posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:02 PM
Originally posted by undo
reply to post by MrXYZ
you said When i asked why you considered Enmerkar a mythological person
Again, you're mixing myths with history without any regard to what's myth and what isn't...
For some reason if the ancient history comes from Iraq you think it's all myth, including the kings and rulers mentioned, even if the places they
were at, are verified places. but if it comes from Egypt, not the same problem. You agree that the Egyptian places were real AND THE PEOPLE were
real, just some of the data about their beliefs was not. What is your reasoning for believing Egyptian Pharaohs really existed as far back as 3000 BC
but Akkadian Kings did not (even in the same or later time frame)?
Probably because the Sumerian king list and myths from which we know him place him in their own prehistory as a legendary predecessor.
the King lists, after all, record several rulers with reigns of upwards of 20,000 years. Enmerker himself supposedly ruled 420, and his successor
He is credited with all sorts of things such as founding Uruk, inventing writing and other activities often associated with legendary predecessors.
Uruk itself was apparently funded some time around 5000 BC ((wiki article on Uruk)
, so if he founded it
he actually considerably predates the 3000 BC date you suggest.
All these factors make it not unreasonable to consider him as legendary - at a comparable period of Egyptian history we have not even that much to go