Originally posted by Kantzveldt
reply to post by undo
It's mainly supported by Sumerian cylinder seals, but yes there are Babylonian and Syriac examples and quotations. Even Sumeria though is as
distant to the origin of these ideas as we are to the Sumerians, ie they trace back to the earliest Neolithic period, but the furthur back you go the
more sketchy the evidence.
in the first image in your thread (see below) it talks about the moon god sin. he's circa 2600-2400 BCE. i disagree with assyriologists on the date.
sumer ended in 3000 BC, give or take 100 years. they set the akkadian period at 2350-2150 BC, i disagree with that too. lol it would start when
sumer ended, around 3000 BC. this puts sin about 200 or so years into babylon, if their dates were actually correct. the reason the timeline is
fudged up, relates back to the beginning of the enlightenment period. the story is interesting.
apparently, a scholar of "higher criticism" (the papacy's attempt to prove that their interpretation of the bible was the most accurate historical
record by attacking the efficacy of non-biblical texts of similar or older origin) attempted to prove that grecian history was not accurate. his name
was frederich wolf. the text he wrote on the subject, called homeric problem
, suggested that the ancient greeks couldn't write when it
was said their texts were written. as a result, all grecian histories/annals/epics, were removed from historical accounts, or deemed fiction and
footnoted as fantasy and myth. the greek culture and its related histories, was a major lynchpin for the rest of the ancient world. without grecian
texts to go to for verification, other ancient texts took similar criticism.
in the meantime, archaeology was developed as a science and taught in universities. 40 years later, the entirety of the history of the ancient world
had been labelled fiction and myth. it was then archaeology made the discovery that indicated the ancient greeks could write, afterall.
unfortunately, it was too late to recant as countless scholars had written on the subject, people had been murdered, the whole thing was an extremely
hot potato. when it was pointed out the ancient greeks could write after all and therefore there should be some public correction to the record and
re-institution of their ancient historical accounts, it was said that they didn't want to go back to teaching fairy tales.
no valid history meant no valid timeline for written history older than the enlightenment period. so as they began to excavate ancient egypt, they
decided to use the pharaohs reigns as an indicator of time passage. problem was, earlier, the egyptians and babylonians had a battle of who had the
most antiquity.. each side brought their own scholar to the table and compared notes. babylonians used the sumerian kings list with huge life spans
for their kings. egyptians used the pharaohs. one of the ways the egyptian scholar managed to increase the length of the timeline for egypt was to
suggest there was only one pharaoh ruling egypt at a time however, today we know that's not true, although rare. there were times when upper egypt
had a different pharaoh than lower egypt, and both ruled egypt at the same time (thus the origin of the different crowns). this difference in
timeline, caused ancient egyptian histories to veer away from the already disgraced texts of the rest of the ancient world. it was a lost cause.
more and more evidence has been unearthed to prove the ancient texts were basically accurate, and support each other's version of the timeline, but
now, the established timeline of ancient egypt, which was based on nothing, since everything else had been disgraced, is used as evidence that the
other texts are still fictions. it's not a good thing.