112 replies to this topic

[kmt_sesh]

ISAEYEALLSEEING, on 31 October 2011 - 04:47 PM, said:

but even if they had ink and paper, chances are it would not have lasted the years, more hard wearing methods were needed to truly preserve the knowledge.

Nik  

Questionmark is right about papyrus in Egypt but we're talking about the very ancient material culture of Mesopotamia, whose scribes and artisans rarely used paper. They used clay. And in fact they wrote significant amounts of records, legal documents, accounts, and fables on clay tablets. On rarer occasions stone was used for inscribed monuments and annals. But it's the clay tablets that preserve almost all of the information we might think of as historical or scientific from the cultures of Mesopotamia.

The fringe's penchant for obsessing over cylinder seals only reveals the fringe's lack of understanding about the material culture of Mesopotamia. In the most extreme we have the wildly inaccurate ramblings of Zecharia Sitchin and in the least extreme, the many who for some reason believe Sitchin and others of his ilk were on to something. They were not.

Cylinder seals were basically property markers. It's that simple. They were not made to relay esoteric information. That might be the way fringies see cylinder seals today, but that's not how the ancient artisans themselves regarded cylinder seals.

[ISAEYEALLSEEING]

It makes sense they rarely wrote on paper, if I was a ruler I would see that after the flood we had just started recovering from, that most of our original records on our Sumerian  i phones and i clouds had fried and all that information lost, so if I wanted the information to last then nobody should write on paper it should be set in stone.

and a wise ruler would have got anybody with major puzzle pieces, like how to generate electricity or similar to carve that in rock or clay in case the person passing the info on dies or we have another flood and there is nothing left and they have to start again.

Nik

[the L]

kmt_sesh, on 31 October 2011 - 09:32 PM, said:

Questionmark is right about papyrus in Egypt but we're talking about the very ancient material culture of Mesopotamia, whose scribes and artisans rarely used paper. They used clay. And in fact they wrote significant amounts of records, legal documents, accounts, and fables on clay tablets. On rarer occasions stone was used for inscribed monuments and annals. But it's the clay tablets that preserve almost all of the information we might think of as historical or scientific from the cultures of Mesopotamia.

The fringe's penchant for obsessing over cylinder seals only reveals the fringe's lack of understanding about the material culture of Mesopotamia. In the most extreme we have the wildly inaccurate ramblings of Zecharia Sitchin and in the least extreme, the many who for some reason believe Sitchin and others of his ilk were on to something. They were not.

Cylinder seals were basically property markers. It's that simple. They were not made to relay esoteric information. That might be the way fringies see cylinder seals today, but that's not how the ancient artisans themselves regarded cylinder seals.

They used papyrus (in later periods), leather and realy intersting wax tablets.

Edited by the L, 01 November 2011 - 10:27 AM.

[kmt_sesh]

the L, on 01 November 2011 - 10:27 AM, said:

They used papyrus (in later periods), leather and realy intersting wax tablets.

This is true. I didn't say other materials were not used. Still, the vast amount of writing was done on clay. It was the most abundant material at hand.

Many cylinder seals were carved from stone, which I did not mention in my previous post. The photographs of the seals we tend to see on rectangles of clay, are usually modern clay productions achieved from the cylinders themselves (see example here).

Like I mentioned before, and questionmark before me, cylinder seals were property markers. They were not used for the sake of historical records, and they certainly did not impart esoteric, scientific mysteries like the production of electricity. You see this sort of thing in fringe literature and in half-baked websites, but neither venue represents a legitimate interpretation of evidence. A good example is the cylinder seal designated VA243, which Zecharia Sitchin argued was "evidence" for his 12th Planet, Nibiru. This is a photo of an impression produced from the seal:



In typical fashion Sitchin butchered the interpretation of the iconography and imagery on the seal--in no way does it show a 12th Planet. That's complete fiction. Nor does the writing on the seal hint at such a thing. The cuneiform on the right edges states (from Heiser's analysis):

Dubsiga, Ili-illat, your servant

The first two words are personal names, and the man Ili-illat, a servant of an official named Dubsiga (the first name given), was the owner of this seal. The cuneiform on the left edge repeats Dubsiga's name. So, the writing on VA243 tells us a man named Ili-illat was acting on behalf of an official named Dubsiga in the conducting of transactions for that official. There is nothing here, either in writing or in iconography, about a 12th Planet.

VA243 always serves as a good example of fringe misrepresentation of artifacts. The same goes for the seal impression ISAEYEALLSEEING showed in Post 84. This seal contains a series of serpopards intermixed with winged figures (perhaps eagles or griffins), and someone stretched his imagination and colored it with fanciful notations that have no realistic bearing on the seal itself. People do this with ancient artifacts all the time. They're not drawing from evidence revealed in the art itself--they're using their imaginations, which is the same as speculation, and that doesn't prove much of anything.

[the L]

What do you think guys did Nimrud lens (700 BC) was for
a)starting fire
b)loop (if so why did they need it?)
c)part of telescope
d)something else.

