User talk:HaniwaEnthusiast

Matara-jin, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HaniwaEnthusiast,

Speedy Deletion has set criteria of qualifies for a deletion and it is not the deletion process where you can put forth an argument for deletion like you can with Proposed Deletion or Articles for Deletion. So, I have removed the CSD tag and replaced it with a PROD tag including your rationale for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did the same for Ninsusinak. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hurrian religion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dagan. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dagon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Akkad.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You may have already seen my username in edit histories and on talk pages before now, but I thought I would make a more formal introduction. My real name is Spencer McDaniel. While I was in high school, I was in the habit of editing Wikipedia regularly. My main area of interest was (and still is) ancient Greece, but I also edited many articles about ancient Mesopotamia, ancient Rome, early Christianity, and folklore. I'm the one who rewrote the articles Inanna, Anunnaki, Enlil, Dumuzid, Anu, Gilgamesh, Royal Game of Ur, Ninurta, Bull of Heaven, and Udug and brought them up to "Good Article" status. (I also rewrote the article list of Mesopotamian deities and brought it up to "Featured List" status.)

I mostly stopped editing Wikipedia shortly after I went to college in fall 2018. The primary reason why I quit is because I got tired of having to constantly defend my work from people who believe ridiculous crank theories (especially Zecharia Sitchin's theory that the Anunnaki were extraterrestrial beings from a mysterious unknown planet beyond Neptune and Alexander Hislop's theory that the Christian holidays of Christmas and Easter—and all the modern British holiday traditions associated with them—somehow actually originate from the ancient Babylonian cult of Ishtar) and having to deal with some of toxic personalities who used to edit here (most of whom now appear to be blocked indefinitely). Another reason why I quit is because I wanted to write more under my own name and receive credit for my work.

Now I am about to enter my senior year of university, double-majoring in history and classical studies (i.e., Greek and Latin). My plan is to apply to graduate programs in ancient history later this year. Today, I happened to check up on the article Inanna, which I spent a lot of time working on, and I noticed that someone had made a large number of significant changes to it. I looked at the edit history for the article and found your contributions history. I also managed to stumble across your Tumblr blog and have spent most of my evening today reading through your posts. You seem to be very well read about ancient Mesopotamian mythology and perhaps better read than I am on this particular subject. I'm glad to see that you're working on these articles. They could definitely use attention from someone knowledgeable like yourself. —Katolophyromai (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. With all due respect, I think that the god list article needs further work. I've adjusted the foreign section a bit (gods from Palmyra were not worshiped in Mesopotamia, some of the "Elamite" ones - Manzat, Lagamar, Ishmekarab - are actually Akkadian and were only introduced to Elam, Enzag was listed twice etc.) and added more accurate Dagan and Ishara info from more specialized publications. I think minor cleanup elsewhere is needed too, ex. Gestinanna was much less relevant than Nanaya or Zababa in everyday religion (she is hardly ever attested anywhere outside of a couple of Dumuzi narratives), so slight shakeup in major and minor categories is needed; I will try to get back to the article in the foreseeable future to polish it a bit further.HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to make changes. Just make sure to cite your sources as always. I spent a lot of time working on that article, but I certainly recognize that my work may be flawed. I did the best I could at the time. —Katolophyromai (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the point of editing the categories to contradict the article text is. The identification with Aphrodite/Venus was a part of the syncretistic process of Interpretatio graeca and Interpretatio Romana, well known in ancient times, not "highly speculative comparative mythology"[sic]. AnonMoos (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos:Interpretatio Graeca shouldn't trump the fact that scholars of Near Eastern religions generally agree that Ashtart in the bronze age and Astarte in the iron age had no astral character at all. Considering this presumed nonexistent astral character lead to a lot of questionable scholarship which made study of peculiarities of Ugaritic, Phoenician etc. beliefs more difficult due to broad statements about "Venus deities" (ex. Heimpel's article "Catalog of Near Eastern Venus Deities" which forces not only Ashtart but even the male Ugaritic Attar [who was associated only with Astabi, and had no claim to any astral connections other than name cognate with Ashtart's...] and Nanaya [whose astral association was Corona Borealis, not Venus] into the mold of a "Venusian deity" against all odds) I think an abundance of caution here is warranted. Also, interpretatio - be it graeca or babylonica or any other one - doesn't mean acquiring every trait of the other deity, see ex. the famous case of Dagan and Kumarbi in Syria: Dagan's wife Shalash came to be associated with Kumarbi, but Dagan didn't acquire Kumarbi's character as an antagonistic force in myths, or at least no known text indicates such a role. Likewise, "interpretatio" of Dagan as Enlil didn't make gods whose "interpretatio" was Ninurta (ex. the still unidentified city god of Emar) necessarily his children (putting the general epithet of "father of gods," indicating seniority first and foremost, aside). Interpretatio Graeca also designated Seth as Typhon and yet to my knowledge Typhon was never a royal tutelary god the way Seth was for some of the Ramessides, nor was he ever given a positive role as "Interpretatio Aegyptica" of foreign storm gods the way Seth was in the Astarte Papyrus. Assuming every association of every deity at some point compared to another also holds true for each counterpart IS comparative speculation. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to planetary associations when I mentioned "Venus", just the Greek Aphrodite = Roman Venus deity equivalence. (However, Babylonian astrology had a large degree of cross-cultural influence in Hellenistic times, as you know.) The original attributes of Astarte should be distinctly mentioned, but as for the overall article, I'm not sure that there's much point in being more fastidious than the ancient syncretizers were. AnonMoos (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I actually agree with you that Inanna = Persephone is speculative / comparative (in a way which Astarte = Aphrodite isn't). AnonMoos (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos:Maybe mention that on the article's talk page before the article fully succumbs to whatever fringe agenda the person adding these outlandish claims to the article has, then? They have a pattern of such behavior btw, they added references to Lilith for no reason to the Ereshkigal article to a description an Old Babylonian artifact, and in buddhism articles they add fringe alt-spirituality sites as sources to likewise make dubious connections between completely unrelated deities.HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. That was a long-standing caption. You removed Lilith, I reverted you. And in Buddhism articles I add authentic lineage sources. I challenge you to show one fringe alt-spirituality site that I added to a Buddhism article. Generally, I take them out. And talking about another editor like this is a violation of WP:AGF. My only "agenda" is to improve Wikipedia. Skyerise (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise the Simkamukha article, written by you, comes to mind. Meta history.org used as a source there is a fringe pseudohistory site.

Also "improve"? You add dubious equivalences and info from astrology sites and revert edits meant to remove baffling claims, that is the opposite of improvement. You also seem to treat reliable sources presented to you with scorn. Hard to see anything but bad faith and a dubious spiritual agenda here. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! One out of 18 sources. As a 35 year student and practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism, who has invoked both Simhamukha and Sekhet, I find nothing on that page to be untrue. You ought try invoking the god/desses you write about, you might learn something. I don't give a fig for your dried-up sources, which you seem to think allow you to exclude information you don't like or agree with. They don't. WP:NPOV requires us to present both sides. And people who actually practice a religion aren't "fringe" sources. That's a term that applies to people like Velikovsky and Sitchin, not to people who do something which dates back to prehistoric times. Your disdain for anyone but "academics" is disturbing and unproductive. Skyerise (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and that citation is a second citation; the first is to a book by John Reynolds, a respected scholar in the field with multiple published books and translations. I only included it because that book is hard to obtain, so that the reader could verify the statement more easily from a second online source. I don't have to meet your standards or stay out of your way. I suggest you learn to be more cooperative with other editors. I've been editing for over 16 years and there is nothing wrong with my sourcing. Astrology has its own traditions, scholars, and journals, Mountain Astrologer being one of the best. The articles I cite provide sources, and I'm tired of your bigotry against other spiritual traditions. Are you an atheist or a zealot? I've noticed that people like you don't last very long here unless the learn to adapt and work with others. Ciao! Skyerise (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And calling another editor's spirituality "dubious" is a personal attack and a good way to get kicked off Wikipedia. I suggest you desist with that tactic. Skyerise (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise:Any definition of Tibetan Buddhism which encompasses deities from a completely unrelated culture and time period (ex. Sekhmet like your account of Tibetan Buddhism given on my talk page asserts) is by default fringe (which doesn't necessarily mean it's impossible it's what someone actually believes in), but I guess all people with vaguely brown skin are basically interchangeable to some? I keep forgetting that's the case, sadly. Certain people discussed here do not seem to view Mesopotamian - or any other - gods as part of actual belief systems with actual geographical and temporal location and importance which stems from that first and foremost, but as some generic transcendent archetypes, divorced from any context whatsoever. What I'm seeing here is picking up a few "shiny" ones and displacing them from their original context, coupled with conflating and associating them with completely unrelated figures in contexts divorced to these known to their actual worshipers. Simultaneously no attention is paid to deities actually closely associated with them, because they lack the thrill of new shiny toys from yet another system of beliefs. For instance: enlighten me, why do you insist on keeping the faulty Lilith reference in the Ereshkigal article but didn't even bother to check the Namtar footnote refers to an encyclopedia entry, not a journal article? Namtar's connection to Ereshkigal is indisputable and probably better attested than her connection to any other deity. It's not "elitist" or "ivory tower" to focus on sources which actually take the historical context of a deity into account first and foremost. It is also not elitist - quite the opposite - to try to make wikipedia provide the best information out there first and foremost; lack of ability to access academic research shouldn't be a barrier from being able to read it in what's arguably the most popular source of scientific, historical, etc. information in the world.

To address the other points: my edits prove that what I prioritize are the accounts of people who belong to the traditions from which the discussed gods actually come. The content of a Sumerian prayer or an Assyrian royal inscription or a Hurrian incantation is a more reliable source than an astrology journal, a site of a self proclaimed Jungian mystic, or your suspicion that something feels right (the justification you gave for the Ereshkigal venture). You also undid an edit which removed your dubious Greek venture - disconnected from the context in which Inanna/Ishtar was worshiped (the author views her as a child-snatching boogeyman - in reality she was invoked to subdue such threats, alongside Nanaya; this is demonization rooted in very much modern sexism, arguably - sexual character does not equal malevolence) - and thus removed an account of devotional actions of people who actually worshiped Ishtar (which the author does not do, as far as I am aware, but which the people whose testimonies prove she was not what he views her as were). I also actively worked to make sure the Astarte and Dagan pages are not centered on faulty biblical accounts but on documents from Ugarit, Emar, Terqa, Tuttul etc. where they were actively worshiped (hardly the work of a "zealot" which I assume was meant to designate me as a christian fundamentalist - don't think that's a group known for their interest in Hurrian religion); I added sections on worship to many other articles (often these nobody else ever bothered with because they aren't dedicated to the few "flashy" gods the fringe authors took away from their metaphorical "homes" in Sumerian, Akkadian, Eblaite etc. culture and placed in their jungian, christian fundamentalist, etc. fantasies instead) detailing the sites of major temples, prominent historical figures who were likely devotees of specific figures, sometimes major festivals, and other such details.

