It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Atlantis = Gods of the Sumerians?

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 06:07 AM
link   
anunnaki on wiki

i'm looking for the source that says there were no sumerian anunnaki. can harte point me in the right direction? i'd like to take his word for it but...




posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Parta
anunnaki on wiki

i'm looking for the source that says there were no sumerian anunnaki. can harte point me in the right direction? i'd like to take his word for it but...


There are plenty of sources that will confirm what I said.

For example, the wiki page you linked basically says what I said:


The Annunaki appear in the Babylonian creation myth, Enuma Elish.

And


According to later Babylonian myth, the Anunnaki were the children of Anu and Ki, brother and sister gods, themselves the children of Anshar and Kishar (Skypivot and Earthpivot, the Celestial poles).


The Babylonians were not Sumerian. The Assyrians weren't Sumerian either. Nor were the Akkadians before them, though they are usually grouped together (the Akkadians and the Sumerians.)

In fact, a lot of people today refer to all four as "Sumerian." But if you're gonna make a claim about the Sumerian language and religion, you should realize that they were not the same as the Babylonian language and religion.

And by "you," I don't men you in particular, Parta.


Also, re "gods from above" versus my claim of their being underworld gods, here's what your source says:


The Anunnaki were the High Council of the Gods, and Anu's companions. They were distributed through the Earth and the Underworld.


Okay, not exactly scholarly I know.

But, hey, it was your link and I showed you without having to do any work!


Harte

[edit on 12/3/2008 by Harte]



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   
what the link said was

"The Anunnaki (also transcribed as: Anunnaku, Ananaki) are a group of Sumerian and Akkadian deities related to, and in some cases overlapping with, the Annuna (the 'Fifty Great Gods') and the Igigi (minor gods). "

which is what

Black & Green
Jacobsen
Kramer
Jastrow Jr.
Poebel
Civil
Langdon
Cooper
Peters
Hallo
et al.

say as well.

i'd have to go with them and say there were in fact sumerian anunnaki.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Okay... I think I can clear some of this up using the Sumerian FAQ from the Sumerian Mythology list: home.comcast.net...

The Akkadians and Sumerians start out as separate people, who come together as a city-state/nation under the rule of Sargon: ancienthistory.about.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

The Annuna are second-tier gods, and in Sumerian mythology they're nothing like what's described in current UFO mythology. They're gods of very specific things and they are 50 in number... the children of An. Cities had their individual patron gods.

UFO mythology (thanks to Sitchin's very bad research) believes they all show up at the same time in the same mythology. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ninsanna of Isin is one of the oldest. Enlil of Nippur is even older.

Ashnan and Lahar are both patrons of Duku, but a portion of their story suggests that they were deities of individual groups and that there was competition over which should be the primary god of Duku.

So they didn't show up all at once and are local gods incorporated into one huge pantheon.



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 07:25 AM
link   
The word "Annunaki" does not exist in the Sumerian lexicon.

You don't want to believe me, look into it yourself.

The Annuna were not gods of the sky. They were gods of the Earth and the underworld.

The Anuna were what the Sumerians called them. They were called the Annunaki by the Babylonians.

It's just that simple, and that's all I've claimed here regarding the actual history of these myths.

Harte



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 07:41 AM
link   
when those people i listed are translating/discussing sumerian tablets/mythology, they use the word anunnaki. thats all i'm saying.

look it up for yourself. jstor a problem?



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Parta
 


It would seem that the problem is that people are mixing up the use of the word Annunaki; some use it for the real pantheon of gods and some use it to stand for the made up aliens of Sitchin.



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Parta
when those people i listed are translating/discussing sumerian tablets/mythology, they use the word anunnaki. thats all i'm saying.

look it up for yourself. jstor a problem?

In fact, jstor is a problem from here.

However, I believe if you check the dating on the cuneiform being translated as "Annunaki," you'll find it to be Babylonian, not Sumerian.