[Dash--]

the L, on 04 July 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

What do you think guys did Nimrud lens (700 BC) was for
a)starting fire
b)loop (if so why did they need it?)
c)part of telescope
d)something else.

I'd go with choice A (for starting fires)

Could be an early reading stone?

[the L]

Dash--, on 04 July 2012 - 08:44 PM, said:

I'd go with choice A (for starting fires)

Then why is round?

[kmt_sesh]

the L, on 04 July 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

What do you think guys did Nimrud lens (700 BC) was for
a)starting fire
b)loop (if so why did they need it?)
c)part of telescope
d)something else.

I'd say loop. Or in the least, a sort of simple magnifying glass. One of the theories is that the lens was a craftsman's aid for inscribing or ornamenting small objects. Have you ever personally seen examples of very small cuneiform writing, for example? It's so tiny that a device like this would've been useful.

[the L]

kmt_sesh, on 04 July 2012 - 10:07 PM, said:

I'd say loop. Or in the least, a sort of simple magnifying glass. One of the theories is that the lens was a craftsman's aid for inscribing or ornamenting small objects. Have you ever personally seen examples of very small cuneiform writing, for example? It's so tiny that a device like this would've been useful.

Yes Im in Museum in Zagreb. But seems to me that they could be done without loop.

[kmt_sesh]

the L, on 04 July 2012 - 10:27 PM, said:

Yes Im in Museum in Zagreb. But seems to me that they could be done without loop.

In most cases they probably could. I'm not saying I'm right. It's just one theory. I doubt it's for fire starting because it wouldn't be efficient for that. I'm certain it wouldn't be for a telescope because the optics would have to be far more sophisticated. But as far as I know the correct answer could be the last in your list: something else.

[the L]

kmt_sesh, on 04 July 2012 - 10:38 PM, said:

In most cases they probably could. I'm not saying I'm right. It's just one theory. I doubt it's for fire starting because it wouldn't be efficient for that. I'm certain it wouldn't be for a telescope because the optics would have to be far more sophisticated. But as far as I know the correct answer could be the last in your list: something else.

I was just thinking on telescope. One more lens and good to go. At least for moon observation.

[Swede]

the L, on 04 July 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

What do you think guys did Nimrud lens (700 BC) was for
a)starting fire
b)loop (if so why did they need it?)
c)part of telescope
d)something else.

L - From an historical perspective, you may find the following to be at least briefly informative (just abstract and introduction). If you do not have access to the full paper, can assist with further details.

http://www.jstor.org...=21100895065661

Note the metrics in regards to the above examples.

Another reference that may be of value in regards to historical perspective;

http://onlinelibrary...t.200900102/pdf

Edit: Typo

Edited by Swede, 04 July 2012 - 11:36 PM.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

ShadowSot, on 15 October 2011 - 07:37 PM, said:

Serpopods more resemble slight long tailed giraffes than they do sauropods. Head's to high and flexible, tail is far to  short.
However the actual description of them seems to be a mixture of lioness and serpents.

The priests depicted are the priests of Dagon, I believe. He wasn't a Sumerian god, but Babylonian.
They were their ceremonial robes, I think. I remember reading that it happened due to a mistranslation way back in history when it was tranferred to another culture, but I can't seem to find anything about it now, except that Dagon wasn't originally a fish god, he took on that role later.


just going from Wiki here right now, but it looks like the modern Hellenistic Zodiac is based off the Babylonian Zodiac.

  The Ishtar gate was built with a stone called Lapis Lazuli.

As for why it took so long to rediscover the Sumerians... Their writings were lost and forgotten, and they had a slight jump start on the Egyptians before eventually collapsing and being absorbed into other major civilizations like Babylon. Unlike other civilizations, they're not mentioned in the Christian Bible or Jewish holy books.
Their ruins were attributed to other cultures, mostly Assyrians.

I'm going to look into it more, I'll have plenty of time read today so...

(Also, looking anything relating to Sumerian and Mesopotamian deities is almost impossible now through Google.)

"Unlike other civilizations, they're not mentioned in the Christian Bible or Jewish holy books."

Well the Sumerians may not be mentioned by those holy books but the Jews sure cribbed the book of genesis from the sumerians. I know that is controversial but when the sumerians mention the creation,garden of eden, Adamu and Eve,
and a lot of other things similar, it makes you wonder.

christians claim it may be the same story but simply that god relayed twice, once to the sumerians, and once to the jews




Here's some Sumer more weirdness, "the Book of Kings"
http://en.wikipedia....erian_King_List - their all as old as Methusela until a certain point in time, right after the death of Gilgamesh... weird.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

the L, on 04 July 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

Then why is round?

Easier to hold in your hand perhaps?

[the L]

Wearer of Hats, on 05 July 2012 - 10:58 PM, said:

Easier to hold in your hand perhaps?

Just opposite it can slip from your hand.

EDIT:Thanks Swede.

Edited by the L, 06 July 2012 - 10:44 PM.