I would argue I put more effort into conveying what the religion of ancient Mesopotamia was actually about and what these gods meant to people who actively believed in them than any author you put on a pedestal.

As a side note, my personal beliefs do not matter here in any capacity and there is no indication of them in my work, and I do cooperate with other users, one example being the Mesopotamian gods list article, in which case I both made sure to preserve the best work of past editors (after consulting them) and split the work on certain sections with another person (who did a great job by the way, you should check out their handling of the topic of Greek deities in Mesopotamia! I'm in awe myself). You are the uncooperative one, judging from your response to sharing the Ereshkigal links with you, which is what started all of this - haven't seen you surgically target any of my work before that - as a matter of fact you were at one point rather helpful back when I had trouble using ref bots - so it's hard not to see this as some strange vendetta; also, you didn't intervene when someone removed the Persephone claim in an act of vandalism in the meanwhile, as I've noticed today after a brief online absence, so it doesn't seem like you are all that concerned with the Inanna article otherwise. All I wanted was to share information with someone who I assumed will appreciate it, and who simply made an honest mistake by relying on an antiquated translation. It is clear that is not what you actually pursue, though, so worry not, I plan to stay away. There are, after all, many articles people relying on sources you favor will never bother to write.HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC

1) Tibetan Buddhism is a living tradition. It has always incorporated deities from other tradition, from the very beginning. Most were Hindu. Lamas also receive "mind termas", so new deities are continuing to be incorporated. There is actually a published Mahayoga ritual for the Egyptian god Horus, so you apparently don't really know as much about it as you think you do. The idea of a Tibetan ritual of Sekhmet is not as far-fetched as you imagine it to be. Unlike Sumerian, it's neither a dead nor fixed tradition.

2) As you say, your personal beliefs do not matter here. Same for mine, but you have tried to make it your business by projecting upon me that I have "dubious spriritual beliefs." That's just not cool and can indeed lead other editors to not want to work with you. So put that ball in your own court. Skyerise (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3) The vandal did not remove Persephone. Based on your arguments and to prevent contention, I did not put her back in the infobox, only into the article text. You seem to owe me a couple of apologies... Skyerise (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't owe you any apologies. The source for the Persephone claim remains awful no matter how hard you defend it, and should not be present in the article at all - once again, the book is not an accurate source of Inanna information, I outlined above why. Perhaps you think that it's acceptable to keep something based on confabulations of one person who seems to want nothing more than impose their insanely sexist view on culture of ancient Mesopotamia (what is even the logic behind his claim, "she has no children = boogeyman who steals children"?) in the article, but that's your mistaken view, not mine, and I don't plan to apologize for finding this appalling. Inanna was not a boogeyman and no author claiming she was is credible, whether academic or not, and in particular she had nothing to do with the actual child-stealing boogeyman Lamashtu; she doesn't appear at all in the arguably defining study of Lamashtu's character (see here). I have no objections to astrology staying in if it would be part of the modern relevance section, but I don't plan to back down on this since it's intentionally guiding people to a source which completely misinterprets Inanna and which is in no way notable even as a historical curiosity. Pretty funny you didn't notice the vandalism in between making edits to the article, also.HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access to Archaeoastronomy journals? I don't, but I'm pretty sure you'll find support there. And if you're not going to apologize for your comment about "dubious spiriitual beliefs," then I won't feel obliged to revert vandalism to your content. Skyerise (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss article-related issues on article talk pages, not editor talk pages. All editors of an article have an interest and should be given a chance to respond to your concerns as well. Further article talk on my talk page will simply be blanked w/o response. Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's rude to combine reverts with new edits. If you continue to do this, I will revert you every time. Skyerise (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Inanna shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Skyerise (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	I keep seeing your edits on random Mesopotamian deity articles' histories, but for Ninsubur in particular I noticed you did amazing work! That article is WAY better than the average for low-ranking Mesopotamian gods. Outstanding coverage! Thanks so much for your contributions! Asdjk48 (talk) 00:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inanna has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Apocheir (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the heads up. I agree with the nomination, I think many articles about Mesopotamian mythology were awared the good article rating prematurely.HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HaniwaEnthusiast

Thank you for creating Dumuzi-abzu.

User:TheLongTone, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good grief! A new article that isn't about some dull sport or other!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|TheLongTone}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

TheLongTone (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should consider nominating pages you've created or expanded for the Did you know? section on the front page. They're usually desperate for material that's not from the US and not modern. -Apocheir (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For your efforts on Ningirima. May this tea help you keep up the good work! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HaniwaEnthusiast,

There is a problem in how you tagged this page for PROD deletion, the tag is undated, so the page will not appear in the correct category on the day it is scheduled to be deleted and admins will not know that the page has been tagged for deletion.

I recommend using Twinkle to tag pages for all types of deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/TFD/CFD/etc.) because it will tag pages correctly so you don't need to worry about pasting in the correct template or having the wording exactly right. It's a very useful editing tool and easy to learn. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've crossed paths on Mesopotamian gods before. I'm ok with this page being deleted if this spelling only appears in Jordan, but I think the dab entry should be retained and retargeted to Shullat and Hanish where the misspelling should be mentioned. Are you ok with this? We need to provide a landing place for readers who come across this name and try to look it up here. As we know from other articles, authors of "coffee table" books are liable to copy stuff from Jordan. SpinningSpark 07:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly fine by me. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 09:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Siduri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Martin West.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HaniwaEnthusiast

Thank you for creating Lugaldukuga.

User:BusterD, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Impressive work. I'm not sure how to link the word "theogonic". Should it be to Theogony? One way or the other, the article might benefit from a link to complex concepts a reader might stumble over.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|BusterD}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

BusterD (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All the page really needs besides illustration is some project banners. Very cool stuff. BusterD (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think linking a Greek myth in an article which has nothing to do with Greece would help the reader much, and I could not find appropriate parts to link in relation to terms like "theogonic" and "prime mover," sadly - noted for the future, though, I do forget about links to pages from outside the described field quite often. Additionally, there are no images to use in the case of 90% Mesopotamian deities, so sadly most of the time my best bet is finding a public domain photo of associated excavation site, if one exists; in the case of gods not associated with a specific ancient city even that is not viable, tragically, and I think this will remain one of such cases for the time being. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HaniwaEnthusiast, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! – Joe (talk) 05:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites "Klein 1997" but no such source is listed in the bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata•3 03:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

religions of ancient Mesopotamia

Thank you for quality articles about ancient religions, especially of Mesopotamia, such as Simut (god), Annunitum and Gula (goddess), for improving the list of Mesopotamian deities, for {{Hurrian mythology}}, for "my personal beliefs do not matter here in any capacity", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2745 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I feel honored. I am actually not entirely happy with my Hurrian template, I plan to redo it after finishing a rewrite of the Hurrian religion article, which due to the amount of the material I've gathered I plan to split into two, one about rituals, temples and myths on the current page (which I started improving but never finished) and one just with a detailed deity list. If everything goes well I should be able to finish both this weekend or in the beginning of the next week. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Geshtinanna, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Old Babylonian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/utu#Maori

Related to Utu in any way? The word here certainly matches up to the main role of Utu as enforced of divine justice. And Sumerian has been speculated to be related to Austronesian - somehow. There’s no rigour behind it but if it is a false friend-type etymology, it’s a nice coincidence Zagreus99 (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• enforcer Zagreus99 (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Utu was not actually called an "enforcer," this is just a phrase used in the wiki article and a few other places online... in English, not in Sumerian. The Sumerian word for judge was diku, which is also how divine judges were designated. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HaniwaEnthusiast. Your recent rewrite of Anat has caused a couple of no target errors. Both Wiggermann 1998 and Frayne 1995 are not defined, and I've been unable to determine the correct works. Could you let me know what they should be or add them to the article? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both of them were mistakes on my part, Wiggins and Frame were meant - both are already in the bibliography. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HaniwaEnthusiast. I wondered if there were typos, but thought I would check. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Shame the article is being vandalized right now, though. I put the entire week into it. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pastoralist.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ninurta was worshipped at some point as the main god of the pantheon. Later he was overshadowed by Amorite deities like Hadad (who was most popular among the Amorites) and Babylonian ones such as Marduk. Ishtar is the main goddess of every pantheon that ended up overshadowing also Ninhursag. There are many different equivalents of them. Fanfiction or not I provide sources and provide explanation and connections - fanFICTION means writing things without ANY sort of source to back it up. That I don’t do. You also refused my paragraph on the Nergal page where I addressed how in the myth of Nergal and Ereshkigal - Nergal is called “Nergal” and addressed as THEY, and when he goes into the Underworld THEY (Nergal) are called “the gods Erra” by Namtar, the judge of the Underworld. Egbert von Weiher wrote a book called “Der babylonische Gott Nergal” and he said that there were TWO gods called “Nergal”, one associated with Mars (which is the usual Nergal everyone knows) and one associated with Mercury who corresponds to Ninurta because in the MUL.APIN it’s read that: “Mercury whose name is Ninurta, travels the (same) path the moon travels”. When Marduk became king of the gods in place of Enlil - the “Father-Son” relationship that existed between Enlil and Ninurta was replaced by Marduk and his son Nabu who thus became associated with Mercury. As a consequence since there are two Nergals (Lugal-irra and Meslamtaea) there are also two gods called “Erra”. Nougayrol published some extispicy omens where Lugal-irra is treated as analogous to Erragal. Erragal was a god of storm and flooding and Ninurta was a god of storm and flooding. Since Lugal-irra is Mercury as addressed by tablet K.42 the role of Erragal in the Epic of Gilgamesh also fits the one of Ninurta because Ninurta is a god of flooding and has storm-like attributes and Ninurta is Mercury (Lugal-irra). This is also why Zababa (another form of Ninurta) is called the “Nergal of Kish”, because Ninurta was the other “Nergal” although he wasn’t mainly addressed by that name and they only called him like that in small local cults (like the one of Zababa in Kish with him being called the “Nergal of Kish”). In later texts (post Old-Babylonian) Lugal-irra and Meslamtaea are addressed as “Sin and Nergal” because as addressed by Mesopotamian astrology in the MUL.APIN - Mercury travelled the same path of the moon and since Mercury was Lugal-irra, he could also be associated with the moon-god Sin/Nanna because of that, her that’s a later development. I hope you open your mind and stop treating me like an enemy or like a retarded stupid individual. Thank you and all due respect to you and your works on Wikipedia pages. 93.35.64.39 (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC) 93.35.64.39 (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copy pasting what I put on your own page because your IP keeps changing and it is physically impossible to talk to you:

Ninurta was never the main god, a wacky theory about Enlil being superimposed over him in Nippur, which most researchers do not support, notwithstanding. He always existed secondarily to his father or other deities, and his biggest boost in popularity happened relatively late in history. You should really look more at cultic reality and less at bold statements that god lists are the ultimate resource to understand everything.

