Talk:Hursag

It's Ninmah not Ninlil

Not sure how this works but, the article says ninurta renamed ninlil, which is wrong he renamed Ninmah. source: https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/c162.htm#line390 can someone please correct this.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.206.215.109 (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC) Atotalnoob

This article borders to DESINFORMATION

I've reshaped the article a bit, but, referenses that are obscure links to google books pages of reprinted 19th century books and odd conventions (using kh instead of ḫ) makes me suspicious that whoever wrote this has no idea what s/he is doing. Wikipedia is an encyklopaedia not a dictionary and shall thus not include mere definition of words which is what this article – when original research not, to my knowledge, having any substance about some kind of hut.sag-worship and I will have my BA in Assyriology this spring. Just **delete* the article, it adds nothing but confusion to readers and has to my knowledge nothing to do with what we know of Sumerian religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.187.211 (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Delete. Article nominated for speedy deletion, for this reason:

• The Page is a essentialy recreation of a page (Kharsag Epics‎) that was merged per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kharsag Epics >> "User:Black Kite: Closing debate, result was merge to Christian O'Brien"

And these additional reasons:

• The author of the article claims in the introduction that this article is about the word Kharsag, however then the topic turns to it's geography?

• Complete archaeology & geography sections are unsourced.

• The quote "amongst others" is meaning who exactly? Christian O'Brien is the only one connecting the Sumerian texts to the Books of Enoch and Genesis. The article again presents a fringe view as true science to the unware reader(s).

• The literature section talks about an quite unknown author fr:Anton Parks, who does only publish books in French language (not notable enough). The French Wiki even shows this author writes about "l’Ufologie", and his other works are about the hollow Earth and the humanoid reptiles. These works are mere derratives of O'Brien's original book ("crossbreeding"). The same goes for the external link to goldenageproject.org.uk, a known 'alternative history' website, stating on it's frontpage: "Featured and central to this site are the mind stretching books by Christian and Barbara Joy O'Brien". All together this makes it very dubious to include these works as a source.

• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest: the page creator User:Paul_Bedson apprears to have a obsession getting his own views on Wikipedia, as this is his only 'contribution' on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Paul_Bedson

Keep. This should not be a speedy deletion. The substatial section of the article has inline citations. Whilst the archaeology & geography sections are unsourced as of 1 April 2010, they are stub (one sentence sections).

I cannot see any merit in deleting this article. Since the deletion is contested by uninvolved parties, any deletion should be by a deletion discussion, not a speedy deletion.--20.133.0.13 (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

So did the old article. This one has links to a self-published novel and some stuff by a UFOlogist/Sitchin follower, the same links that were in the old article. Dougweller (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep. I have completely revised the Kharsag text and backed it up with a large number of noteable non-fringe cites and defined exactly why this is noteable and fully warrants a wikipedia page. I am happy to remove non-notable sources or unsourced parts, or leave them on the O'Brien page with the Kharsag Epics. The location as a Sumerian word or part of a Sumerian phrase is something that really must qualify for a mention and I would welcome and be grateful for any assistance restoring this page and getting it's terminology improved where necessary. Paul Bedson (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Support proposed merge

I just noticed a suggestion to merge with Kur. Now that I look at it, that might be the best avenue to proceed. What we have now is basically a subsection anyway. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There is exactly one line that can be merged in Kur: "Mountains play a central role in archaic Sumerian mythology, associated with deities such as Anu, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursag".

Everything else said on this talkpage are interpretations or assumptions made by Wikipedians, using what was found on Google. This is wrong. I've read all arguments on this page, and basically they can be summerized by: "I've read...", "I think..." "..most likely...": Weasel words all over the place.

This is WP:OR and plain wrong. What we should do is use secondary sources (i.e. research papers, commentaries by archeologic/linguistic specialists, and books written by scholars). A translation is an interpretation from a primary source: these cannot be used unless accompanied by reliable secondary sources, which is NOT the case with Kharsag, since there exists no (reliable) secondary sources, only pseudoscience.

Furthermore, there is not even an accepted/standardized spelling in the scientific community for "Kharsag", so what's the point creating a Wiki page for a obscure/archaic polysemic term? Kur can mean mountain(s), foreign land, but also underworld. User:Paul Bedson and User:Silver seren are too fixed on their view that there is one physical "Kur" place/house. Before, this article just redirected to Christian O'Brien, and it was just fine to leave it that way. But some people are fixed to get their own views on Wikipedia it seems. After 2 months discussing, it's time to unloose this Gordian Knot. Patrick1982 (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I argue this would be extremely misleading as Kramer specifically mentions hursag as a different place when discussing Kur and ignores that Notability is not temporary by merging to modern, out of context translations. I would also argue that Patrick1982 provided similar misleading claims in the previous discussion on the Kharsag Epics. Also, the lead does not read "mountain" anymore, but "location" to resolve this issue. Paul Bedson (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed!

This article suffers from severe WP:SYNTH problems, starting from the problematic assertion that Kharsag, Hursag, and a host of other phrases refer to a particular place. There was one citation in the middle of the first sentence, which I removed in this edit; the source is Miscellaneous Babylonian Inscriptions by George A. Barton, 1918, Yale University Press, P. 4. Now, finding p. 4 in this text is not easy, but when I looked at what I think is p. 4, I see nothing about the word "Kharsag". Moreover, searching the text for "Hursag", "Hur-sag", "Khar-sag", "Imkharsag", "E-Kharsag", "E-kharsag-gal-kurkurra", "E-kharsag-kurkurra", "Kharsag-kzurcktra" gives no results, so this text cannot be used to support the assertion of the first sentence that all these words refer to the same place. Can anyone provide such a source, and sources that support the other points in the first paragraph? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Silverseren^C 03:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank you, but these references do not support the article text.

A self-published webpage that cites Graham Hancock and Zecharia Sitchin [1] is not a reliable source. I'm removing this.

The first reference, "Journal of the American Oriental Society" - Google Books, while old (1901), is a reliable source—but it doesn't say what the article's text says; in fact, it contradicts it. The reference says that Kharsag-kurkura was the mountain where men and the gods were believed to have been created, and E-kur is a separate locale. Searches for "hur-sag", etc., get no results in this text. So I'm removing this as well. --Akhilleus (talk)

Wow, how did I miss that [2] cites Velikovsky? And of course, I should have been on the lookout for citations to Christian O'Brien... --Akhilleus (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added some other ones and applied the Journal in another sentence that i've rewritten. Why were you searching for "Hur-sag", when it clearly states it's talking about Kharsag? There are multiple ways of naming it, you have to try all of them when searching. Silverseren^C 03:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I said "hur-sag", etc. I tried searching for the other phrases and didn't find them. And my basic point, Silver, is that there *aren't* "multiple ways of naming it." None of the sources you've provided support that claim. Perhaps it's not clear what I'm asking for: a source that explicitly says each word or phrase listed in the first sentence of the article refers to the same place. (Furthermore, it needs to say that "Kharsag" is a proper name that serves as a toponym, not a common noun.) None of the references you've supplied do that.