Probably the author is lumping all Mesopotamians under the heading of "Sumerian," which I also mentioned in a previous post.

Let me know.

Harte



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   
jstor needs a moral enima. sitchin is a hemroid.

ur III and before i promise.

[edit on 4-12-2008 by Parta]

[edit on 4-12-2008 by Parta]



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Parta
what the link said was

"The Anunnaki (also transcribed as: Anunnaku, Ananaki) are a group of Sumerian and Akkadian deities related to, and in some cases overlapping with, the Annuna (the 'Fifty Great Gods') and the Igigi (minor gods). "

which is what

Black & Green
Jacobsen
Kramer
Jastrow Jr.
Poebel
Civil
Langdon
Cooper
Peters
Hallo
et al.

say as well.

i'd have to go with them and say there were in fact sumerian anunnaki.


Be my guest.

However, there is an online lexicon of every Sumerian word ever translated, and "Annunaki" is not one of them.

A link to it appears somewhere around here. Look under posts from a user named Marduk.

As an example of what I was saying regarding the scholars you listed actually translating Babylonian cuneiform and calling it Sumerian:


It is therefore very essential that the reader have a clear picture of our source material, which consists primarily of some three thousand tablets inscribed in the Sumerian language and dated approximately 1750 BC.

Source: Sumerian Mythology by Samuel Noah Kramer

Kramer is one of your named sources, though possibly not this particular book (you didn't list those.) Of course, not all books by these authors are available as e-books, but that one by Kramer actually is.

However:


The First Babylonian Dynasty was established by Sumu-abum, but the city-state controlled little surrounding territory until it became the capital of Hammurabi's empire (ca. 18th century BC). From that time onward, the city continued to be the capital of the region known as Babylonia — although during the 440 years of domination by the Kassites (1595–1185 BC), the city was renamed Karanduniash.

Source: Wiki

As you can see, the tablets Kramer is translating date from the Old Babylonian Period, which is not only post-Sumerian, but also post-Akkadian.
Hammurabi (ca. 1728-1686 BC), mentioned above, was the 6th king of the first Babylonian Dynasty. The tablets Kramer worked on were written after the (approximate) death date of the Babylonian king Hammurabi.

EDIT: I was wrong here. The Tablet dates to approximately 22 years before the birth of Hammurabi, damn backwards BC timeline!
So, not Sumerian by a pretty long shot.

My guess, as I said, is that your other sources are doing the same thing.

Sitchen does this because it makes the myth seem older, and as Byrd said, many of the Annunaki gods didn't even exist during the Sumerian period.

"Babylonia" seems too recent for Sitchen's purposes. Probably would have fewer believers if he actually stated where the myths really come from.

Harte



[edit on 12/4/2008 by Harte]

[edit on 12/4/2008 by Harte]



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   
are you talking about hallorans lexicon? if i'm not mistaken, there is no anunna in there either.

i'll see if i can get the titles for the names and specific tablets/hyms etc



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I believe the online lexicon is part of the University of Pennsylvania.

Harte



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   
i don't see anunna or anuna at psd.museum.upenn.edu either so not seeing anunnaki wouldn't be so bad.

kramer specifically says the tablets were ur111 and larsa but playing with dates the way you do considering there are multiple chronologies is nifty. is it hard to find a date for nippur being part of the last sumerian flower in 1699bc?

-Enki and Sumer: the Organization of the Earth and its Cultural Processes
-Cattle and Grain
-The Creation of the Pickaxe

just can't bring myself to leave the house in the cold to treat jstor the way they like. if you get in, use the names with sumerian and anunnaki in their search.


John Heise's 'Akkadian language'
d Anunnaki is a collective name for the gods of heaven and earth, and in other contexts only for the gods of the Netherworld, the empire of

the death (in particular beginning in the second half of the second millennium). It is a loan word (plural only) from Sumerian a.nun.(n)a(k)
'semen/descendants of the (-ak) monarch (nun) and refers to the offspring of the King of Heaven An/Anum.




