) enters the gate, door (Sa) for the temple (GaGa) offering” is simply pure imagination. Neither ash nor en mean sun, SA does not mean gate or door, GA does not mean offering.
I don't see how this "Adam's calendar" is at all relevant, but the dating of it as 70,000 years old also reeks of fantasy, considering Gobekli Tepe is "only" 10,000 or so years old.
Ayurveda, your interest in the ancient past is commendable. I'm sure it holds a spiritual value in your heart in contrast to most of our contemporaries who invest themselves in various modern frivolities. But the idea that the Indian gods were actually Sumerian gods is just like everything you see in the TV show "Ancient Aliens." It is actually very disrespectful to the ancients themselves, and shows only ignorance of the ancient evidence in favor of new age science-fiction. The Indus Valley civilization is known to have been called "Meluhha" in Sumerian sources and the relationship between these two civilizations is actually quite well documented textually and archeologically -- but it was based on trade. The links have nothing to do with mythology, kinglists, the Puranas of much later vediic times.
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Jun 24, 2012 10:55:43 GMT -5
Darkl: This seems to be a very solid response and quite logical. I think if we discussing the current validity of Waddell' s interpretations, it is probably true that, yes, his reading of signs must stand again current understanding, and not that of his contemporaries, to remain valid today.
|
|
ayurveda
dubsartur (junior scribe)
Posts: 6
|
Post by ayurveda on Jun 29, 2012 6:20:01 GMT -5
To defend my approach of interpretation, it is the same as modern archaeologists use as “Cultural memory”, a term that should be familiar with those studying Göbekli Tepe. Although time limit for cultural memory at present is set by 3000 years based perhaps on Egyptian history, it may come to be used for much larger time spans according to the dating of sites newly discovered. To use the argument of cultural memory is not disrespectful to any other culture or people. www.amazon.com/Cultural-Memory-Early-Civilization-Remembrance/dp/0521763819
|
|