Also, you've cited another paper [3] by Emilio Spedicato, the person who here cited Velikovsky, O'Brien, Graham Hancock, and Sitchin. We should not be using this as a source for anything but fringe material (on the other hand, so far this article is nothing but fringe material). I also fail to see how this source supports the article text: "The Anunnaki, the original god-like beings in Sumerian history" (this probably doesn't need a citation anyway).

You've reinserted the 1901 JAOS article, this time to support the text 'It was known as Kharsag, or Kursag, with "Kur" meaning "mountain" and "sag" being translated somewhat akin to "home" or "house".' Please explain how the linked page [4] supports the article text—it says nothing about where the gods decided to settle (only where they were created), does not say that the place was known as Kharsag, but as Kharsag-kurkura, and says nothing about "kur" meaning "mountain" and "sag" meaning home or house. The JAOS article says that "E-kur" means "mountain house", but "E-kur" is obviously not the same word as "Kharsag", right? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

See, the problem we have is that the mountain itself is referred to by a phrase. Different translators can translate this phrase into English in a myriad of ways, which is why there are so many spellings and shortenings. Sumerian is not a fun language to translate if you're looking for consistency. I'm using the JAOS article to refer to the home or house portion. And "E-kur" is a shortening, obviously, of the phrase E-kharsag-gal-kurkurra. Like I said, some translators might just want to call it Kharsag, others Kursag, since there is barely any difference between them. Others, like JAOS, will shorten it to E-kur, but they all mean the same thing. Besides, we shouldn't be focusing on the specific namings, but on whether they're all talking about the same thing. They are, they are speaking about the mountain home of the gods. Then, do they give notability to this fact? Yes, they do. The rest is just semantics that can be figured out later. Silverseren^C 04:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the problem we have is that you, along with whoever wrote the article have assumed that the mountain is referred to by all these different words/phrases. We need a source that explicitly says this; this is a basic matter of WP:V and WP:OR. You'll have to forgive me, but I doubt you know anything about translating Sumerian, and that you're in no position to say anything like '"E-kur" is a shortening, obviously, of the phrase E-kharsag-gal-kurkurra.' If I'm wrong, I suppose you could supply a source that says exactly this, right? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

We have sources that are referring to different names, correct? And they are all referring to a mythological mountain of the gods from Sumerian religion, right? Then is it really WP:SYNTH to say that they are referring to the same thing and this things has differently translated names? Silverseren^C 04:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No, they are not "all referring to a mythological mountain of the gods". The 1901 JAOS article says that that Kharsag-kurkura and E-kur are different places. BTW, the article refers to Babylonian temples, and so is presumably using Akkadian words; I'm afraid I don't know either language, but if we're going to entertain quasi-philological arguments like '"E-kur" is a shortening, obviously, of the phrase E-kharsag-gal-kurkurra,' we should stop sloppily saying all of this is Sumerian. Now, one language I know very well is English, and if I pick up Stephanie Dalley's Myths from Mesopotamia (Oxford 1989), which translates several Akkadian texts into English, along with some nice explanatory notes, I turn to the glossary in the back and find that Ekur means 'mountain house', and refers to the "temple of Ellil in Nippur, where Ninurta was born." In other words, a specific structure, in a particular city (Nippur), not some mythical cosmic mountain. So let's not conflate Ekur and Kharsag-kurkura, hm? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, Kharsag-kurkura, you're right. Whoops, I mixed them up. But this is all kind of peripheral. Do the sources establish notability for the subject, the subject being the mythological mountain where the gods lived in Sumerian mythology? Do they verify it exists? If so, then what's the problem with keeping the article? Any issues with naming or specific wording of the article has nothing to do with keeping it, but more to do with accurately representing the sources. Silverseren^C 04:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You're still assuming that all of these sources relate to a single subject. If hursag, kharsag, e-kharsag, kharsag-kurkura, and so on refer to different things, the sources do not establish notability for this subject (whatever that might be)—they related to different things. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

And we have no reliable sources saying that they relate to a single subject, which is why we are saying that this article is based on original research and should be deleted. It violates one of our fundamental policies. Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't spot this earlier. The cite you need is in the first section of the "Oldest Religious Text From Babylonia", is it not page 4? Phonetic translation is as follows:

3'. gat a^ag d en-lil 4'. gar-sag mu-gub

translated

the holy sceptre of Enlil establish Kharsag;

also

i^'.birnin- -bi udu gar-sag-ga

translated

15'. The cattle of his lady, the sheep of Kharsag,

also

25. gar-sag en-te-en-ra mu-na-te

translated

25. Kharsag for the cold constructed furnace,

also

9. E-gar-sag-gal su-lug-ga tum-ma nam-ma-ni ni- pab

translated

9. Ekharsaggal is devoted to ceremonies; its fate he established;

and lastly

30. gar-sag-da sar-a dingir-da sig-

translated

30. In Kharsag the garden of the gods were green ....

Paul Bedson (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Kharsag-kzurcka

No ancient text uses the phrase Kharsag-kzurcka; its appearance here is probably the result of an OCR error in this article, on page 739. But the actual text reads "Kharsag-kurkurra" at that point. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

lead is incorrect

The first sentence now says "Kharsag; (ḪURSAG 𒉺𒂅) (also transcribed as Khar-sag, Hur-sag, Kharsag-kurkura and other variations)..." This is obviously incorrect. Kharsag cannot be "transcribed" as kharsag-kurkura; these are different words. I'd fix this, but I don't want to be accused of edit warring. So hopefully someone else will change the lead so it doesn't claim that different words are the same word. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have now fixed this to read "Some variations of this word were used to describe temples or houses dedicated to this location." instead of "this word" which I agree is slightly unclear. This now justifies adding all the variations back again perhaps, but I'm happy they're clear enough within the cites and agree the lead needed simplifying. I've added gar-sag as this is Barton's (and others) direct phonetic translation. Paul Bedson (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the lede was a bit too cluttered with all of the names anyways. This is simpler and nicer on the eyes. Now, what word would be better than transcribed? I think someone changed it to transliterated at some point, would that be better? Silverseren^C 21:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the kur and sag translations. There is one for "sag" which Akhilleus's dictionaries will reveal as "head" no doubt. Patrick1982 quoted the online cite at me sometime during discussions, but I've lost it. The actual initial part, according to Barton, is "khar" or "gar" which hasn't turned up in the dictionaries for me. Half the problem with all the misunderstandings with this article is caused by all the scholars in the field having little co-ordination or agreement in their efforts. This has led to errors like Kramer's "hur" creeping into the mainstream, and that "saffron" thing, whatever that was about! Kramer's "kur" could well be an interpretation of kharsag, but it's hard to tell, there's no direct discussion in his texts that I can find although they bear striking similarities. This shouldn't be a problem for the article however as Barton's "khar" or "gar" is unique and without translation in current dictionaries, proving the specific singularity to the location. I have been reliably informed that the archaic cuneiform pictogram for "khar" or "gar" looks a bit like a garden or enclosure. Perhaps later irrigation. Paul Bedson (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say all of the problems with this article stem from it being written by people with no knowledge of Assyriology relying on fringe authors for their understanding of ancient texts.