Calling Hadad "Amorite" is incorrect. Adad/Hadad was introduced to Mesopotamia by speakers of Akkadian, not Amorite, and was already worshiped before Amorites even entered recorded history both in Mesopotamia and further west in Ebla (not Amorite) and Halab (also not Amorite in the third millennium yet as far as I am aware). Amorites adopted Hadad as their main god because he was already the main god of much of modern Syria, not because he was a uniquely Amorite god.

"Equivalent" is a very loose term. Shaushka or Pinikir developed completely separately and only came to be understood as analogous in some capacity with Ishtar (of Uruk) due to contact between Mesopotamians and, respectively, Hurrians or Elamites, but you need to study each deity on their own to understand them properly, this is the approach modern authors like Gary Beckman promote, not generalizations you seem to enjoy. The Ninhursag statement seems off to me. There was no single uniform pantheon in some primordial ur-time, the earliest sources show remarkable diversity already. Where was Ninhursag in, say, Sippar? How does your model explain sites where neither Ninhursag nor any Ishtar or analog was in a major position, like Eshnunna?

Zababa was not really a "form of Ninurta" outside of weird esoteric texts like the Mystic Heptads Archive and such. Ninurta has a Sumerian name, Zababa's name is impossible to explain in any known language and possibly comes from a substrate. Zababa had his own cult center, his own circle of deities, and could appear side by side with Ninurta with the two of them treated as separate deities. Even An = Anum has them in completely separate sections and does not equate them. Same goes for Urash, Lugal-Marada, Lugalbanda, let alone Ishtaran or entirely non-Mesopotamian gods. Their histories need to be studied individually.

There is only one Nergal in Nergal and Ereshkigal, sorry. Not sure why do you want there to be two. I would also recommend on reputable translations and not on random crap you took from disreputable websites.

Also, Erragal is too obscure to be certain about his character, other than the identity of his wife. You are relying too much on a single source - Simons' recent article - which is 90% pure speculation based on a god list which isn't even probably representative since many of the equations make 0 sense, see the discusion in Tugendhaft's article about the same text, Gods on Clay. Ancient Near Eastern Scholarly Practices and the History of Religions, or even in an early edition from Emmanuel Laroche, La version hourrite de la liste AN de Meskene-Emar. Also, even Simons doesn't propose any relation between Ninurta and Erragal! And Ninurta using weather as a weapon in a myth does not really make him a weather god, same as in the case of Marduk or Tishpak. See Wiggermann's article on the Labbu myth for an explanation.

I on some level admire your persistence, but you seem to lack a solid methodology and use sources indiscriminately - books from 1800s inventing myths wholesale (the wacky Adonis vs. Moloch addition you made in the Hadad article), esoteric late commentaries which do not really reflect everyday religion, shoddy websites like gatestobabylon or w/e, vintage misreadings ("Ishnanna," "Adar" - nobody has used these since WWII, probably earlier!) are being mixed with most up to date monographs completely randomly in your additions. Enthusiasm is valuable but you cannot work with enthusiasm alone, you need to understand the standards of both the discipline and of wikipedia before making moves as bold as you constantly try to.

Also, please do not use the r word on my talk page. I am not fond of it. I also keep an open mind which is why I do not use sources from a century ago, unlike you. You cannot claim to have an open mind, and then use books which are out of date precisely because their authors did not have open minds and did not let the texts speak for themselves, instead choosing to simplify and distort. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nergal and Ereshkigal as published by Dalley which was then copied and pasted on the “Gateways to Babylon site” (https://www.gatewaystobabylon.com/myths/texts/classic/ereshner1.htm):

These are the lines I speak of: "Now 'they' (Nergal) have gone down to Kurnugi." (The Underworld).

Second line: "Namtar went and let in 'the Gods', Erra." This implies TWO.

Also, for the other gods you speak of – I respect all your opinions but those do not pertain the matter at hand. Zababa is addressed while battling the enemies of Ninurta, he wields the weapons of Ninurta, he even has the two sons of Ninurta (Ig-Alim and Shulshaga) as his symbols next to his seated statue and they are named as his weapons and he is the husband of the goddess Bau (Ningirsu’s wife). The association of Hadad with Amorites was done by me to shorten the length of the message otherwise I would have said that Hadad was Akkadian, Syrian, generally Mesopotamian (in the form of Iškur) etc. so I shortened my talking by saying he was most popular among Amorites due to similarities with the storm god of the Amorites “Martu/Amurru”. Again - you misinterpret my writing, with calling Hadad “Amorite” I never claimed Amorites introduced him to Mesopotamia. Also, Ishtar had a much more wide-spread cult than Ninhursag as her popularity grew, that’s what I meant, so arguing on semantics is meaningless. And finally - you refer to something completely oblivious to me - Ninurta NEVER replaced Enlil in the pantheon and I never heard that anywhere. What I mean that he worshipped as a “main god” is that Ninurta is addressed as “having ascended to the throne of Anu” in a shir-gida to Ninurta (link: https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.4.27.01&charenc=j# ). This of course could also be figurative, but explains other hymns to Ninurta where other gods are said to be: “his face, his hands, his arms, feet” etc. basically many gods are said to be parts of Ninurta because he had such an important god, that he was compared to others. This implies that there were also other “local forms” of Ninurta in other cities, some of which are: Lugal-Marada, Zababa, Urash, Ninazu, Ishtaran (regardless of when or where they were worshipped, they were associated or equated directly with Ninurta). Like I said Zababa is one of those and as I explained earlier he is identical to Ninurta in cultic aspects. Now, Ninurta also inherits the Tablets Of Destinies (which he steals from the bird Anzû) which represented the symbol of power and kingship, and then he was recognized at the end of the Myth of Anzû and Ninurta and the turtle by the god Enki at the shrine of the Abzu. Ninurta thus became one of the most important gods and being worshipped as the main warrior god and hero of the pantheon, he became the most worshipped at some point (along with other gods of course) and he had a lot of local equivalents (i.e. other gods who are equivalent to him) which is why so many deities I talk about are equivalent with Ninurta. That’s all I was talking about in my previous message. 2001:B07:AAC:403D:5059:4696:4E25:6B30 (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, let me fix these typos;

What I mean that he *WAS worshipped as a “main god” is that…

…basically many gods are said to be parts of Ninurta because he *WAS such an important god, that he was compared to others. (This implies how important he’d become by a certain point onwards). 93.35.64.39 (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And one final thing: Erragal is said to be associated with “the destruction caused by storms”, he is not a storm-god. Ninurta wasn’t either. Being associated with the destructive element of the storm could also designate simply a god who uses the storm as a weapon in his entourage (like Ninurta), not necessarily a storm-god. We should give more credit to older sources also, we can all laugh at the bad rendering of names (like Adar, Išhanna etc.) but it’s the concept that matters, academics can’t lie, so there’s no reason to believe they were lying 100 years ago or 50 years ago in texts, it’s just that modern scholarship has taken a different direction and some older sources have been forgotten (not necessarily discredited) so I propose to adopt a hybrid approach. 2001:B07:AAC:403D:5059:4696:4E25:6B30 (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Academics, in fact, can lie. I would very much like to believe that every academic ever had only the betterment of mankind and gathering of knowledge in mind, but race science, phrenology, or to use a closer example panbabylonism were always lies, and there are many lesser lies here and there too. Claiming there was a myth about "Moloch" and Adonis, for instance, is an obvious lie. Most other researchers seem to believe Simo Parpola lies. Sometimes legit authors endorse forgeries for profit, too, because auction houses pay well for expert opinions and ultimately material wealth is coveted. This is why you should, for example, try to track down reviews of books you'd like to use on sites like JSTOR.

There are, to my knowledge, two texts where many other gods are just "parts" of Ninurta: the list of "seven Ninurtas" and the hymn you've mentioned. Both are late and not really unique - Marduk, Nanaya and Gula have similar texts dedicated to them, and ex. Asher-Greve & Westenholz 2013, a book which I know you have access to and read parts of, do not believe them to indicate this type of faux-monotheism or full equation, but only assertion of authority. "Anuship" and "Enlilship" and other such terms are both figures of speech and simply signify authority. You will find many references to gods being the "Enlils" of x - a location (Dagan, Kumarbi), a sphere of influence (Nergal, one of the dream gods - I forgot which one, I will dig it up tomorrow), etc. It does signify high status, but I do not think you can make a case for them being supreme, exactly.

