Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
UM-Debate-Bot

Sumerians didn't worship the Mushussu

17 posts in this topic

legionromanes vs draconic chronicler

This is a formal 1 vs 1 debate, full details on how the debate system works can be found in our Debates FAQ. The debate will begin with an introductory opening post from each participant followed by 8 body posts and finally a conclusion.

The computer has randomly chosen legionromanes to post first.

legionromanes is arguing against dragon worshipping sumerians

draconic chronicler is arguing in favour of dragon worshipping sumerians

Once the debate is complete the thread will be open to member comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Electronic Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary (E.P.S.D.) is a scholarly resource that is used by professional Sumerologists and non specialists alike, it contains every word ever written down in any text from Mesopotamia covering the Sumerian, Akkadian and Babylonian languages

the Sumerian civilisation collapsed around 2500bce and gave way to the Akkadian civilisation which in turn collapsed around 1900bce giving rise to the Babylonian civilisation, the languages of Akkad and Babylon were semitic in origin due to an influx of semitic peoples into the Sumerian area.

The Sumerian language is an agglutinative isolate which was totally different to the two languages which followed it, but the sumerian alphabet known as cuneiform was utilised by the following cultures in the same way that French, English and German use the same alphabet today. This obviously means that having a knowledge of the Alphabet does not bestow an understanding of the language that uses it, french people cannot speak german unless they first learn the german language in the same way that Akkadians could not understand Sumerian unless they had studied it.

E.P.S.D has a page on the Mušhuššu which can be found here

http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e3849.html

which looks like this

linked-image

I'd like to draw attention to the top line and explain it in simple terms

mušhuš [MONSTER] This part is a description of the subject of the page

(15x: Ur III, Old Babylonian) this part tells us that there are 15 references to the word muš-huš all in the Old Babylonian language, this is important because the Old Babylonian language didn't exist in the Sumerian period

wiki has this defintion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkadian_language#History

Old Babylonian/Old Assyrian, 1950–1530 BCE

wr. muš-huš "a monster" This part tells us specifically what the word refers to

Akk. mušhuššu This part clearly states that Mušhuššu is an Akkadian word, there can be no mistaking the relevance of this, as the word is stated to be Akkadian by the best Mesopotamian language resource available on earth and because the Akkadian civilisation didn't exist until the collapse of the Sumerian civilisation then it could hardly be claimed that the Sumerians worshipped the Mušhuššu, because they wouldn't even have known what it was and this is reflected in the evidence contained in the date boxes that the word itself didn't exist in any form until after 2500bce

thats about it really, I expect DC will now attempt to use his unsupported opinion to counter this scholarly resource, but clearly he is in error as he doesn't know the difference between Sumerian and Akkadian, because if he did he wouldn't have accepted a challenge in a formal debate which discusses it in the first place

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe it or not, the E.S.P.D. is the second in a long list of "favorites" on my computer, right after Google, in fact. I find it an invaluable resource in my research.

First and formost, I NEVER claimed the Sumerians worshipped an entitity called a Mushussu. I claimed the Sumerians, like virtually all ancient cultures did worship or acknowledge sentient supernatural creatures that anthropologist collectively call "dragons".

E.S.P.D. contains translations of hymns originally found on cunieform tablets that acknowledge various Sumerian gods as "Ushumgul", and a popular and accepted translation of this word is "Great Serpent Dragon of Heaven". Other Gods are honored with the title that their mother was a Great Serpent Dragon of Heaven. These are presumeabley the lesser gods than could only possess a human form.

So the only question concerning your debate challenge is if the Akkadian Mushussu may be the same creature as the Sumerian Ushumgul. And just as I explaind in the Mushussu thread, there is some good evidence to suggest this.

The Gudea Vase in the Louvre depicts two mushussu holding a gate intended to represent the gates of heaven, as the intwined serpent denoting immortality represented. This scene is taken from the famous Adapa and the Southwind epic, in which Adapa most confront the two dragon gateguards, and gains entry into heaven through flattery.

So here we see a god from a Sumerian epic, carried over into the Akkadian culture, and depicted as a mushussu "dragon". It is a logical assumption then that he would be depicted as a dragon in the earlier Sumerian culture as well, particularly when other Sumerian gods have the title, "Great Serpent Dragon of Heaven, or were birthed by a Great Serpent Dragon of Heaven.