Temples were not dedicated to "Kharsag". They are temples of various deities. So the lead is still, sadly, not correct; in fact, the error I pointed out at the beginning of this section, that Kharsag cannot be "transcribed" as Kharsag-kurkurra because they're different words is still present. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

And, as I asked above, what would be a better word than transcribed? Would transliterated work? You are not offering any changes, just criticizing what's there, which isn't helpful at all. Silverseren^C 23:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This is yet another complete speculation that temples were not dedicated to Kharsag, please read the citations in context which clearly show they were. Boutiflower's is quite good and should make very clear that temples were dedicated to kharsag and that this is where people thought the gods lived, not in the temple as previously suggested:

" The House of the Great Mountain of the Lands," the name given to the temple at Nippur. In Babylonian mythology the gods were supposed to dwell in the sacred mountain called " the Mountain of the Lands," and, accord- ing to Jastrow, Enlil, as being the chief of the gods, was more particularly associated with this mountain, and from being regarded as the inhabitant of the mountain became identified with the mountain itself. Paul Bedson (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I offered some changes earlier: [5]. They were reverted. "Transliterated" won't work either, because kharsag cannot be transliterated as kharsag-kurkurra. They're not the same word. You can't transliterate "mountain" as "Mount Everest", either, for the same reason—they're not the same thing. Removing "kharsag-kurkurra" entirely would work. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This is now my third request for any supporting citation of kharsag, garsag or hursag in context as a common noun "mountain" before dealing with any further wild speculations, repeated claims that it is and personal attacks. If there are none, please let's close the AfD discussion and work on what can be done here progressively. In your own time, when you're ready. Paul Bedson (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You know, it's contradictory to say "In your own time, when you're ready" while complaining that it's the third time you've requested a citation. Now, please look at line 32 of this text (Inana and Ebih): ḫur-saĝ ebiḫki-ke4 te-a-me-en ni2-bi na-ma-ra-ab-ak ("as I approached the mountain range of Ebiḫ it showed me no respect."). ḫur-saĝ is translated as "mountain range" (a common noun!) exactly as the entry for ḫur-saĝ at the Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary would suggest is proper. It seems that ḫur-saĝ can function as part of a proper noun—in some texts it seems to be an epithet of Enlil, the "Great Mountain"—but that's not much different than what "mountain" does in English, right? --Akhilleus (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hold on a moment. It took me only a few moments of reading how Inanna created a sacred mountain to realise that this is being used in context about a sacred mountain that Inana lives on and it's just called Ebih instead of Kharsag and Inanna's called that instead of Ninkharsag. This is a later Akkadian text than Bartons and isn't really using the word as a common noun. There's just been some name changing going on and we have another magic mountain:

"Fruit hangs in its flourishing gardens and luxuriance spreads forth. Its magnificent trees, a crown in the heavens, …… stand as a wonder to behold. In Ebiḫ …… lions are abundant under the canopy of trees and bright branches. It makes wild rams and stags freely abundant. It stands wild bulls in flourishing grass. Deer couple among the cypress trees of the mountain range."

and this:

"My little one demands the destruction of this mountain -- what is she taking on? Inana demands the destruction of this mountain -- what is she taking on? She demands the destruction of this mountain -- what is she taking on?"

116-120. "It has poured fearsome terror on the abodes of the gods. It has spread fear among the holy dwellings of the Anuna deities. Its fearsomeness is terrible and weighs upon the Land. The mountain range's radiance is terrible and weighs upon all the lands. Its arrogance extends grandly to the centre of heaven."

It is still fascinating reading. My thanks for that. Paul Bedson (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your objection. The text you just quoted uses "mountain" 3 times and "mountain range" once. Those are common nouns in English; presumably they're translating common nouns in the original text. I don't understand why you would think they refer to a place called Kharsag, unless you simply assume that every instance of "mountain" means that. This text, Inana and Ebih, never mentions a place named "Kharsag". It mentions Ebih, which is apparently identified with Jebel Hamrin. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really objecting, just pointing out the time difference in usage and context, plus it's usage as a proper noun in a number of places I can't be bothered to count, which is very similar to the use of Kharsag in earlier myths. There's a great bit here speaking of the Dam overflowing. Off to see if Jebel Hamrin had a Dam.

171-175. "I have built a palace and done much more. I have put a throne in place and made its foundation firm. I have given the kurĝara cult performers a dagger and prod. I have given the gala cult performers ub and lilis drums. I have transformed the pilipili cult performers."

176-181. "In my victory I rushed towards the mountain. In my victory I rushed towards Ebiḫ, the mountain range. I went forward like a surging flood, and like rising water I overflowed the dam. I imposed my victory on the mountain. I imposed my victory on Ebiḫ." Paul Bedson (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's another nice example of ḫur-saĝ as a common noun, with transliterated text and translation next to each other. It's The debate between Winter and Summer. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff, and always great to be sharing knowledge. Excuse me for being contradictory. It's British sarcasm, from which I will refrain. Well, if you're prepared to admit it's use in this context as a proper noun, I'll admit it's use as a common noun elsewhere. Although your source does look likely to be in a more modern version of Akkadian as Ninhursag has changed her name to Inanna aleady. The second article didn't read like the title of the link, is it a joke about the state of this debate? I see no Winter and Summer. It did remind me of the different versions of hursag (Akkadian, Ur, Babylonian, etc.) that makes Sumerians so notably weird. I'd be more convinced with an article mentioning Ninhursag and using it as a common noun, but let's not split hairs, i'm sure it took you long enough looking that one up. It's a bit late for me and I'm pleased we're kinda reading from the same page now, I'm going to read Inana and Ebih better. This has been an entertaining and educational debate. I look forward to more in the development of the Mesopotamian Myth series. My thanks again to all of SilverSeren's hard work on this - perhaps we should have a celebratory walk up Mount Hermon if we rescue it! ;-) Paul Bedson (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I screwed up the link to The Debate between Winter and Summer. It should be fixed now; try it again and you'll see a section of the text with transliteration of the original and a translation. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That's better, but this links to text about Enlil copulating with a mountain, which I insist that if Gods are having sex with a mountain, it must be a magic mountain and in most contexts is not in it's ordinary use as a common noun. Paul Bedson (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, the mountain is "magic" (a pretty vague term), but this is a mythological text. Is it really that strange to find elements of the landscape personified?