Bau becoming Zababa's wife has little to do with him being Ninurta - her cult center declined and her clergy relocated to Kish. The explanation is not esoteric syncretism, but purely material factors. Since to my knowledge Igalima and Shulsaga are only weapons of Zababa, not his sons, it is probably fair to assume that they got transferred alongside Bau, but did not fully replicate their original roles. Note Igalima also shows up in the court of Nungal, also - is Nungal Ninurta? Furthermore, Zababa's entry in the Reallexikon directly brings up texts where he and Ninurta are not identical and both appear at once. Zababa is similar to Ninurta, not identical to him. Same goes for all the Pisangaunugs and Lugal-Maradas and so on. Lugalbanda is only equated with him as a weird extension of the association between their wives and Alhena Gadotti pointed out that it didn't seem to carry over to Ninurta in any shape or form, and Lugalbanda retained his unique role as a deified kind and father of Gilgamesh which Ninurta lacked. Let's not even start on Ishtaran - the first attestation of Ishtaran explicitly has him in a distinct role from Ningirsu. And his character is not Ninurta-like at all. The Anzu myth is not an ultimate source on theology - Papsukkal being equated with Ninurta if anything reduces his prestige, considering he was the errand boy of a god with limited cultic significance, ie. Anu. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ninurta being equated with Papsukkal makes sense because he was in a sense the “errand boy” of the pantheon since Ninurta performed 12 labors (enumerated in the Lugal-e myth, the 12th of which is the Asag demon who becomes number 12 after he’s defeated by Ninurta in the poem Lugal-e). Ninurta is also equated with Tašmišu by the Hittites and Tašmišu is also equated with Papsukkal in a god-list. I think the equation of Ninurta with Papsukkal more so implies that Ninurta could at times be envisioned as analogous to Papsukkal, due to his role as a deity that travels a lot and acts on behalf of the pantheon and his father Enlil. But he’s not always the same as Papsukkal. Now, the equation of Ninurta and Lugalbanda is due to the fact that the cuneiform element “banda” could also be read as “Marda” as pointed out by some academics (I very frequently visit JSTOR and most of my downloads of articles of excerpts come from there, and that’s where I read that theory), so Lugal-banda could be read as “Lugal-marda” and Lugal-marda=Ninurta. Igalim is in the entourage of Nungal, but both Igalim and Shulshaga TOGETHER being associated with Zababa is much more suspect, given that like I’ve said Zababa wields the weapons of Ninurta and defeats the same enemies of Ninurta. Also, the Reallexikon called “Nab-Nuzi” claims they were depicted in front of a statue of a seated god identified as “Zababa” while standing erected, and that they represented the “symbols” of the seated Zababa other than his weapons (“symbols” could also refer to them being his “sons”). Ishtaran is not similar in role to Ninurta but neither are some other gods and goddesses who are equated with each other in god lists (the most notable example is Nergal who is equated with a wide variety of gods that do not fit with his role in the pantheon, attributes or even parentage, for example Nergal is equated with Lagamal who is the son of Urash, the tutelary deity of Dilbat, and Urash is equated with Ninurta, but – as far we know, Ninurta and Nergal ate brothers, not father and son so the equation with Nergal makes no sense, or it could make sense if the term “Nergal” is understood as a generic title meaning “god of the underworld” rather than referring to the homonymous deity “Nergal”). Also, every local cult had a different “version” of the same gods, which means that to some cities the warrior traits of Ninurta were more important so they were duly emphasized, whilst other cities maybe emphasized the “healing” attributes of Ninurta, other would emphasize other attributes and give him different roles, so claiming that their roles aren’t similar really doesn’t mean much. The hymn to Ninurta I referred to is another I can’t find online at the moment, but it has the following words inside it: “your face is Shamash, your locks [Nisaba] , Your eyes, o lord, are Enlil and Ninlil…” etc. As far as lying I don’t think it’s very true, maybe they can “twist” the truth and for example “Moloch” slaying Adonis could be the god “Mars” and Mars being equivalent to Nergal, Nergal was sometimes interpreted as being a Mesopotamian equivalent of Moloch so maybe they lie by omission and they don’t claim that Mars (Nergal) was identified with Moloch by the writer of the source, but still - it has a basis of reality. Also, I don’t frequently use such old sources, I only do when the nature of a god is oblivious and I’m curious to see if any older sources contain something more but that’s it really. As far as Lugalbanda and Zababa never being directly equated with Ninurta (even though Zababa WAS technically equated with Ninurta but indirectly because Aštabil is equated with Zababa, and Aštabi=Ninurta, and Aštabi is also equated with Lugal-Marada, so it comes full circle) but as far as some gods and figures luke Lugal-banda and Zababa not being equated with Ninurta - it could also be very much likely that some cultures preferred to keep their gods separate, because as mentioned previously - there were many “local versions” of the same god who sometimes had differing attributes in certain cities form their main entries in the Mesopotamian pantheon, so local cults preferred to keep them different to emphasize their differences in cults, but the roles that they play and the weapons which they wield and their wives, children as well as mythologies and exploits which are attributed to them, make it still very clear that the figures could very much be equatable with each other. 93.35.64.39 (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

now as you’ve said, similar hymns also apply to Gula, Nanaya and Marduk and yet - we all know how important Marduk was (he was the main god of the Babylonian pantheon after all), Nanaya BECAME important when she was identified or equated (conflated) to some extant with Ishtar, so again, this proves that such texts were written for gods who became more widely worshiped and more important than they were before (which is what happened with Ninurta). I didn’t speak of monotheism regarding Ninurta is I wouldn’t make such a claim not even if I was drunk. With Gula it’s the same, since she became one of the most popular goddesses by the Old Babylonian Period. 93.35.64.39 (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Typo fixes;

…there were many “local versions” of the same god who sometimes had differing attributes in certain cities *FROM their main entries in the Mesopotamian pantheon…

…so local cults preferred to keep them *SEPARATE to emphasize their differences in cults… which

… I didn’t speak of monotheism regarding Ninurta *AND I wouldn’t… 2001:B07:AAC:403D:5059:4696:4E25:6B30 (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another typo fix;

…but – as far we know, Ninurta and Nergal *ARE brothers, not father and son… 2001:B07:AAC:403D:5059:4696:4E25:6B30 (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Hurrians identified Tašmišu with Papsukkal as reported by a god-list from Emar. Hittites was a typo although the two cultures were closely related. 2001:B07:AAC:403D:5059:4696:4E25:6B30 (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The god list from Emar and its trilingual extension from Ugarit are NOT necessarily credible sources of insights about Hurrian theology, and Papsukkal is also equated with an otherwise unknown "Ninuvahe" (sp? Can't consult the article itself rn), please read the two articles I already mentioned before incorporating it into your sprawling Ninurta fanfiction.

Your JSTOR visists, to put it lightly, do not give the best impression. I still remember when you were trying to add your original research to the Kassite deities article. The "source" you quoted was literally written by a 19th century Bible literalist who in the same article explained Sippar was a center of child sacrifice, a blatantly untrue take rooted in the wicked morals of the 19th century. Same goes for your insistence there is validity in something mentioning "Moloch." The Bible is not a historical source, and biblical literalism was, and still is, fueled by malign agendas which have no place in scholarship. If even this is impossible for you to figure out you simply do not have what it takes to write about ancient religions. On top of indicating general poor moral judgment.

Parentage means nothing for theological equations. Ishkur was not a son of Enlil but Teshub is son of Kumarbi, Lagamal's and Urash's individual syncretic assocations - which are very minor parts of their respective characters - have nothing to do with them being father and son. I'm shocked you didn't decide to prove Urash is actually Teshub seing how Belet-Ekalli was his wife in Dilbat while in Aleppo she was instead a secondary partner of Teshub. It's almost like you cannot try to form a composite image of a deity from completely disconnected associations. For all we know maybe there was more than one Lagamal too, seeing how Lagamals from Terqa, Dilbat and Susa have different circles of deities around them (Urash and his family vs. Ikshudum and Yakrub-El vs. Ishmekarab and Inshushinak), and we cannot be sure which tradition was meant when a scribe decided to explain "Lagamal = U.GUR" in An = Anum. It's a pretty isolated reference too, Lagamal is usually doing his (or, in Terqa, her) thing completely separately from Nergal and entirely lacks his warlike nature as far as I know, too. You are reading way too much into isolated god list equations and show extreme unwilingness to treat individual gods on their own. Perhaps let's turn your logic on its head: should we assume Nergal is female since Lagamal demonstrably is in a major cult center of hers?

Ishtaran was demonstrably doing fine on his own as late as in the Hellenistic period, and I am not sure why you prioritize the isolated association with Ninurta - in a literary work, which is not a reflection of cult at all - over the fact he was the "great Anu" of his city or the fact his epithet is a calque of Napirisha's name or over the implications he might have been believed to periodically die, something Ninurta does not do. Both of these would point at a completely different position than Ninurta's in addition to completely dissimilar character. Granted, since you do not understand why original research is not permitted on Wikipedia I guess it hardly matters since in your heart you already deemed him unworthy of being his own thing because he can instead be cannibalized for Ninurta speculation. Since that's all other gods seem to be to you. I'm also morbidly curious how do you interpret the fact the pantheon of Der was remarkably unique. I guess in the end they were all just forms of Ninurta or easy to turn into his wives though, right?

We know very little about the early history of Nanaya. We do not actually know how she rose to prominence. What we do know is that at her absolute peak, in the Neo-Babylonian period, she had separate statues, epithets, offerings, temples from Ishtar of Uruk (let's not even get into other Ishtars). She was a goddess from the circle of Ishtar, not Ishtar. Do you also think Ninshubur, Kanisurra or Usuramassu are actually Ishtar? Hell, let's go further, is Dumuzi Ishtar? Now that's actually a god who only owes any importance whatsoever to association with her. Do you think he is actually Ishtar? This is basically your Nanaya logic.

I can't think of a single recent source linking Lugalbanda and Lugal-Marada - the most recent treatment of the equuation between Ninurta and Lugalbanda is Gadotti's and she stresses that this equation basically means nothing. Lugalbanda was for all intents and purposes his own person, with a unique origin myth, unique wife and unique children. And he was worshiped, on his own, as late as in the Hellenistic period in Uruk. Another fail for the Ninurta paradigm. Also, Lugalbanda, Lugal-Marada and Ninurta arose within a SINGLE culture. I won't even comment on your amateurish equations which make no sense. You can't claim god list x saying y can be instantly linked with god list z, from a completely different area and time period, Interesting that you are only interested in god lists when you can use them to support your Ninurta supremacy claims, I don't see you arguing on the Baal page that he was actualy female because of the Imzuanna equation. Which is equally "well" attested as some of your favorite Ninurta equations and makes about as much sense.

Also, "the Reallexikon called “Nab-Nuzi”"? You can't really figure out how this thing works, how to quote it, and where to actually access it in full, huh?

As a side note, something I forgot to point out yesterday, because I shockingly have responsibilities outside Wikipedia and cannot keep up with every aspect of your walls of text - Amurru was not an Amorite god, he was a strictly Mesopotamian god representing the Mesopotamian perception of the Amorites, who did not worship him, and as far as we know did not actually call themselves "Amorites." "Amorite" is an exonym (ie. a term applied by the outgroup) used today because we do not kow if the people designated this way had a uniform term for themselves so we instead must employ the Akkadian term referring to them. Regarding Amorites and Amurru, he more Amorites in a given area, the fewer Amurru theophoric names you can find, see the almost complete absence of Amurru names in the Mari corpus (Feliu in a survey he included in his Dagan monograph found a total of 1, beloning to a man from the Khabur Triangle). Meanwhile, he was a popular god in the far south, in Lagash and possibly Eridu, and in Nippur, which for some reason had few Amorite inhabitants. Once again your love for antiquated sources rears its head.