Therefore it is highly probable that the Sumerians did worship dieties that they believed could assume the form of humans as some of their representations indicate, but were in fact, fearsome flying dragons of heaven. And as Dr. David Jones demonstrates in An Instinct for Dragons, ancient man everywhere believed in, feared and often worshipped fantastic winged reptilian creatures which we collectively refer to as dragons today.

So unless this debate was simply a game of word tricks, we are to take the word Mushussu to mean a Mesopotamian term for Dragon which can probably be interchanged with Ushumgul based on the carry over of the "dragon" god Ningishzida into Akkadian culture still depicted as a dragon (called the Mushusu in the Akkadian).

So my undertanding of this debate is "if the Sumerians worshipped deities we refer to as 'dragons"'. The specific term for those dragons is not important to the discussion as I had already made clear in the original Mushussu thread.

Edited by draconic chronicler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Believe it or not, the E.S.P.D. is the second in a long list of "favorites" on my computer, right after Google, in fact. I find it an invaluable resource in my research.

then perhaps you should start learning how to use it, I see once again that this whole post is your unsupported opinion, you will not get anywhere in a formal debate like that and your entire board credibiltiy is at stake here

First and formost, I NEVER claimed the Sumerians worshipped an entitity called a Mushussu. I claimed the Sumerians, like virtually all ancient cultures did worship or acknowledge sentient supernatural creatures that anthropologist collectively call "dragons".

so you have started lying already, the very reason I actually started this formal debate was because you repeatedly get this wrong, were I to go through all your posts I could show where you have made this mistake several times, for now the most recent example will suffice

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...45900&st=30

There is little doubt that the Sumerians identified what the Akkadians called the Mushushu with thier name for the highest gods

E.S.P.D. contains translations of hymns originally found on cunieform tablets that acknowledge various Sumerian gods as "Ushumgul", and a popular and accepted translation of this word is "Great Serpent Dragon of Heaven". Other Gods are honored with the title that their mother was a Great Serpent Dragon of Heaven. These are presumeabley the lesser gods than could only possess a human form.

this is another error on your part,

firstly EPSD is a dictionary, it doesn't contain any translations except single words, perhaps you are thinking of ETCSL

secondly, the phrase "Great Serpent Dragon of Heaven" doesn't appear in any text from any period of mesopotamian history, but please don't take my word for it, please check etcsl (the best resource on earth for texts from mesopotamia) and you will see that once again you don't know what youre talking about

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl...circ&lists=

No hits: 'Great Serpent Dragon of Heaven'

so this accepted translation is apparently yours and yours alone, and you have no linguistic qualifications to make such a claim, so it is on the whole like most of your claims utter nonsense and easily disproven

epsd actually has the accepted translation which is "great dragon, snake",

http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e6320.html

if you were actually able to read Sumerian you would know that the complete absence of the symbol for heaven in the name Usumgal means that there is no connection to heaven at all. Every text again describes the usumgal as an aquatic creature which doesn't have wings so could never reach heaven

but I did look into it on your behalf and do you know that there are only two references to "Great Serpent Dragon of Heaven", one is from your erroneous and completely fallacious posts here at UM and the other is at Bible origins which I have to tell you, is not either a scholarly resource or even a credible one.

So the only question concerning your debate challenge is if the Akkadian Mushussu may be the same creature as the Sumerian Ushumgul. And just as I explaind in the Mushussu thread, there is some good evidence to suggest this.

it isn't the same creature at all, the akkadians used both Usumgal and Mushussu, something they wouldnt have done if they were identical.

but again why don't you actually use the source that you claim is your second favourite after google

http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e6320.html

but of course, you can't because it doesnt agree with you

The Gudea Vase in the Louvre depicts two mushussu holding a gate intended to represent the gates of heaven, as the intwined serpent denoting immortality represented. This scene is taken from the famous Adapa and the Southwind epic, in which Adapa most confront the two dragon gateguards, and gains entry into heaven through flattery.

the vase has the following inscription

To the god Ningiszida, his god Gudea, Ensi of Lagash, for the prolongation of his life, has dedicated this

the symbolic animal of Ningiszida is the 'bashmu' dragon, not the Mushussu, this is irrelevant anyway as it has nothing to do with the sumerian story of Adapa.