As for the rest of your response, I'm not sure we're understanding the term "common noun" in the same way. A common noun is a generic term that can be applied to many individuals, e.g. chef, island, man, book, child, mountain. In English, common nouns are not capitalized and can be preceded by the definite article "the"; proper nouns, which denote specific individuals, are capitalized and generally don't take the definite article "the". (Obviously there are exceptions to this last point, e.g. the Iliad.) If I'm having a conversation about a book, let's say Greek Religion by Walter Burkert, both the title of the book and the author's name are proper nouns, but I can refer to them with common nouns, e.g. I can say "in the book, the author says that Greeks believed temples were the dwelling places of the gods." Even though I'm referring to specific individuals with "book" and "author" respectively, "book" and "author" are still common nouns. Same deal with the repeated instances of "mountain" in the texts quoted above. The texts may well be referring to specific, even magical, mountains—Inanna and Ebih is obviously referring to Mt. Ebih—but that doesn't mean that the word "mountain" became a proper noun. And it doesn't mean that ḫur-saĝ becomes a proper noun because it refers to a specific mountain, either. When I say "look at that mountain over there" as I stand next to Denali, I'm still using a common noun ("mountain") to refer to it. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Understood, but the primary references, including Kramer, who seems to have originated the Hursag translation refers to it as The Hursag, which makes it a proper noun in context in Sumerian. Taking later Akkadian usagess of the word and implying they mean the same thing as a more archaic versions is unsound. Mount Ebih is obviously a later corruption of Kharsag and hundreds of years apart as shown by the names of the Gods which have changed. The religious text you have chosen refers to a completely different time period and religion. People have stopped worshipping Ninkharsag by this time and replaced her with Inanna. It's fairly obvious that the mountain of the Godds too is likely to have changed names and even location by then. This is not far off saying archaic Sumerians worshipped Athena on Olympus and is misleading. Paul Bedson (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of large amounts of content

User:Dbachmann has removed large portions of the article and rewritten some of it so that it is completely different and not related to what we are trying to talk about in this article. Furthermore, he has not commented on this talk pages about these changes, as you are supposed to do when making controversial edits (though it is more recommended that you talk about them before you do them when they will be controversial, but whatever.) He is an admin, I guess? So i'm rather surprised at this kind of behavior. Silverseren^C 09:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't suppose you are going to defend any of the content I have removed? Perhaps if this is supposed to grow into an encyclopedia article, you let people work? Especially as you appear to know exactly nothing about the topic? Hursag means mountain. Kurkur means "highlands", or just "lands". Hursag Kurkura presumably means something like "mountain range" or "peak of the highlands", I'll have to figure that out. The article as I found it was utterly misguided, just what you would get from a person googling random Sumerian terms and then copy-pasting a collage of a few results they got. Some joker even added an interwiki link to a Turkish article about a village called "Karsak", plus geolocation, I mean, what the hell?

Mountains do play an important role in Mesopotamian mythology, and there is scholarly literature on the topic, so it is possible to turn this from a random copy-paste collection of google results into an enclopedia article. Just if you do not object, of course. --dab (𒁳) 09:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

My position and the position of others has already been explained fully on this talk page and in the AfD discussion. I really do not feel like reiterating it all over again. I will only say that "Kur" means mountain and "sag" means "peak", "mount", or "center". No explanation for Kharsag has been made yet by those wishing to change the article like you. And, I repeat for what feels like the millionth time, we want this article to be about the mythological mountain that the Sumerian gods lived on, not on the Sumerian word for mountain. If you feel that Kharsag, Hursag, or whatever word is not the right one for this mountain, then please suggest an alternative, but this article is absolutely not, I repeat yet again, not about the Sumerian word for mountain, but the mythological mountain of the gods. Silverseren^C 10:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

well, then perhaps you should write that article? Because the material I removed had nothing whatsoever to do with Sumerian mythology. Neither did the link to the Turkish village, or the geographic coordinates. I have already said that this should be the article on mountains in Sumerian mythology. I have no idea why your retort to that is that this should be the article on mountains in Sumerian mythology. You are basically not making any sense whatsoever, and you show no indication that you have the first inkling on the topic you propose to want to write an article about.

Perhaps, also just a suggestion, you should try to get a basic understanding of Ancient Near Eastern religion at this point? So that you will be able to appreciate that there won't be "the" mountain of the gods, but numerous local mountains of the gods or the local god, as Sumerian mythology and religion was in no way centralized or standardized. Basically, each temple had its own mythology. You cannot write an article about "the mountain of the gods (Sumer)". Of course, if you would bother to collect actual literature on the topic, you would know that. As opposed to, you know, defending material about metal bands, UFOlogy and pseudoarchaeology. Now please either help us write the article on the mountains of the gods in Sumerian myth, or else at least stop disrupting attempts to do so. --dab (𒁳) 10:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)...*sighs* All of the sources in the article, as has been explained in discussions here a myriad of times, are about the mythological mountain (singular word, mountain) that Ninhursag lived on (primarily referenced in the sources, more than the other gods, though Enlil is also mentioned a lot). The Sumerian gods lived on this mountain and sent the Anunnaki from it to populate the world. This article is supposed to be about that mountain, which is shown by the sources and was defined by the text of the article. If you believe the article should be written differently to define the mythological mountain that is the subject, then please feel free to make those suggestions here. Now, if you don't mind, i'm going to revert the article back to the subject it is meant to be about. Silverseren^C 10:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I am greatly disturbed by the fact that you seem to have went through the AfD's i've been involved in, which have no relevance to this. Silverseren^C 10:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict):He's removed a lot of original research, I agree. It's still not a good article and I don't think it can ever be a good article as it is based on original research and was making claims that have no reliable sources. He also removed some inappropriate categories. Admins are allowed to edit just as anyone else can, and he used edit summaries after his first edit. In any case his edits were in line with a number of the comments in the discussions above and as you probably know I've been saying all along the article was based on original research and so far I haven't seen anyone actually spend much time denying that this is basically original research. If this is a Sumerian Olympus as Paul Bedson says, there should be no problems finding sources discussing it as a Sumerian Olympus. Instead there is confusion about philology obfuscated by what look at first glance to be reliable sources backing the philology, confusiong about the Anunnaki - who they were, where they supposedly lived, etc. The 'sources' are mainly primary sources being misused (for Wikipedia that is). If removing original research changes the article, then the article clearly needs changing. This is a fundamental policy issue. Dougweller (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There has never even been a conflict about the mountain itself. The conflict that you have been bringing up is over the name and titles used for the mountain, which I could care less about. All of the sources are talking about the mountain and you refuse to acknowledge that. I've even given quotes and the only argument i've received in response is about the name used. What sources do you believe are not talking about the mountain? Silverseren^C 10:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you understand that we can't use primary sources, ie translations, we need sources to real people saying 'these words are all referring to this mountain' or discussing 'this mountain'? I can find loads of sources discussing Olympus, if this is the Sumerian equivalent, where are the equivalent sources? Dougweller (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There is very little information to be found on Sumerian religion about the creation myth, other than these few cylinders. I mean, you have the Epic of Gilgamesh, but other than that? The Sumerian creation myth article itself is extremely lacking in citations also The sources we have on this article are, as far as I can tell, the only people who have been working on translating these cylinders. That's why there's so little information to go on. The primary source translations are all we have to work with in terms of direct information about the creation myth. And not all of them are primary sources, regardless, there are more than enough sources that are discussing the mountain itself that aren't translations. Silverseren^C 10:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to be specific as I've seen a number of sources added which didn't back what they were claimed to back. We need to use sources that are discussing the primary sources, not make up an article based on primary sources. So, what are these sources that aren't translations? Dougweller (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

[6] and [7]. This has already been explained before. Anyways, i'm off to bed, it's 6 AM here. Silverseren^C 11:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