I was giving you the benefit of doubt but so far you have not proven that you are actually fit to work on preserving the oldest writing in the world. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About the “turning the logic on its head” - I know very well of the female Lagamal, I read academics writing - the debate is still open and if a female Lagamal indeed exists, it’s another deity. (Some where even speculating that the female Lagamal could be the wife of Urash in one case instead). Lugal-Marda/Lugalbanda equation is alo iterated by Richter here: https://www.google.it/books/edition/Untersuchungen_zu_den_lokalen_Panthea_S/W6RtAAAAMAAJ?hl=it. I personally DON’T believe Lugalbanda and Ninurta were the same person, but I DO acknowledge that they COULD be - and that Ninurta could in that case be a “god” who “rose” to the status of “god” but initially began as a mortal. It COULD happen, although if you want my personal opinion, I repute it highly unlikely and I think that Lugalbanda was merely CONFUSED for Ninurta, but still - I do acknowledge that the confusion that arose is present and that it was because of a possible connection that the ancients saw between the two. You can see some of the speculation on the translations of the name on W. F. Albright’s “Gilgamesh and Engidu” published on JSTOR, and there are also some other sources that touch upon the rendering of “Lugal-banda” as “Lugal-Marda”. Like here: https://www.google.it/books/edition/Archiv_für_Keilschriftforschung/_LoSAAAAIAAJ?hl=it or here: https://www.google.it/books/edition/Journal_of_the_American_Oriental_Society/Ao7SAAAAMAAJ?hl=it. I know they’re old but don’t disregard it until you give a look at it. I did quote the Reallexikon “Nab-Nuzi” on my Erra page, but since you seem to have trouble finding it, here you go, this is the book: https://www.google.it/books/edition/Nab_Nuzi/aMHtDwAAQBAJ?hl=it. And this is the quotation where it says that Igalim and Shulshaga stand in front of the seated god Zababa: https://books.google.it/books?id=aMHtDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA226&dq=igalim+zababa+seated&hl=it&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjcooPNxb75AhV8QPEDHSS1BH8Q6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=igalim%20zababa%20seated&f=false (it’s page 226). Don’t worry on the Wiki I put both the ^[1] reference and the book reference down in the “Bibliography” section as the usual formulation goes: * {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help) etc. Please get the flick out of here with Amurru not being Amorite, whether Mesopotamian, Turkish, Swedish or Chinese - the god represented Amorites and was called “Amurru” because it embodied the perception or stereotype of Amorite people, and it was their god for all matters of concern. Stop tweaking semantics and technicism just to say that I’m wrong from a faraway perspective.

I don’t argue the Imzuanna equation because I’m not stupid and I read the Weidner god-list and I know what they claim about that - it was a scribal error equating the two gods, I’m not that stupid thank you very much.

I argue Urash and Teshub are not the same because they don’t belong to similar cultures (Teshub is Hurrian), Urash is Mesopotamian, and they also don’t share mythology, attributes or even sons. I equated Zababa and Ninurta based on FACT, they are virtually identical, I don’t just go around equating everything out of the blue just for the heck of it. Nanaya was not a main goddess - the boost in popularity could be explained as a more plausible solution to the fact that she had been confused/conflated with Inanna/Ishtar at some point. The confusing or partial conflation between Nanaya and Inanna is attested, so you claiming I made that up out of my whim does not correspond to reality, and no - I would never equated Ninshubur, Kanisurra, Usuramassu or Dumuzi with Ishtar. Thank you. 2001:B07:AAC:403D:5059:4696:4E25:6B30 (talk) 10:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Typos;

Some *WERE even speculating that the female Lagamal could be the wife of Urash in one case instead

I *DON’T argue *THAT Urash and Teshub are not the same because they don’t belong to similar cultures 93.35.65.19 (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The point of quoting the old Kassite deities source was not me referring to Sippar and child sacrifice etc., it was only to refer to the spelling of the names of the gods (such as Maruttaš also being spelled “Maraddaš”), you can clearly see that I quoted the sources regarding THAT, not anything else. Also the author of that source claims Sippar was a child-sacrifice center because in the Bible the city is called “Sepharavim” and there they worshipped Adrammelech (a god that requested child sacrifice). The author of the source even argues that maybe the biblical Sepharavim is not the same as the Mesopotamian Sippar because there’s no proof of child sacrifice there. Adrammelech stems from either: “Addir-Malik” (the strong king), “Adar-melek” (once again, the “strong lord” where Adar was a supposed fire-god that was worshipped) or Attar-Malik (establishing a connection with Attar). The reading “Adar” is further confirmed or reiterated in a Sicilian local tradition where in Sicily it is claimed that before Hephaestus (Vulcan) made mount Aetna his home, there used to be another god called Adranus (again, ADAR) that lived there. Hephaestus in this case would be more similar to Nergal because in the myth of Nergal and Ereshkigal it’s claimed that Nergal was crippled after his return from the Underworld. Again, it’s not something I made up; it is contained inside of Stephanie Dalley’s translation of Nergal and Ereshkigal as reported by her book: Myths from Mesopotamia

Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others (which is what was copied and pasted on the Gateways to Babylon website) and also it is translated the same way (or similar) in a translation I obtained from JSTOR (if you want to read it I can link it to you). Now, given that Ninurta had been equated with other gods who had underworld associations, we know that Ninazu (who’s equated with Ninurta) was perceived as the god of the underworld before Nergal took over, which is a similar stance as to the local Roman-Greek tradition in Sicily where Adranus is replaced by Hephaestus as ruler of the underworld beneath mount Aetna. One would say the world of the dead and the blacksmith environment of Hephaestus weren’t the same, but the Greeks didn’t have a clear-cut image of the Underworld per se apart from Hades (since even other locations like Tartarus or “the depths of the earth” where Gaia gives birth to the Titans are considered a kind of underworld in Greek traditon). 2001:B07:AAC:403D:5059:4696:4E25:6B30 (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing a typo of a typo;

I *DON’T argue that Urash and Teshub *ARE the same because… 93.35.65.19 (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ninazu is only equated with Ninurta in the Gula hymn which equates spouses of medicine goddesses. they are completely separate gods otherwise. Quit making stuff up to fuel your Ninurta obsession. Actually read the sources. Stop adding stream of consciousness theories to articles. Styop attributing own thoughts to credible authors. Just stop talking and actually read what you "quote."

Ninazu and Nergal have equally ancient claim to being gods of the underworld. One didn't replace the other. They represent two local pantheons which overlapped but were not identical. Sorry. I like that you quoted Sibbing-Plantholt whose view on Ninazu is so radical that she outright proposes the existence of TWO Ninazus to deprive Ninazu of individuality.

Adrammelech doesn't exist outside the Bible. Won't even engage with this. The Bible is not a primary source of information about Mesopotamian religion.

Your Sicilian confabulations have no bearing on scholarship. you are making it up on the go. There was never a god "Adar" in Mesopotamia. And some fable from Siciliy (where are your sources for that?) does not have any impact on the reading SUMERIAN names which were never in use in this part of the world. Do you think Sumerians were actually Sicilian? Please answer directly. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 11:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no debate about the existence of female Lagamal, lol. Female Lagamal in Terqa is a fact. Gender of Lagamal in Elam is what is under dispute, not female Lagamal being a thing - the latter matter is settled since 2019. I recommend keeping up with research instead of pulling random crap from google books without concern for publication date.

Albright's speculation has long been recognized as worthless. We literally had a talk about it on the Anat talk page, where other editors had a -MORE- radical view on keeping him out of the article than I do. Here is an article which sums up his "legacy," literally published as a critical introduction to his own writing. Don't even quote him on my page if you don't want to be ignored. In addition to being a bad researcher who made stuff up on the go in the service of biblical literalism he was a horrible person and a religious nut. I want a quick, clear reply: are you a Bible literalist? If yes, which is what your ridiculous ideas do point at, I have no interest in further discussion because you are fundamentally unserious.

You still don't get what I said about the Reallexikon. "Reallexikon Nab-Nuzi" is not a title and repeating it like some mantra just makes you sound funny. I mean, you already kind of sound funny with your 100-150 years old sources, but you get the idea.

"I don’t argue the Imzuanna equation because I’m not stupid and I read the Weidner god-list and I know what they claim about that " - where did you read the Weidner list? It has no single usable edition. Did you read every fragmentary one published? Truly admirable! Also, not every author presents Imzuanna as a scribal error. Tungendhaft thinks it's intentional wordplay, and Sibbing-Plantholt think she actually was a weather deity. Female Baal is thus about as tangible as your idea Ishtaran is actually Ninurta! Perhaps more, even, since we have a stronger reason to suspect an Ugaritic scribe was a devotee of Baal than that a Mesopotamian scribe from outside Der was a devotee of Ishtaran.

Amorites DID NOT worship Amurru. No matter how you twist the evidence this will not change. Sorry.

Also, since you love using myths as the one source to end them all - Urash and Ninurta are separate characters in the myth Urash and Marduk published in Lambert's Babylonian Creation Myths, and Lambert seemed to think this myth originated in Dilbat, which would mean it's the most accurate assesment of Urash's character as his most fervent worshipers saw him.

Wikipedia has a policy against using outdated sources, if you keep this up you will just keep getting yourself into trouble. Not my problem though. You do not seem keen on learning. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 11:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are cases in which a god’s gender was changed like Lelwani (Allatum) in Hittite sources being male in the beginning and female later due to equation with Ereshkigal. Again, SEMANTICS: “Gender of Lagamal in Elam is what is under dispute, not female Lagamal being a thing” - which means, AGAIN - that the existence of a female Lagamal in Elam is under dispute. This kind of entertaining to watch because you are basically throwing an axe over every source you yourself have provided on pages (not talking about Albright) by saying that god lists are not reliable material etc., so in that case you are self-destroying everything you have written and I suggest you delete your whole Nergal page (if we want to be generous) because it’s filled with misinformation (since according to you, god-lists are not reliable enough as a source). I did not say Amorites WORSHIPPED Amurru, I’m not twisting anything, READ WHAT’S ACTUALLY WRITTEN, everything else you add to it or you “interpret it” as being, is not there, so you are making that up. I said Amurru embodied Amorites stereotypes that Mesopotamians had, and also that in that matter he was their god because it was attributed to them. But the Amorites didn’t attribute him to themselves. So this is why it was THEIR god, it referred to embodied them. Female Baal is thus just as plausible yes, but in that case they’d be different cults where one was worshipped as female and the other as male. Ninurta called Ishtaran is iterated in THE SAME SOURCE. Also, the Urash/Marduk argument doesn’t mean anything - even Erra and Nergal are treated as separate in THE SAME TEXT (here: https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.4.15.2#), also Zababa and Ninurta were regarded as two different sons of Ashur, and there are texts in which gods equated with each other are also treated as separate. This once again reflects local cults and emphasizes the differences between these versions of the god. 2001:B07:AAC:403D:5059:4696:4E25:6B30 (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Typos;

This *IS kind of entertaining to watch…

… it referred to *THEM and embodied *THEM 2001:B07:AAC:403D:5059:4696:4E25:6B30 (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not a biblical literalist, and I only use the Bible when it’s useful. The Bible made it so that the Hittite civilization was re-discovered (because Hatti had been deemed a made-up name of a civilization for a long time that was contained in the Bible, before discovering the Hattian civilization, and the Hittites were contained in the Bible before) so it has a basis of history to it. I try to bring that out, and if it doesn’t sound plausible enough I throw it out the window. 2001:B07:AAC:403D:5059:4696:4E25:6B30 (talk) 11:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hittitology owes nothing to the Bible. Kultepe excavations were the catalyst for the field, lmao.