So here we see a god from a Sumerian epic, carried over into the Akkadian culture, and depicted as a mushussu "dragon". It is a logical assumption then that he would be depicted as a dragon in the earlier Sumerian culture as well, particularly when other Sumerian gods have the title, "Great Serpent Dragon of Heaven, or were birthed by a Great Serpent Dragon of Heaven.

see once again, when you have started with an error anything you derive from it is likely to be in error as you are here again. The mother of the Sumerian Gods is Ninhursag the personification of Ki. This fact is attested more than 43 times in texts. There is no Sumerian text that states the Gods were born from a dragon

Therefore it is highly probable that the Sumerians did worship dieties that they believed could assume the form of humans as some of their representations indicate, but were in fact, fearsome flying dragons of heaven. And as Dr. David Jones demonstrates in An Instinct for Dragons, ancient man everywhere believed in, feared and often worshipped fantastic winged reptilian creatures which we collectively refer to as dragons today.

it is not "highly probable", I have already proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Mushussu is an akkadian word and did not exist in Sumer. If it was "highly probable" like you said then where are the links supporting what is once again completely unqualified opinion

So unless this debate was simply a game of word tricks, we are to take the word Mushussu to mean a Mesopotamian term for Dragon which can probably be interchanged with Ushumgul based on the carry over of the "dragon" god Ningishzida into Akkadian culture still depicted as a dragon (called the Mushusu in the Akkadian).

the topic of the debate is clearly stated at the top of this page, of you are having trouble discussing it then you should withdraw, I have already proven that everything you have said so far is wrong, I have not proven this with unqualified opinion but with links from scholarly sources, these same links that you said you would be able to use to prove your point. seems that you got that wrong too doesn't it

So my undertanding of this debate is "if the Sumerians worshipped deities we refer to as 'dragons"'. The specific term for those dragons is not important to the discussion as I had already made clear in the original Mushussu thread.

your understanding of this debate then like your understanding of dragon mythology in general is severely lacking, I would suggest again that you withdraw and save any credibility that you have left, this clearly is not difficult for me, in fact its like taking candy from a baby. Though of course in here you will not get away with your usual insults to people who do not agree with you. from what I have seen of your posting history so far, thats just about everyone

:tu:

Edited by legionromanes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple reason why I did not post references to my previous statements is because, according to UM guidelines, information believed to be "common knowledge" need not be referenced.

You made the rather grandiose claim that you are a "Sumerologist", so it was naturally assumed my statements should have been considered "common knowledge" to you.

Evidently I was wrong, or rather, you were wrong. You know far less about this subject than you boasted.

Please refer below to a catalogue citation from a GENUINE Sumerologist of the British Museum, and not an imposter such as yourself:

http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highl...f_a_dragon.aspx

Terracotta plaque of a dragonBabylonian, about 800-550 BC

From Mesopotamia

This clay plaque closely corresponds to the general image of the ushumgal, the 'snake-dragon' of Sumerian poetry. The ushumgal can be a metaphor for a god or king; and is not necessarily evil or unpleasant.

The snake-dragon has horns, the body and neck of a snake, the forelegs of a lion, and the hind legs of a bird. It is represented in art from 2300 BC to the last centuries BC as a symbol of various gods or as a magically protective hybrid. It has been identified as the Akkadian mushhushshu or 'furious snake'. It is best known as the creature of Marduk, the god of Babylon. When Babylon was conquered by the Assyrian king Sennacherib (reigned 704-681 BC) the motif was brought to Assyria as a symbolic beast of the state god Ashur.

Plaques such as these were mass produced in moulds. Many show scenes of private life as well as images of gods and their worship. They may have been intended for private veneration or entertainment.

J. Black and A. Green, Gods, demons and symbols of -1 (London, The British Museum Press, 1992)

J. Oates, Babylon-1 (London, Thames and Hudson, 1979

The author of this article has stated the exact same things that I have, and has cited two well known, scholarly works by experts in the Field.