So, two sources, both over a hundred years old, are the best that can be found? All the work done since then and no mention? And what makes "Temples of the Orient and their message in the light of Holy Scriptures, Dante's vision, and Bunyan's allegory" by Gordon, E. A. Mrs.[8] (who is not in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography although she was British) a reliable source? Or Warren for that matter, who seems best known today as a university president and secondarily as someone who believed in Eden at the North Pole. Dougweller (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into that discussion, which I feel I have already answered at least once and explained is within the citations. I feel kharsag's use in the oldest religious text justifies it's own article as do two thirds of the editors who have taken part in the deletion discussions, whether or not the later discussion contains the word within a phrase, it's obviously a discussion about that 'term' if that's the correct phraseology. I'm more concerned about the discussion regarding "kur" verses "khar", "gar" or "hur". I suggest we leave this as khar as this is what is cited by Barton. I have been re-reading Kramer this morning and while he has possibly included "khar" or "gar" in his formulation of the use of "kur" in Sumerian Mythology, but he doesn't discuss this. He has inserted hursag as a seperate location, which he then uses as a confusing mixture or proper and common noun. I don't feel this article should be merged with kur as Kramer is discussing them as different places quite clearly in his "Sumerian Mythology" and argue this shouldn't be muddled with that word, which I believe Kramer has merged from many myths to present an overview of the concept within a short introductary volume on the subject. Paul Bedson (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

None of the people on the AfD who want to keep the article have tackled the original research issue. I'm repeating myself and not getting any explicit answers. Where are the reliable secondary sources discussing either this 'location' (and linking it to the words) or even linking the words? Dougweller (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Boutiflower and Jastrow offer the best discussions. Kramer's isn't bad but is confusing. The cosmology ones are good too. I think you're confusing original research with old research again. Paul Bedson (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

More than one mountain

I'm trying to find what I can with limited resources. If we are trying to write an article about mountains in Sumerian mythology, we should start with the hypothesis that not all mountains are identical, not an assumption that they are, and be careful not to go beyond what reliable sources say no matter what we think we 'undertand' or 'believe'. Kramer, p. 117 [9] writes about Ninurta blessing the Hursag so it will produce wine, sheep, etc. On the other hand, Kramer says, p. 47, that the word meaning 'mountain' is regularly used to mean 'nether world', so we have to be careful about its use. And on the 3rd hand, we also have An (Anu) creating the Anunnaki on the "mountain of heaven and earth" (and we really really have to be careful about the Anunnaki, as another myth has Marduk creating them, putting 300 in heaven, 300 on earth). Kramer doesn't suggest that the Hursag of Ninurta's blessing is the "mountain of heaven and earth". We should also be careful about names, as we may find that different names used by different translators may or may not represent the same cuneiform sign - there seems to have been a bit of an assumption that they do. Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

And Hursag simply means mountain. Look at page 75 of this where it is used repetitively while describing a messenger crossing a number of mountain ranges (so here it means mountain range, not just a mountain). Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I had to double check this, but cannot find this story of a messenger crossing a number of mountain ranges in my book, which is the same as your online citation. I can't find it in the articles either on page 75 and even checked for every use of mountain in the book and couldn't find it used as mountain ranges. Are we reading the same book, Sumerian Mythology? This has me confused. Paul Bedson (talk) 02:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed in later versions of cuneiform it can simply mean a common noun mountain. Please see my comments regarding Kharsag's use in archaic cuneiform, which I argue is not the same thing, Barton specifically mentions this form as the oldest in the book. Marduk for instance is much later re-naming and doesn't belong in this pantheon. I do however welcome your comments for careful consideration about the use of this word. It still needs some tidying regarding Kur and hursag. Paul Bedson (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree on booting the Annunaki, but disagree we should lose the story contents of the myths. Hope the deities revert pleases. Paul Bedson (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, we seem to be editing at the same time. Please note my citation style (I use a gadget in preferences but had to tweak it for the page number, which is required for books for verification purposes but not for articles). Although you may well be right about archaic cuneiform, we would need a reliable source.

I know that there are recent books and articles about Sumerian mythology, it's a bit worrying that we are relying so much on such old sources. Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This is why I am fighting so hard to keep that knowledge Doug. I worry a lot about the world getting dumber. Barton does provide a reliable source about the age of the cuneiform, sorry if it's old, but it still counts:

"The script in which it is written is that of the dynasty of Agade. It is slightly more archaic than the business documents of this period, but similar differences are observable between the business scripts and those of religious texts in every period of Babylonian writing. As the dynasty of Agade ruled from about 2800BC to 2600BC, the text here recorded is of equal, if not greater antiquity than the Pyramid Texts of Egypt."

"If our somewhat uncertain chronologies are correct, Shargalisharri's reign was nearly contemporaneous with that of the Egyptian king Unis, wile that of Naram-Sin antedated it it is more probable that a foundation cylinder would be placed beneath the structure when it was first constructed than when spits in its worn pavement were repaired. It is, accordingly, a plausible conjecture that our cylinder was written early in the reign of Naram-Sin. In that case, it is probably half a century older than the pyramid text of Unis and is the oldest extended religious expression that has survived from any portion of the human race. "

I would be grateful for any work you can do to improve the state of the links and sort page numbers. I have to go to Plymouth Museum to get onto JSTOR. Paul Bedson (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I just want to ask, is it really that hard to believe that the Sumerians would name the original mythlogical mountain that their gods lived on just "mountain". That seems like a logical thing to do to me. And then everything else called mountain, by them, is just a representation of the original mountain. Silverseren^C 18:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Silver unless you can produce a cite for that, also if there are none in the plural (in this context with original deities), we should revert to the singular mountain when specifically dicussing kharsag. I'm fine with the starting bit about mountains plural being important to Sumerians as Akhilleus has shown different mountains were used at different times in Sumerian history. Paul Bedson (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If you mean by Kharag Barton, we can use it the way Barton does. He's the only one who uses that spelling. Do you mean that Silver would need a cite to say what he's said? Or that we need a cite to talk about the original mythological mountain etc? Dougweller (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

A cite about it meaning a common noun "mountain" or "mountains" in context with the original pantheon. Without any evidence to the contrary it is reasonable to assume they called their sacred mountain "Kharsag" (singular) at this time. Paul Bedson (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You need a cite that says that the word isn't about the mythological mountain, as our sources say it is. You haven't presented any other sources that say otherwise so far. Silverseren^C 19:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That's backwards. We only have an assertion that Barton is talking about "the mythological mountain"; Barton doesn't provide any commentary to that effect, and we don't have any secondary sources saying it. I've been trying to figure out if there are any secondary sources on this.The text that Barton translates, which has been referred to here as the "Oldest Religious Text From Babylonia", is in the Penn Museum, CBS 08383. At least, I think that's right; one of the difficulties in dealing with this article is figuring out exactly which ancient texts we're talking about, so we can try to track down how later translators have dealt with them and so we can find out how people have interpreted them. Since Barton says that "it cannot be too strongly emphasized that the interpretation offered below is purely tentative," it's important to see how later scholars have dealt with the text. This text is also known as the Barton Cylinder, and a newer edition of the text was apparently published in B. Alster and Aage Westenholz in Acta Sumerologica 16 (1994) 15–46. Sadly, I don't have access to this. However, there are a few pages on the cylinder in Jeremy Black, "The Sumerians in their landscape," in Riches hidden in secret places: ancient Near Eastern studies in memory of Thorkild Jacobsen, eds. Jacobsen and Abusch, pp. 44-45. Unfortunately, Black only translates a small portion of the text and not the part that's been used to claim that "Kharsag" is a placename.