You also have yet to address the Sicilian part. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read the Wikipedia page on “Biblical Hittites”. I said re-discovery exactly because of that - the two peoples contained in the Bible and the ones excavated were acknowledged as being the same and the Bible was given historicity. What do you need me to acknowledge about the Sicilian part?. 93.35.65.19 (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think a Sicilian god (still no sources provided) has any impact whatsoever on how to read Ninurta's name? It's been well over a century since "Adar" has been completely discarded, thrown into the trashbin of history as a shameful relic of less rigorous times. Why do you think a completely unrelated part of the world hides evidence for this actually being a correct, valid reading? Why Siciliy of all places? I can't fathom how anything but bizarre local nationalism (a common source of pseudohistorical views) could lead you to such ideas. I am afraid you need to once again look through Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because linguists have established a connection between Adar and Adranus. How did the name “Adranus” come to be then exactly? There must have been a point in time when a reading “Adar” existed in history and was adopted by peoples who then transmitted it to other cultures. Sicily, Roman and Greek out of all places because their pantheons are largely based on previous ones and reflect more ancient mythologies (yes, especially Mesopotamian ones). I did look at Wikipedia reliable sources which is why I didn’t publish the Adar-Adranus connection anywhere. I just said it confidentially to you here. 2001:B07:AAC:403D:5059:4696:4E25:6B30 (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to look at some sources to the Adranus Wikipedia page. It’s pretty simple really. 2001:B07:AAC:403D:5059:4696:4E25:6B30 (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is very short and does not actually live up to Wikipedia standards. And it doesn't mention Adar let alone your fabulous Ninurta connections. He has nothing to do with Ninurta. Panbabylonism like this belongs in the Victorian era among dudes named Archibald discussing if Irish are another species, not in Wikipedia articles.

Granted, this isn't exactly panbabylonism, I suppose, it's even more weird since you are reverse engineering Mesopotamian (and not only) beliefs to conform to a strange vision of Sicily's past. Perhaps as a premise for a novel this could work. But Wikipedia is not meant for such ventures. Wikipedia reports what credible, up to date sources have to say, not what you think they could say, not what siurces from 150 years old could say if they were not outdated, and not what you made up. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does mention Adar, did you even read it? “Some modern commentators have suggested that Adranus may have been related to the similarly named gods Adar and Adrammelech, from Persia and Phoenicia respectively, who were also personifications of the sun or of fire in general.” And it gives a source. Also look for references to him in books. Not conforming anything to Sicily’s past. Adranus was Sicilian but Sicily was settled by Greeks. Greeks inherited gods from the Middle East. Use logics. 2001:B07:AAC:403D:5059:4696:4E25:6B30 (talk) 11:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No trace of your Adar in the article. Neither of the gods linked is an outdated reading of Ninurta you defend. Also, "modern" commentators from 1867...?

I guess you have fun reading things from the 19th century. Nothing particularly wrong with that as long as you do not try to live according to the predominant ideologies of that era. Just don't pretend they contain some hidden truth. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adranus is associated with dogs. Dogs were associated with the hunter-god Ninurta because his wife Gula domesticated them. The term “fire-god” (referring to Adranus/Adar) refers to the Persian concept of “divine fire” which is lightning since they called the concept of divine fire “Atash”, “Atar” or “Azar” and they regarded it as “fire from heaven”. The source equates him linguistically with Persian Adar (divine fire) and Semitic Adrammelech. Ninazu was also associated with the dog as stated in the za3-mi3 hymn to Ninazu from Tell Abu Salabikh. Which is also why I have problems with the identification of the “Nirgul tablet” with Nergal at Hatra. Yes I agree it depicts Nergal, but which Nergal? “Nergal” in that relief is depicted while holding three dogs on leash (and Nergal had no known associations with dogs as argued extensively by academics who analyzed the tablet), and also he is depicted with the eagle on top of his head (again, NOT a symbol of Nergal and rather of his brother Ninurta/Zababa since the eagle headed mace was his symbol), and also behind the “Nergal” figure are represented snakes and scorpions. Scorpions are associated with the iconography of Ninurta and related deities like Pabilsag (and also the wife of Ninurta/Ningirsu, Bau). Ninazu (a form of Ninurta) was associated with snakes. And finally, the goddess behind him is identified as Allat (not “Allatum”, i.e. Ereshkigal), and Allat is equated with Athena and even al’Uzza (Aphrodite), where in the Nabatean kingdom they were worshipped as two aspects of the same goddess. This indicated Ishtar/Inanna, who’s depicted as the consort of Zababa/Ninurta. Thus “Nergal” in the Hatra tablet refers to Ninurta who was the “second” Nergal associated with Mercury and identified with Lugal-irra. 93.35.65.19 (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This debate is going endlessly, you will never even conceive the possibility of me being right in some form of fashion so I propose we just leave it at that, I promise my contributions to your Wikipedia pages will be minimal and you won’t even notice my presence, and if I do publish something, it will not disrupt or change change the meaning of what you publish, but if I put something on your page, try to tolerate it as please leave it be. They will only be small excerpts. Again, all due respect to you, your work and sources. 2001:B07:AAC:403D:8978:BB76:C14F:5071 (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Typos;

will not disrupt or *change the meaning of what you publish, but if I put something on your page, try to tolerate it *AND please leave it be. 2001:B07:AAC:403D:8978:BB76:C14F:5071 (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will not tolerate lies. If you want to cooperate do not post your fanfiction on my talk page. This is over. You have proven yourself to be unserious with these frankly baffling Allatum hot takes above. Alatum is just Hurrian Allani with the Akkadian feminine suffix. Al-lat/Alilat has nothing to do with her.

Also this is not about pages being "mine." You also devastate other people's work, like the Resheph, Hadad or Erra pages which are now trash bins for your stream of consciousness posting. On top of that you depreciate the work of genuine scholars by attributing your ideas to them like you did in the Anat article. This is morally heinous and inexcusable.

Please just leave me alone and stop using wikipedia as a venue for your fantasies. I will not respond to anything else you post here. I don't want your apologies, I do think that you should at least apologize symbolically to authors whose work you twisted into a disturbing parody of itself, though, like Hackett. I will also make sure to keep track of any WP:NOR-breaking content you will try to add and any sources which are not reliable. These cannot stand. Kids reading wikipedia cannot be test subjects for your "theories." HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m tired of you misunderstanding my words and twisting what I write around. If you don’t understand English get that fixed but stop it because I will no longer tolerate you shutting me down without even understanding what the heck I am writing. First of all - I SAID THAT ALLAT AND ALLATUM ARE “NOT” the same, NOT, do you get it? I said that academics have identified the goddess behind Nergal in the Hatra relief as ALLAT, but if it’s Nergal that’s depicted in the tablet, it should be ALLATUM, because Nergal is the husband of Ereshkigal, NOT ALLAT (Athena), who - by Nabateans was equated with Al’Uzza, who is Aphrodite=Ishtar. You stupid son of a writing incomprehensive ogre. 2001:B07:AAC:403D:8978:BB76:C14F:5071 (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the sources that claims that the goddess behind Nergal in Hatra is Allat: https://www.google.it/books/edition/Hommages_à_Maarten_J_Vermaseren_Volume/z-h5DwAAQBAJ?hl=it.

But it doesn’t make sense because Nergal is not the husband of Allat/Athena (who is equivalent according to the Nabateans to Al’Uzza-Aphrodite that would be Ishtar), Nergal is the husband of Ereshkigal (Allatum). Please tell me that your incomprehensible mind understands now because I’m seriously getting tired of this. 2001:B07:AAC:403D:8978:BB76:C14F:5071 (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I told you I am a woman and politely asked to stop referring to me as if I were a man. Yet you are doing this again. I would reconsider this decision if I were you. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And so what that you are a woman? Is that supposed to change anything or grant you preferential treatment? If anything you should be glad I treat you just like anyone else and I don’t make differences. Grow out of your childish threats and acquire better reading comprehension skills. Also I didn’t catch the message where you said you are female so my apologies for that. 2001:B07:AAC:403D:8978:BB76:C14F:5071 (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I keep finding contractions in article which you seem to be the source of. I can't tell if they are old or new additions, so in case you don't already know, the use of contractions such as 'didn't' is not encyclopedic and should be written 'did not'. Please don't use contractions in the future. Skyerise (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware there are some in articles I edited over a year ago, I am working on fixing most such mistakes, though due to the sheer number of Mesopotamian mythology articles which need work this cannot be done right away in every case. I have not used a contraction in any article I've worked on this year, as far as I remember. I also fixed an overwhelming majority of them in these I contributed to in 2021. One notable exception I can think of is the Inanna article, but I haven't edited it in months, and I think my only contributions to it postdating the summer of 2021 were a few missing links. The articles I edited most recently - for example Hurrian religion or Gula - have precisely 0 contractions. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More your area of expertise than mine. You might find use of a ref I recently added to Eshnunna ie "[1]Reichel, C. 2008. "The King is Dead, Long Live the King: The Last Days of the Šu-Sîn Cult at Ešnunna and its Aftermath.", In: N. Brisch (ed.), Religion and Power. Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond, 133-155. OIS 4, Chicago." Ploversegg (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS I got the thing I added to the article from "Reichel, Clemens. "Centre and Periphery–The Role of the ‘Palace of the Rulers’ at Tell Asmar in the History of Ešnunna (2,100–1,750 BCE)." Journal of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 11 (2018): 29-53"Ploversegg (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for both, I'll add that back to it later this week, then! I was not familiar with this article, so as I wrote in the edit summary, I was only aware of one king who fits that description. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Iqbi-damiq, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Mesopotamian goddess Iqbi-damiq had an illness named after her? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Iqbi-damiq. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Iqbi-damiq), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in the article Lumma you use a reference "Marchesi 2005", however no such work is listed. Was it perhaps a slip for "Marchesi 2006", which is listed? DuncanHill (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a typo, thanks for pointing it out. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 November 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dērītum, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the statue of the goddess Dērītum had to be ceremonially bathed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dērītum. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Dērītum), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HaniwaEnthusiast, I am aware you are preparing a list article about the characters in the Gilgamesh epic, and I came across the following book on JSTOR:

• Abusch, Tzvi. Male and Female in the Epic of Gilgamesh: Encounters, Literary History, and Interpretation. Penn State University Press, 2015. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5325/j.ctv1bxgzdj. Accessed 22 Dec. 2022.