[edit on 5-12-2008 by Parta]



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Parta
just can't bring myself to leave the house in the cold to treat jstor the way they like. if you get in, use the names with sumerian and anunnaki in their search.


No need to do that. The article names and abstracts are mostly available on scholar.google.com...

The various interfaces to JSTOR are not quite as good as the Google interface, IMHO.



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Parta
i don't see anunna or anuna at psd.museum.upenn.edu either so not seeing anunnaki wouldn't be so bad.

Yeah, I can never find anything with that dictionary either. I really don't know how to use it.


Originally posted by Partakramer specifically says the tablets were ur111 and larsa but playing with dates the way you do considering there are multiple chronologies is nifty. is it hard to find a date for nippur being part of the last sumerian flower in 1699bc?

I'm sure that Kramer mentions Ur III, but he specifically states that the tablets that resulted in the book I linked to came from Nippur, and date to around 1750 BC.

You may be consulting a different work by Kramer, I don't know. I'm not gonna buy these things!


Not being an Assyriologist, I'm not sure what you're referring to in 1699BC. The "Sumerian Rennaisance" as it's called, is usually dated around 2100 BC in one chronology, and less than a hundred or so years later in the other accepted chronology.

Surely this ended with the fall of Ur in or around 2000 BC (or around 1950 in the other chronology)?


Originally posted by Parta
John Heise's 'Akkadian language'
d Anunnaki is a collective name for the gods of heaven and earth, and in other contexts only for the gods of the Netherworld, the empire of

Again, the netherworld, not the sky.

You realize, don't you, that Akkadian and Sumerian are not the same language? At least, the cuneiform is not the same.

Here:


Anunna- (Sumerian = "those who are of princely seed") Collective title for the pantheon of a given locality: e.g. the Anunna of Lagas, or for the gods of heaven and Earth. In Akkadian (the language spoken in Babylonia and Assyria) the loan word Anunnaku denotes the lower gods in contra-distinction to the gods who dwell in Heaven (Igigi.)

Source: D ictionary of Gods and Goddesses, Devils and Demons By Manfred Lurker

Also, from another one of your cited authors (Black and Green)


The Anuna (Anunnakku)...is used in earlier, especially Sumerian, texts as a general word for the gods, in particular the early gods who were born first and were not differentiated with individual names...

Possibly following the use from mifddle Babylonian times of the name Igigu to refer especially to the gods of heaven, Anunnaku came to be used more for the gods of Earth (Ki) and underworld.

Source: Go ds, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia

Now, you are welcome to interpret the above any way you like. The way I see it, Anunnaki is a term not used by the Sumerians, but is the result of the Babylonian, or Assyrian, "borrowing" of the term "Anunna."
Note that "Ki" is a term for the Earth. Originally, in Sumer, the Anunna were gods of heaven and Earth. The suffix "ki" on the end makes them gods of the Earth and the underworld.

Of course, I could easily be wrong about that since I am no expert in this area.

As I said earlier, there are scholars that call everyone from early Babylonia on back "Sumerians." However, when a poster states that the Sumerians said this or that about the Anunnaki, it seems it's certain that they did not use the term Anunnaki.

On the other hand, rather than argue the semantics of a dead language, can we agree that the Anunna are fictional?

Harte



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   
how about we just leave it with your all time favorite source...wiki. anunnaki were sumerian.

was nippur still sumerian in 1750bc? yes in some chronologies. [see wiki]

fictional is only one opinion and carries no more weight than any other.



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Parta
how about we just leave it with your all time favorite source...wiki. anunnaki were sumerian.

You, who has rattled off a list of names, will impugn me, who has actually quoted and linked your referenced authors, on my "sources?"

Put up or shut up, I say.

I showed that your own references contradict what you claimed they said. You want me to keep doing this for you?

The Annunaki were Babylonian, not Sumerian.

And, yes, even wiki says they were Babylonian.