Black's comments on another text, The Debate between Sheep and Grain, are interesting. An important location in this text is "the hursag (hill) of Heaven-and-Earth"—neither a flat plain or a mountain, but a hilly landscape..." (p. 45) Note that "hill" isn't capitalized—it's not part of a proper name. And this "hill of Heaven-and-Earth", as the name implies, refers to the state of the universe before the separation of heaven and earth—it's where everything in existence is situated. Upon the "hill of Heaven-and-Earth" is located a place Black translates as the Holy Mound (the word translated as "mound" is dul). This is where the Anuna gods are born and the other gods live prior to the separation of heaven and earth.

Here's something I found particularly interesting: "Now the terms hursag 'hill' and dul 'mound' are known from administrative field plans dating from the Third Dynasty of Ur, which conveniently demonstrate the use of these terms as part of the everyday vocabulary of vernacular speech, not resistricted to a purely literary lexicon. The plans use hursag for the 'hilly' parts of fields, which are difficult to cultivate (so that hursag can be translated as 'hill(s)')..." (p. 46) So here's a modern scholar, writing specifically about Sumerian ideas of landscape, who doesn't say that "Kharsag" is the mountain of the gods, and who doesn't say that it's a proper noun at all. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, but again it is hampered by the same problem that 3rd Ur dynasty is around 250 years later than the suggested dating of Barton's texts at the start of Agade dynasty (using Wikipedia's preferred short chronology so Barton could still be far older). I am positive those were 250 years where a lot of changes happened to religion and writing. Paul Bedson (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Paul, being positive is one thing, expressing it in an article without a source is original research. Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have sourced Barton's view that this is from the reign of Naram-Sin and you can look up the time difference between Naram-Sin and Ur III yourself at Sumerian history. Field plans are also not really in context of the orignal Sumerian pantheon. Paul Bedson (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

How nice. We seem to have moved from making assertions based on translations of primary sources to finding justifications for discarding secondary sources that cover the topic in question. And after I went to all that trouble to find some, too. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

DGG can get hold of most things, as can others. I've just started a discussion about the cosmic mountain while you were writing the above. Dougweller (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Cosmic mountain

From what I've read, Sumerian creation mythology has a 'cosmic mountain', eg [10] Creation Myths of the World: An Encyclopedia By David Adams Leeming, "The goddess Nammu (Primeval Sea) guve birth lo Heaven and Earth as a unified cosmic mountain of sorts. Heaven (An) was male, and Earth (Ki) was female (thus. Anki = universe or heaven-earth). They produced the air god, Enlil, who separated them so creation could move forward. "

The tree of life: An archaeological study By Edwin Oliver James[11] "The Cosmic Tree in the Sumerjan Myths of Origin Although the creation of the universe is not explicitly described in the Sumerian cosmogonic myths in the third millennium B.C. yet in the literary documents references occur to such events as the birth of the heaven and the earth by the goddess Nammu, the personification of the primeval ocean, in the form of a vast cosmic mountain before they were separated by Enlil as the Air-god. He then fashioned the pickax as an agricultural instrument and brought up the seed of the land from the earth 8) While no coherent cosmogonic scheme is discernible Enlil most frequently appears in the role of Creator, the father of the gods, the king of heaven and earth, who 'caused the good day to come forth*, and produced the plant and animal life in conjunction with Enki, the Water-god. Together they sent from heaven Lahar, the Cattle-god, and his sister Ashnan, the Grain-god, to produce food and clothes for the Anunnaki, the attendant deities who were followers of Anu."

The archaeology of the Arabian Gulf, c. 5000-323 BC By Michael Rice [12] "The Sumerian cosmology held ihai in ihe beginning was the primaeval sea. represenied as female; her oceanic form possibly again commemorates the Sumerians" own preoccupation with the sea. in this case the waters of the Gulf. From the chaos of the waters, the cosmic mountain was begotten, in which form heaven and earth were united in the persons of two great divinities, An. die god of Heaven, and Ki. the goddess of Earth. From Uieir union sprang Enlil. the Lord of Air. who then became the executive leader of die Annunaki. the assembly of the High Gods, and the recipient of the chorus of praise offered by all the people."

The epic of Gilgamesh By Nancy K. Sandars [13] "Anu: Sumerian An; father of gods, and god of the firmament, the * great above*. In the Sumerian cosmogony there was, first of all, the primeval sea, from which was born the cosmic mountain consisting of heaven, 'An', and earth, 'Kf; they were separated by Enlil, then An carried off the heavens, and Enlil the earth. Anu later retreated more and more into the background; he had an important temple in Uruk.Seep.23."

So there was one cosmic mountain, but this is the "mountain of heaven and earth", not a mountain as we know it. How does this relate to the mythological mountain mentioned above?

There is also some confusion - are you two claiming that the signs for Kharsag are the same signs used by your other sources and thus it is the same mountain? Or? 'Kharsag' isn't a word, it's a spelling in English of cuneiform signs. Dougweller (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm claiming that the group of scholars who translated and discussed the oldest Nippur texts identified a word they translated phonetically as "gar-sag", their spelling of this in English was "Kharsag". It is used and usually found as "hursag" in texts of a much later date. Barton, Jastrow & Boutiflower are the lead scholars in this group. Paul Bedson (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Boutflower's book is 1923, Barton 1918, Jastrow even earlier. I'm sure the subject has been touched upon since then. In any case, only Barton uses the word Kharsag as a name, others use it as an element, and to show that they mean the same thing, ie they are looking at the same texts, would require a reliable source. I don't understand why something identified phonetically as gar.sag (as I've seen it) would be then spelled Kharsag, by the way - they don't sound the same. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Edward Chiera wrote around this time about "Imkharsag" in this school. His link may need restoring. I think there were others too. I can only assume Jastrow came up with the word first. Barton found it on the Nippur Cylinder singularly and made the decision to name it singular. His source got overlooked whilst Jastrow's variations and Chiera's "Imkharsag" were then cited and discussed more in other literature. The vast number of later period cuneiform all has changed slightly to hursag and this very sensible idea he's had has been overlooked by modern research concentrating on later texts. Any way I look at it, there's still a word here locating the home of the first deities as garsag or kharsag. I think somewhere in there I could make an argument about the context and unique nature of Sumerian scripts, along with the ways words are grouped together, causing all these individual variations. Paul Bedson (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh no! You still don't get it Paul. You can not make an argument! This is the basic problem here, that we are struggling to get you to understand this. You can not make an argument. That is against our basic policies and guidelines. You need to find reliable sources making the specific 'argument', in other words, you would have to find at least one good source (in this case a journal article or scholarly book) dealing with the changes/variations in words referring to mythological mountains in ANE or Sumerian mythology. Dougweller (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This is just my opinion, I'm not putting it in the article. You were asking questions about the specific use of garsag/kharsag and I was trying to offer the best hypothetical situation to explain it. As I have discussed, the word only appears in a select group of very ancient texts, studied by a group of scholars who used the term as a word or part of a phrase. Paul Bedson (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Title, scope, and possible merger

These are all related, which is why I've put them in one section. Note there is a short discussion at the beginning of this article about a possible merger with Kur. WP:Title is the policy (not just a guideline) and the nutshell version is "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources". The next relevant bit is: Every Wikipedia article must have a unique title.[1] While not always possible, the ideal title is: Recognizable – Using names and terms commonly used in reliable sources, and so likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article. Easy to find – Using names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles). This should be determined by consensus.