I was thinking of letting you know if it could be a reputable source for your article. KHR FolkMyth (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast with Abusch's widely acclaimed work on Maqlu and similar texts his EoG scholarship seems somewhat controversial, judging from Gary Beckman's review of this work and Andrew George's general comments, but I will nonetheless look through it - thanks for the recommendation! Sorry about the late reply, too. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

I've noticed that Ninsun's article currently states that her parentage is unknown, which was indeed stated to be the case by Jan Lisman in Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society "Ex Oriente Lux". However, in A praise poem of Shulgi (Shulgi P), Ninsun refers to An as "my father" several times (and Lugalbanda possibly does the same when talking to her, calling An "your father") and once refers to Uraš as "my mother". I've tried to find any scholarly commentary on this, but couldn't find any. As far as I can tell, scholars tend to focus solely on Shulgi and his relationship to Ninsun when studying these passages, making no comment on the apparent familial connection between Ninsun, An and Uraš. Thoughts? The Wikia Editor (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The attestation seems isolated, and it is apparently not significant enough to be brought up in Urash's Reallexikon article. If there is a credible secondary source I think it's fair game to add as long as Lisman's statement is not removed (it does hold true for the main known composition focused on Ninsun alone and her parentage is pretty much never brought up in Gilgamesh-related literature), though. Given the lack of other references and the fact "father" and "mother" can be used figuratively I think this might fall under the WP:NOR interpretation policies without a commentary supporting it, but I'm really not sure. I will note it seems like a sensible genealogy because as observed by Dietz-Otto Edzard using Amurru as a case study, deities of secondary importance (which is a description which fits Ninsun well) often ended up assigned to Anu's family tree. I did include a similar tidbit about Geshtinanna being viewed as a daughter of An and Urash in her article even though in this case the literary tradition obviously involved Duttur being her mother, too (the primary source is also a Shulgi hymn, I believe), but I had Reallexikon to back me up on that. I think if it's discussed anywhere, it will be in Claus Wilcke's publications, but I have little experience with his work and can't help more. Maybe checking Litke's An = Anum edition could help too but I'm pretty sure Ninsun's section only lists her children (not even all of them, Gilgamesh is on another tablet with no formal link made), not parentage. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the lack of commentary makes this frustrating. Most of the books I found mentioning Ninsun as Anu and Uraš' daughter are mythology dictionaries such as World Mythology Lite, Deuses E Deusas, Dicionário De Mitologia Mesopotâmica, and they're not exactly authoritative on the matter. The only confirmed scholar I could find who mentioned this topic is Michael Mayerfeld Bell, who referred to Ninsun as Anu's daughter several times in City of the Good: Nature, Religion, and the Ancient Search for What Is Right. However, he's a sociologist, not an ANE expert of any kind as far as I know, so his statements don't particularly help that much either. I've also already checked out Litke's An = Anum, and it only references her as Lugalbanda's wife and the mother of their ten children (excluding Gilgamesh). The Wikia Editor (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked around some more, and seem to have finally found something of use. Jacob Klein referred to An as Ninsun's divine father on page 37 in Three Šulgi Hymns: Sumerian Royal Hymns Glorifying King Šulgi of Ur, and stated that Claus Wilcke had similarly done that on page 195 in CRRAI 19, which is Le Palais et la Royauté (Archéologie et civilisation), although I haven't been able to find that specific page. Forr what it's worth, Claus Wilcke's german translation of Shulgi P still identified An and Uraš as Ninsun's parents in Vom göttlichen Wesen des Königtums und seinem Ursprung im Himmel (in the book Sakralität von Herrschaft). The Wikia Editor (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds solid to me. Sadly I was not able to locate any additional sources. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HaniwaEnthusiast. Since you are updating the articles about ancient religions of the Middle East and Anatolia, is it possible for you to check the article on Armenian mythology? I think there are some items of interest for you there. KHR FolkMyth (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for appreciation but this is not very likely, I am afraid. My interests are pretty directly tied to cuneiform and generally more to third and second mil BCE. Maybe one day, but for now I have enough plans for the next 4-6 months I think. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again, HaniwaEnthusiast. Sorry to return to this topic almost a month later, but I've been editing some topics of Armenian epic characters (e.g., Dzovinar), and references to Hurrian and Urartian mythology keep popping up in regards to their influence on the Armenian pantheon/history. That was the reason for my request. KHR FolkMyth (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"One notable passage is a list of Amorite gods that compares them with corresponding Mesopotamian gods," [2] Ploversegg (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not exactly seem to be written by an expert ("Canaanite" Amorite?) but the god list definitely intrigues me. The question is obviously whether we'll just see what we already know again (Dagan = Enlil, Erakh is a moon god, etc) or if there's some genuinely new material. Given the dating here's hope for some new light on the mysteries of Mariote theophoric names - deities like Nunu, Admu and so on. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on Caananite/Amorite. Still, for a general public article at least it gave a paper ref and showed a pic of the tablet which is WAY more than you usually get.Ploversegg (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to assume this Amorites#Religion is your handiwork. :-)Ploversegg (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly not! I did just get the same article this edit relied on though, really exciting material. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in Yam (god) the reference "Lewis 2011" is undefined, causing a No-target error. DuncanHill (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kumarbi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Johannes Friedrich.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HaniwaEnthusiast. You new article Ancestors of Enlil contains references that are undefined in the article. The first is "Peterson 2021", did you mean "Peterson 2020a"? The others are "Wiggermann 1998a" and "Wiggermann 199a" should these both be "Wiggermann 1998" or "Wiggermann 1992a"? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both were meant to be Wiggermann 1992a, I've fixed this mistake. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was the case, but thought bit best to check. The "Peterson 2021" refs still needs to be fixed though. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I've been trying to see whether the names of the sukkals of Ninhursag and Šulpae were preserved in any surviving texts. I obviously first went looking in Richard Litke's A reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian god lists. On page 76, the names of both sukkals are not fully preserved.

However, their full names are listed as Ekigara and Lugalnirana at ePSD2, with the source being a highly damaged Middle Babylonian copy of the An = Anum god list, which ironically preserved the first parts of their names, which were not preserved in the version Litke used. I'm not sure how to source this, since Litke's version does not list their full names and might not be considered an adequate enough source. Thoughts? The Wikia Editor (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Litke afaik had no access to the Ashmolean collection, and his restoration is obviously pretty old by now, so I do not think absence of the names from his edition alone is an argument against relying on ePSD. I think it should count as a credible source.

There's going to be a new edition of An = Anum this year, it seems, but I do not know if that will shed any light on the issue you are facing. No clue if there'll be any sensible way for either of us to access it, either.

Also, this reminded me that I will probably need to update the sukkal list and Ninsun article soon, Beaulieu in his Neo-Babylonian Uruk monograph lists the full name of her sukkal, citing a "a god list from Hellenistic Uruk devoted to the gods of the netherworld" which lists Lugalbanda "with his wife, their viziers, and their counselors", including ^[d]lugal-ḪUR-ra-nu sukkal ^dnin-sún-[ke₄] (p. 341). I am not sure if the list was published in full somewhere, but the name does not match Litke's restoration of An = Anum. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree that Litke's restoration is outdated. An obvious example is how, on that same page, it lists a partially preserved name, ^dDam-u₅-(...), as the sukkal of a deity whose name is tentatively restored as ^dGiš-ḫur-(...)-(...) and presumed to be Gishhuranki, the wife of Ashgi. However, ePSD2 instead fully restores the name as Dam-ukug and identifies them as the sukkal of the Euršaba temple of Lisin, located in Umma. I suppose I can source ePSD2 directly, hopefully it's considered acceptable. The Wikia Editor (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding the source for Ninsun's sukkal, I've found the god list containing not just their name, but a decent number of others that you'll probably find useful. It's derived from a tablet designated SpTU 3, which is indeed dated to Hellenistic Uruk. The Wikia Editor (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In order to help you out a bit, I've tried looking for the correct spellings of the names of the 10 children of Lugalbanda and Ninsun in An = Anum. The first 8 can be found on Reallexikon der Assyriologie, Šilamkurra, Udbiredena, Šešantur, Numun-ábšárra, Udbirĝe-ME.MU, Erib, Nunus-aba, and Enmennunsina. The last 2 are a bit tricky, Litke's restoration lists them as ^d(...)-te-nun-si-na and ^dMES-GAR-(...)(^...)-ra respectively. Litke comments that, although there is a broken place before TE, there might be nothing actually missing, meaning that the deity's name may simply be Tenunsina. As for the last deity, their name was restored as ^dal-ĝar-sur₉-ra by Jeremiah Peterson as seen on page 77 of Orientalia. Hope this helps. The Wikia Editor (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, tnx for your good work of extending articles. I used Gilgamesh and Bull of Heaven articles to form the base in farsi wikipedia and then extend it furthermore with books of Andrew George and Herbert Mason. May I use your table on your sandbox page to create the list in wikifa? RousouR (talk) 10:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, though if possible wait 2-3 more hours, as I am currently in the process of expanding the article List of characters in Epic of Gilgamesh with the material prepared there, which will include final additions and corrections still missing. Good luck with the Farsi wiki! HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I began. About the end of poem, you have written "He eventually returns to Uruk, where he possibly accepts that while his quest did not bring him immortality, he will be renowned due to constructing the city's walls.[23]". I watched this — Preceding unsigned comment added by RousouR (talk • contribs) 15:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I began. About the end of poem, you have written "He eventually returns to Uruk, where he possibly accepts that while his quest did not bring him immortality, he will be renowned due to constructing the city's walls.[23]". I watched this some time ago, at the end of lecture (57:11-1:02:18) George review the prose part of poem and continues: "For long time Assyriologists thought the whole business was about the wall... but the point at the bottom is neglected. It's a city. And it's made up of different things... They symbolize the sum of human life... He tells his companion, go up onto the wall of Uruk and observe there the city. And what do you see? You see human life. And the curtain comes down." I suggest you watch the rest, I liked his last remarks and used all in wikifa. (sorry it published by accident at first) RousouR (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to randomly skim these two chapters and normally would have tucked them as Further Reading in Nanna and Nippur but decided it was more your AOE, so in case they are of use:

"The Office and Responsibilities of the En Priestess of Nanna: Evidence from Votive Inscriptions and Documentary Texts". Women and Religion in the Ancient Near East and Asia, edited by Nicole Maria Brisch and Fumi Karahashi, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2023, pp. 93-120. https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1515/9781501514821-007

Brisch, Nicole. "High Priestesses in Old Babylonian Nippur: The NIN and NIN-dingir Priestesses of Ninurta". Women and Religion in the Ancient Near East and Asia, edited by Nicole Maria Brisch and Fumi Karahashi, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2023, pp. 121-140. https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1515/9781501514821-008 Ploversegg (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I think we need more articles on clergy in ancient Mesopotamia tbh (or even just a general article on the matter because most of the general religion articles are inadequate), I do plan to expand the Nanna article in a few weeks but I'm not yet sure if the info would fit better there or in a designated article on such a matter. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly as an aside I added "It is known, based on an inscription "‘Ur-kisala, the sangu-priest of Sin of Akshak, son of Na-ti, pasisu-priest of Sin to Salam presented [this statue]." that there was a temple of the god Sin in Akshak." to the Akshak article (Schmandt-Besserat, Denise, "Six Votive and Dedicatory Inscriptions", in When Writing Met Art: From Symbol to Story, New York, USA: University of Texas Press, pp. 71-86, 2007) which I mention only so I can complain Why are there so darn many kinds of priests? I can't keep them all straight. :-) Ploversegg (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's the problem that the same term might have had a different meaning in different areas, like how iirc the uses of lukur in different cities do not really add up to a coherent whole... even before taking into account the term then just became a logogram for naditu... HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again HaniwaEnthusiast. You used "Archi 2011" in the Adamma article, but it's not defined in the article. Was this meant to be "Archi 2015" or a different work? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another work, it was a mistake made during the addition of new bibliography entries - should be fixed now. Sorry for the trouble! HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never a problem, thanks for fixing it. Good to see you keeping up the work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done! I did have a question about "The name Sin was typically written in cuneiform as dEN.ZU, as possibly already attested in a text from the Uruk period". I did the proto-cuneiform article and don't recall there being any "god lists" or whatever. If I missed something let me known so I can feed that back into proto-cuneiform. Thanks.Ploversegg (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The example Krebernik gives is the text ATU 579, which does seem to have the sequence EN.ZU (with no determinative), but the sole source he cites is from 1958 and he concludes that based on the context it might be a title or other generic word and not the name of a deity in this context. I found no further commentary on this; the newest monograph on the matter does not cover ED, let alone Uruk period. I think it's dubious and ambiguous and probably isn't notable enough for the archaic cuneiform article, tbh.