But, like I said, you are welcome to believe whatever you want.


Originally posted by Partawas nippur still sumerian in 1750bc? yes in some chronologies. [see wiki]

Wiki says no such thing, and everything could be something else in "some chronologies."

There are two, main accepted chronologies right now. That will no doubt change in the future.

Claims that the Anunnaki were aliens in Sumer are based on the knowledge we have right now, not on what might be learned in the future.

However, according to what we know right now, the Anunnaki were not gods in Sumer, they were gods in Babylonia.


Originally posted by Partafictional is only one opinion and carries no more weight than any other.

Considering that there is no evidence whatsoever even that the anunna came to the Sumerians, much less the anunnaki to the Babylonians, "fiction" seems the best fit.

Of course, you might prefer to believe that aliens came here to build stone temples and dig for gold with their bare hands.

Feel free.

Or, maybe, you prefer to think that Marduk came here specifically to slay Tiamat. Please let me point out that this is also a Babylonian myth, but no doubt has roots in Sumer.

Or, what? Reptilian agenda? Scientifically impossible 3600 year orbit through our solar system of a largish planet that, somehow, never disturbs the orbit of a single heavenly body when it flings through here?

Alien meddling with anthropoid DNA to create humans so the humans can start digging while the aliens lounge in the shade and sip mint juleps?

Nah. They have a word for these kinds of things. It's "fiction."

Harte



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
sorry harte, you put up or shut up. i still don't see anyone say there were no sumerian anunnaki, all i see is that there were. your word means nothing as has been proven again and again... even when you have a psyche out and start using "we" as if that represents something.

your main point [no anunnaki in lexicon] means nothing unless anunna is there. thats 2 - 2. you can understand that right math teacher? self proclaimed failed atlantologist?

as for atlantis... this place should be easy to find...
picture
picture
if it is near atlantis you might have to conclude they are related.



[edit on 5-12-2008 by Parta]



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by mamasita
 

There are some excellent lectures given by Dan Winter shown on Youtube, he discusses Nephillim DNA and how the annunaki were trying to create some type of hybrid speciies Obviously this relates to the sumerians and their civilisation, another good source of info would be a book called "Guardians of the grail". I think you will find them very interesting.

The Title is :NEPHILIM DNA - ET History of Earth's DNA by Dan Winter on youtube or find the channel of igorfrankenstein.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Parta
sorry harte, you put up or shut up. i still don't see anyone say there were no sumerian anunnaki, all i see is that there were.

Of course, I still must wonder what exactly it is that you "see," considering you have yet to actually quote from, or even list, a single source that you want us to believe you are using.


Originally posted by Partayour word means nothing as has been proven again and again... even when you have a psyche out and start using "we" as if that represents something.


I have not claimed that my word meant anything, I have shown where the authors you listed (but apparently never read) have stated that the word Annunaki is not Sumerian, and that the Annunaki were gods of the Earth and the underworld, and not of heaven

I've made no other claims in this thread that anyone asked me for verification of.


Originally posted by Partayour main point [no anunnaki in lexicon] means nothing unless anunna is there. thats 2 - 2. you can understand that right math teacher? self proclaimed failed atlantologist?

Any "atlantologist" is doomed to failure.

And no, nice try with the straw man but my "main point" was not about the contents of any online lexicon, it was about whether or not "annunaki" was a Sumerian word and whether or not the Babylonian gods called the "annunaki" were gods of heaven or gods of the underworld.

I believe if you go back and actually read my posts, you'll find these to be the facts of the matter.


Originally posted by Partaas for atlantis... this place should be easy to find...
picture
picture
if it is near atlantis you might have to conclude they are related.

Yeah, right.

Other than a water theme, what have these two seal impressions have to do with any Atlantis story - which, by the way, didn't exist at the time these seals were made?

Atlantis is "easy to find," but it's just that nobody has found it?

Or is it the reptilians keeping it hidden from us?


Harte



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join