Ok - now 'Kharsag' is a word used only by one person in 1918 and was not adopted by later mainstream writers. It'a also the cause of a lot of confusion here. Plus, we frown upon articles about words, those generally belong in Wiktionary.

So, the next question, what is this article really about? Clearly it concerns ANE mythology, specifically Sumerian and Babylonian. It's also about the use of mountains in that mythology. Focussing on that would allow us to include the cosmic mountain, temples, etc. And give the article a title that would meet our policy criteria. Dougweller (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This argument calls for dismissal of a highly notable source discussing a highly notable word in the oldest religious statement of the human race, and promotes the simplification of Wikipedia's coverage of NE mythology, which currently seems to need a lot of work distinguishing cuneiform variations, pantheons and time periods of worship. I have already commented about how merging with Kur would be misleading and argue this article now meets guidelines on all the requirements mentioned. Paul Bedson (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't understand our policies and guidelines. For a start, 'notable' has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, which requires it to have been used by multiple reliable sources, it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Furthermore you are being insulting. I am suggesting something that would broaden our coverage, but in any case you are not giving me good faith and accusing me of trying to harm Wikipedia. I don't appreciate that. I've offered you good faith for a long time now. Dougweller (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Where does Barton refer to Kharsag as a mountain?

Paul has kindly provided the relevant text above, copying it here for clarity:

Page 5 cylinder, called the oldest religious text in Babylonia by Barton 3'. gat a^ag d en-lil 4'. gar-sag mu-gub

translated

the holy sceptre of Enlil establish Kharsag;

also Page 50 A HYMN TO IBI-SIN i^'.birnin- -bi udu gar-sag-ga

translated

15'. The cattle of his lady, the sheep of Kharsag,

also

25. gar-sag en-te-en-ra mu-na-te

translated

25. Kharsag for the cold constructed a furnace,

also Page 64: Liturgy to Nintud 9. E-gar-sag-gal su-lug-ga tum-ma nam-ma-ni ni- pab

translated

9. Ekharsaggal is devoted to ceremonies; its fate he established;

and lastly

Page 66 of LITURGY TO NINTUD." 30. gar-sag-da sar-a dingir-da sig-

translated

30. In Kharsag the garden of the gods were green ....

No mention of a mythological mountain of the gods. What have I missed? We can't say Kharsag denotes a mythological mountain of the gods without an explicit reference, obviously, so where is it? Dougweller (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of discussion about Kharsag and variations as a mythological mountain in connection with the original pantheon is used within hordes of sources. I have removed hursag from the lead to rectify this confusion. Paul Bedson (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doug, sorry I'm at work today so cannot answer too many questions. Firstly, please let me apologise if you've interpretted anything I've said as insulting. I really didn't mean that and welcome your assistance and have enjoyed this debate greatly. Thanks for all your time. You've raised another good point here that Barton doesn't refer to this as mountain. Only Jastrow and the other sources do, where it is a notable part of the phrase. This has been edited out of the current version and I intend to replace it to avoid this confusion. With regard to the multiple notable sources, I only understood that 1 was needed, but as a part of a phrase we have several, along with the fact that this word could be classed as 'eminently notable' due to it's unique usage in the oldest religious statement of mankind. I'm happy to change it to 'location' if you feel this clarifies it better than the 'part of a phrase' option. Paul Bedson (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. But what we have is a situation in which the unadorned word Kharsag is used by no one to designate a mountain, the 19th century writer Jastrow uses Kharsag-Kurkura but makes it clear it simply means the earth (he says Sargon uses it differently, but that's later, and E-Kharsag-Ella is the name of a temple of Gula in Babylon - this is getting pretty spread out in time and space, and the Babylonians aren't Sumerians. If this was about Mesopotamian mythology and its use of moutain symbolism, that would be ok, but I'm removing it right now.

We don't have anything called 'eminently notable' - please read WP:NOTE. A word used by one author isn't notable. A mutable phrase isn't either, but the mountains in mythology is. I don't see how 'location' is better. It's sometimes part of the name of a temple, other times part of the name of a god. This is symbolic use, not locational, I think.

As for 'oldest religious text', the Pyramid Texts still have that claim. The Akkadian empire is now dated to about 2350-2150 or thereabouts, that's the problem with using scholarship a century old. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the 'Notability isn't temporary' part of WP:NOTE to dispute this yet again. At least I'm disputing it with the right terminology now, I hope. For reference, I've copied over something I was writing Archilleus on my talk page regarding this subject -

The citations provided so far to the contrary (which have been fascinating incidentally) are from such as a business document dating to the Ur III dynasty, mentioning hursag, which is used as a proper and common noun in later Ur III cuneiform, dating later than ca. 2047BC. The Archaic cuniform proper noun Kharsag or phonetically gar-sag used on it's own or as part of a phrase that the article is about, NEVER uses this word as a common noun and is estimated to date from the reign of Naram-Suen ca. 2254–2218 BC or before. All using short chronology, which is highly debatable. It is also only ever referenced to the original pantheon of Gods, to my knowledge. I was wondering if you could prove me wrong, but not yet it seems. To understand the differences between the 3 main different versions of cuneiform (Archaic, Ur III and Standard Assyrian) I'd suggest looking at the chart halfway down this page [14] which shows the differences in form, or within wikipedia[15]. This is definitely an area of Wikipedia that needs some expansion (along with chronologies, which seem misleadingly definite when arguments still exist in this area and most sources admit they are not fixed) and topics I look forward to working on and improving once this debate is out of the way. Paul Bedson (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The assertion that archaic Kharsag/gar-sag means something different than hursag is, unless you can provide a secondary source to this effect, original research. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The assertion that archaic Kharsag/gar-sag means the same as hursag is, unless you can provide a secondary source to this effect, original research. (for the 8th time!!!)