I do have a question too, though: since you wrote the Khafajah article, would you be able to recommend me anything comprehensive on the Sin temple from this site? Multiple authors present Tutub as a major cult center even before Harran became known as one, but then it gets basically no substantial coverage, as usual with the Diyala cities. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at the Khafajah thing. Btw, I continue to be amused by the god thing. While refurbing the Fara article I see, from a clay nail, "Haladda, son of Dada, the patesi of Shuruppak (written SU.KUR.RU^ki) repaired the ADUS of the Great Gate of the god Shuruppak (written ^dSU.KUR.RU-da)" in Kramer, Samuel N. “New Tablets from Fara.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 52, no. 2, 1932, pp. 110–32. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/593166 Who knew cities were also gods. Ok, you likely did.:-)Ploversegg (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Khafajah was a very early work of mine. Even with some pokes over the years it still shows the rough edges. Part of the problem is that there has been a lot of "revisionist thinking about the various temples. Like in "Marchesi, Gianni and Marchetti, Nicolo. "Appendix A. Remarks on Early Dynastic Temples". Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia, University Park, USA: Penn State University Press, 2011, pp. 219-229 https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1515/9781575066516-009" Where they not only claim the Sin Temple (not saying if they mean the big one on Mound A or the small one on Mound D) is actually to Samus but also claim that Nintu temple is not shown to be to Nintu. I seem to remember the small one was Old Babylonian in any case so we do not properly care as much. Anyway, everything about the ED Sin Temple according to the excavators is in:

• [3] Pinhas Delougaz and Seton Lloyd with chapters by Henri Frankfort and Thorkild Jacobsen, "Pre-Sargonid Temples in the Diyala Region", Oriental Institute Publications 58, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1942

The Marchesi claim is vs pages 6-8 of this. This is all coming back to me now.Ploversegg (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I gave Khafajah a quick brush up so as to fix some of my earlier deficiencies. Anyway, on Sin.

• There is definitively a big Sin Temple on Mound D. Complete with a small (100+ tablets) but nice temple archive with enum priest etc. The archive is all "old babylonian period" but the mound goes back to Isin-Larsa and back then they just smushed the two together anyway (some people just call the who time OB) and looking at the excavation I would say the temple goes back to that too.^[1][2][3]

• On mound A, which was abandoned after the Akkadian period the excavators found what they said was a Sin Temple. I am inclined to believe them because a) they did a pretty thorough job and b) I added to the article:

Two stone bowl fragments with the name of Akkadian ruler Rimush were found near the Sin Temple.

"T[o] the god S[in], RI[mus], ki[ng of] the wo[rld], wh[en he conquered Elam and Parahsum], [dedicated (this bowl) from the booty of Elam]" ^[4]

When in doubt the benefit of the doubt goes to the people who had their nose in the dirt.:-)Ploversegg (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can I assume that the Suda of Pashime is actually Ninlil, or have I mixed up my gods again. Thanks.:-) Ploversegg (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a different deity, the Ninlil-related one is Sud without an a and afaik always written logographically to match her cult center (Shuruppak) HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Too many gods ... Ploversegg (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a definitive word on who the gods of Umma, Gissa, and KI.AN were. There do seem to have been a lot of temple built there. :-) I was putting the last touches on the Umma article and thought I had this figured out but reading "Frayne, Douglas R., "The Struggle for Hegemony in ‘Early Dynastic II’Sumer", The Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies Journal 4, pp. 37-75, 2009" makes me think I've gotten that all confused. Thanks!Ploversegg (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of a mess atm it seems, I'm actually confused too after checking. :D

Most recent source I can think of is The Sumerian Zame Hymns from Tell Abū Ṣalābīḫ by Krebernik and Lisman from 2020, which has Ninura in Ĝišša and Shara in KI.AN based on the eponymous hymns. However, the authors accept the proposal Ĝišša is Umm al-Aqarib and not Umma/Tell Jokha, and that the former was abandoned after ED III and people moved to nearby Umma. They also note that the textual sources might not fully line up with excavations, since apparently Umm al-Aqarib excavators think the temple located there was dedicated to Shara and not to Ninura, as one would expect based on the hymns.

It's also a bit hard to untangle this stuff because some authors use Umma as shortcut for the whole area, and follow the Ur III evidence wrt tutelary deities (ie. Shara and Ninura as the gods of the entire province of Umma collectively). HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 08:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I guess I'll just go with mentioning all the possibilities for now. Supposedly the tablets from the Iraqi excavation at Jokha are in the publication process and hopefully they will give a glimmer. The current Slovak work at that site should in theory see the publication of 18 tablets soon. Who knows, maybe the Iraqis will get some real funding and be able to publish the rest of the Tell Shmet (KI.AN?) tablets. Maybe we will get lucky. Thanks again. Isin seems a bit simpler godwise so I think I won't need to cry for help there. :-) Ploversegg (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm almost a year late, but I was simply curious, why did you remove the fact the God was referenced in Prince of Egypt? It seems to be a notable mention of an otherwise obscure god. Thank you. ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 01:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The claim was unsourced, the movie doesn't feature him in any meaningful capacity (not even a statue, I doubt the writers even knew he's not primarily an Egyptian god...) and wikipedia shouldn't be a collection of random trivia about popculture (it's thankfully not tvtropes). I also do not think a god with entire monographs devoted to him who was worshiped over a large area over the course of some 2500-3000 years is so "obscure" that a cartoon is more significant than abundant primary sources and scholarship. It's also not like contemporary popculture is covered in most articles of other deities from relevant areas - not seeing anything of this sort in Osiris' article, for instance, and I see no reason to treat Resheph differently. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 08:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thoughtful response - to clarify I only meant "obscure" sadly to hoi polloi. The man on the Clapham omnibus if you will (or at least his equivalent in Egyptology). I definitely think it was one of my lazier additions, but I can't think of other media that has mentioned this god directly.

As for the Prince of Egypt, it was the late 90s, I think the writers either just skimmed off names from an encyclopedia, or consulted a Web 1.0 Egyptology site, using that peculiar Latinization. As far as I have read, it seems non-Egyptian Near Eastern mythology wasn't in a very robust state then.

Anyway, I see your point and really just wanted to read your insightful... insights. Merry Christmas~ ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 18:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I recently majorly rewrote the Ugarit article and in the process deleted the fluffy Religion section. I do mention the Temples of Dagan and Baal of Sapan but thats it. Do you think there is something known on the religion of Ugarit that makes it worth a mention? This was sparked by someone asking me why I took out the Biblical Archaeology based Canaanite stuff which is a different issue entirely but reminded me that I meant to ask you about this. Thoughts? Thanks.Ploversegg (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about taking a while to reply, I'm not on the wiki much nowadays due to various irl circumstances.

I think it would be best to just have a separate "Ugaritic religion" article, and keep the Ugarit article focused on chronology, archaeological data, etc. The article is in MUCH better shape than it was already - as recently as two years ago people weren't labeling Ugarit as "Canaanite" but straight up as "Phoenician" all over the wiki so the difference is genuinely enormous, great job. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm running up a starter article on the city of Šimānum which is unlocated but near Habüra (thought to be the city of Haburâtum, not to be confused with the goddess similar name). I see in the Ḫabūrītum article the the goddess in question stemmed from the Khabur river and I was wonder if that is the Khabur off the Euphrates or the Khabur off the Tigris? I guess I could ask the same question about Sikani. And are you aware of any deities associated with Šimānum? Thanks.Ploversegg (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure the Euphrates one.

I'm not aware of any deities being associated with Šimānum; there's a recent article about this city on De Gruyter's site, More to Tell About Billa! Asimānum/Šimānum and the Early and Middle Bronze Ages at Baˁšīqā, Iraq, but it doesn't discuss religion in any greater detail. On p. 37 it's only stated that deified Shu-Sin of Ur was the tutelary deity of a settlement near Nippur where some of the deportees were settled but that's not saying much. Most references to it in primary sources I recall are vague references to campaigns against it and to people being deported from there which is not very helpful wrt this question. Some of the names are classified as Hurrian but there's also an envoy named Puzur-Aššur in an Ur III source according to the new article.

Sikani is a complicated matter because it seems there's an ongoing debate over whether we can assume that the first millennium Sikani (which is agreed to be identical with Waššukanni/Tell Fekheriye) is identical with the Ur III Sikani/Sigan, as mentioned by Eva von Dassow in Mittani and Its Empire, her contribution to the 2022 volume of The Oxford History of the Ancient Near East. In this case at least the deities are fairly certain in both cases: Ḫabūrītum in Ur III (but it's an isolated reference), Teshub during Mitanni rule (see Schwemer's Wettergottgestalten pp. 461-462 and The Storm-Gods of the Ancient Near East: Summary, Synthesis, Recent Studies. Part II p. 4) local manifestation of Hadad in first millennium BCE (see Niehr's The Many Faces of Hadad in Aramaean Syria and Anatolia (1 st Mill. BCE). Three Case Studies on Hadad at Sikāni, Samʾal, and Damascus). HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will look at those. I created the new Šimānum today but it definitely has some loose ends in it that I'm not happy with (like what is up with the city/land of Haburâtum etc) and maybe they will help. :-) Ploversegg (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]