Jastrow mentions a variation as 'the sacred mountain where the gods are born', Hilprecht mentions a variation as the 'great mountain', Massey 'Mount of the Nations, Langdon 'Netherwold Mountain, etc, etc. I could go on but the number of times I have answered this question and you have not answered mine is getting a bit silly. Paul Bedson (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Disputed tag

I've added that as we now agree that Barton does not use the word Kharsag to refer to a mountain as the lead claims. No one else uses the word. The title of the article is flawed, and thus the lead is simply wrong. Dougweller (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Amended by including variations, which is not vague considering usage. The simplification is clear in context. Paul Bedson (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Variations? You mean the cuneiform signs transliterated as Kharsag by Barton are used in combination with other signs? That isn't the same thing. The simple fact is that the word Kharsag is NOT used to denote a mythological mountain, even if the cuneiform symbols are used elsewhere in different combinations to denote a mythological mountain. This all started with its use by Barton, and I don't see how we can justify the title and the lead as it is. Replacing it with another word wouldn't help, the article is about the use of mountain symbolism in Sumerian mythology (and mainly about the various words used but it can easily be expanded). Very clearly the unadorned word Kharsag is not used by any other writer, so "This location was known as Kharsag, " is much too narrow a comment as the word is only used by Barton. Given that we have no article on what I and others see as both a potential article and the only sensible place for this material on the various words used, I don't see the problem in just retitling this and then enlarging it to broaden our coverage of ANE mythology. Dougweller (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What would the title be? Something like cosmic mountain or world mountain? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer something wider, eg Mountains in Ancient Near East mythology.

Is there any actual title other than Kharsag that you guys agree is used, other than Hursag? Silverseren^C 05:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Paul, if you sat down and actually tried to find academic literature on mountains in Mesopotamian mythology instead of filling pages and pages of talk space, this article might actually be going somewhere.

I might say the same of Silver seren, but I consider chances that Silver seren would recognize a good source if it was shoved in their face so slim that it may be best to bother.

The way to go forward with this is as follows.

• you appear to be trying to write an article about mountains in Sumerian / Mesopotamian mythology

1. check existing coverage. the existing articles pertinent to this topic are Mesopotamian mythology, Religions of the Ancient Near East and Axis_mundi#Middle_East and Kur
2. go to google books and search for terms like "mountain sanctuary" or "holy mountain" in connection with "Sumer" (not Kharsag, sheesh.) Perhaps it will also occur to you to search for "world mountain" and you will be in a good position to discover the chapter so entitled in Campbell's mythic image.
3. try to absorb the search results. Yes, this requires some cognitive effort, can't help you there, sorry. Wikipedia article's aren't written by shell scripts based on google search terms
4. it will take you about two minutes to discover the academic (albeit speculative) debate on the ziggurats as "folk memories" of a "mountainous original home" of the Sumerians before they migrated to Mesopotamia in the Ubaid period. Ziggurats as human made "mountain top sanctuaries"[16].
5. You get hints like "Busink (1970)", which you need to use to bootstrap your search for academic literature
6. try to follow this debate on jstor.org etc.
7. begin writing a "holy mountains" section in either Mesopotamian mythology or Religions of the Ancient Near East. Once you have a full paragraph of coherent coverage of the topic, you may or may not decide to split your work out as a standalone article under WP:SS
8. perhaps you will decide that we are lacking coverage on the wider topic of the world mountain in comparative mythology and decide to write this article as a spin-off benefit of your efforts.

--dab (𒁳) 08:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

All this talk about mountains is making me want to create a bunch of pages about the archaeology around Mount Hermon. Paul Bedson (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't Unicode Cuneiform match the Barton Cylinder?

I'd like to raise the point that 𒄯𒊕 - The cuneiform suggested does not look like that on the original mention on the Archaic, Pre-Ur III Cuneiform Barton Cylinder!

The cuneiform for Khar-sag looks similar but has several differences.

The khar-har-gar-hur element 𒄯 has only 2 horizontal lines running through it, when the original looks like this 𒄭 but has 3!

The sag (head) element 𒊕 is also very different, resembling 𒊡 more than 𒊕 - with two prominent clear horizontals, not 1!

Five seconds analysing the original and comparing to Wikipedia will show that we have got this wrong somehow. But how?

I'd like to discuss why these symbols are not true, I would be keenly interested as I do not want to make this accuracy change, just for it to be reverted by a top linguist. Paul Bedson (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "looks like". On the computer I am sitting at right now, the two signs look like little squares with the numbers 01212F and 012295 inscribed. These are Unicode characters, not glyphs. What they look like depends entirely on the fonts you have installed on your computer. What they represent are the signs ḪAR and SAG. What these signs look like of course depends very much on what century we are looking at. Before you comment on how these signs look on your screen you will have to tell us what font exactly you are using, because there is no way of knowing what you are seeing otherwise. Or we can discuss the pdf chart published by the Unicode consortium. I think these are supposed to give the standard sign shapes of the Ur III period. Of course even within a given period, the same sign may appear with considerable variation.

The whole Unicode cuneiform thing is very problematic, and sometimes I think it would be best to just create a font that would show these caracters as little ḪAR and SAG so that stuff encoded in Unicode cuneiform would be at all readable. --dab (𒁳) 06:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I now found this, and comparing the drawing of

column 2, line 6: ^dnin-hur-sag-ra

I must say the hur-sag corresponds stroke-by-stroke to the hur and sag sample glyphs in the unicode chart. So this is an example of where the unicode chart glyphs really are exactly what you find in the text. That's because of the coincidence that unicode decided to base its block precisely on the time period which the Barton Cylinder happens to belong to (26th to 25th centuries BC). This is number four in the evolution of the sag sign as shown below:

--dab (𒁳) 10:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Wow! I see! They are an exact match with a total of four horizontals (not three) on the HUR element. My cuneiform font just looks a bit different, I understand the complexities now and have been able to add some signs to my Ekur, Enamtila and Hubur pages with this info. I'm still not sure how you tracked down the special ligature (PAxGÍN 𒉺𒂅) and would be extremely grateful for any pointers on that matter. Cheers! Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 14:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I had Borger's 2004 Lexicon in front of me when I covered all this Unicode stuff. It is almost impossible to make sense of Unicode's cuneiform block without making constant reference to Borger. I don't have this Lexicon now, as I took it out of the library. --dab (𒁳) 14:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

User Paul Bedson

was blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently disruptive conduct as detailed in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paul Bedson#Summary - misuse of sources, pushing fringe material, etc. Hence the edits today are no surprise. Dougweller (talk) 10:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Weird translation/source

This doesn't even begin to be my area, so I'll leave this for someone else to fix. Just wanted to point out that the first line of the poem makes absolutely no sense:

"I, a warrior have heaped up
be Hursag, and be you it's owner!"

What is that supposed to mean. The "it's" error makes me think there is another transcription error in here somewhere as well, maybe?

I cannot get the text of this poem to come up anywhere else on the web. The stated source does not appear to include the poem - I searched lots of different ways and am coming up with nothing. Jessicapierce (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jessicapierce: Do you have a copy of the Jacobsen book? If the reference is incorrect then that needs addressing. How about we just fix it? Neils51 (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Nope, unfortunately I don't have a copy. I'd love it if someone made that phrasing make sense, but I don't even come close to getting the intended meaning. Jessicapierce (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

If the translation was made around the late 18th Century/early 19th Century then the apostrophe related to ownership (there was no 'it is' contraction). Neils51 (talk) 09:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://books.google.com/books?id=L-BI0h41yCEC. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. - car chasm (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)