He states that the Ushumgal is indeed a Sumerian Serpent Dragon, and apparently identical to the Akkadian Mushushuu.

He states it is a metaphor for a god or king and not evil.

He states the plaque was probably made for private worship/veneration of the serpent-dragon god.

Everything I said then, is corroborated by several scholarly sources and the Sumerologists of the prestigiious British Museum, which boasts on of the world's finest collections of mesopotamian artifacts.

So is a nobody like yourself going to claim these experts and their unimpeachable sources are wrong? I hope not.

But you do get 1 point for my mixing up the E.S.P.D. with the E.T.C.S.L. An honest mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both participants are reminded to avoid ad hominem attacks and namecalling or else be penalised from this debate.

Regarding the provision of sources, if your opponent requests a source be given it is good etiquette to do so, not doing so may harm your standing in the debate and could weaken your argument if you do not provide sources to information that you rely on in your side of the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The simple reason why I did not post references to my previous statements is because, according to UM guidelines, information believed to be "common knowledge" need not be referenced.

you know full well that no aspect of sumerology could be considered common knowledge, most common people don't know the first thing about it, its for their benefit when reading this thread that you are asked to post all sources, if you can't do that then it is your credibility thats suffering

You made the rather grandiose claim that you are a "Sumerologist", so it was naturally assumed my statements should have been considered "common knowledge" to you.

I have not at any time claimed to be a sumerologist, that is another fabrication on your part

Evidently I was wrong, or rather, you were wrong. You know far less about this subject than you boasted.

so far you have provided only one referene which at first glance appears to support your contentions, when you dig deeper it doesn't and is just one more example of your need to fabricate evidence to support an unsupportable belief on your part

Please refer below to a catalogue citation from a GENUINE Sumerologist of the British Museum, and not an imposter such as yourself:

again you need to check your sources, I have not claimed to be a sumerologist at any time, so cannot be an imposter. in fact according to the search function only one claim that anyone is a sumerologist is in evidence, and its where you accused me of being one. Now please provide direct evidence that I ever made such a claim or drop it. You have just demonstrated quite correctly the aspect of a straw man argument for anyone reading who had wondered what the term meant. Its where someone makes a claim that doesn't have any support so that in the next breath they can say "theres no support for it"

Terracotta plaque of a dragonBabylonian, about 800-550 BC

From Mesopotamia

This clay plaque closely corresponds to the general image of the ushumgal, the 'snake-dragon' of Sumerian poetry. The ushumgal can be a metaphor for a god or king; and is not necessarily evil or unpleasant.

The snake-dragon has horns, the body and neck of a snake, the forelegs of a lion, and the hind legs of a bird. It is represented in art from 2300 BC to the last centuries BC as a symbol of various gods or as a magically protective hybrid. It has been identified as the Akkadian mushhushshu or 'furious snake'. It is best known as the creature of Marduk, the god of Babylon. When Babylon was conquered by the Assyrian king Sennacherib (reigned 704-681 BC) the motif was brought to Assyria as a symbolic beast of the state god Ashur.

Plaques such as these were mass produced in moulds. Many show scenes of private life as well as images of gods and their worship. They may have been intended for private veneration or entertainment.

J. Black and A. Green, Gods, demons and symbols of -1 (London, The British Museum Press, 1992)

J. Oates, Babylon-1 (London, Thames and Hudson, 1979

well heres where you should have considered the source, not considering the source is a mistake that most thringe theorists make by stopping when they hear what they want to and not looking any further. In this case you really should have. The information listed at the British Museum is out of date.

the two books which the information was sourced from in that case are dated 1992 and 1979. You will no doubt be overjoyed to hear that both books have been revised since they were written 17 years ago and 30 years respetively

I happen to own an edition of J. Black and A. Green, Gods, demons and symbols of Mesopotamia which dates as far back as 2004, which means that the information contained in it is 12 years more recent than that provided by you and a 2000 edition of J. Oates, Babylon making the information contained in it only 21 years more recent than that you have provided.

here is the evidence of my ownership of these books an image that I created with my flatbed scanner a little while ago

linked-image

http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn118/hazzakan/covers.jpg

now as I have both these original sources and you do not I have taken the liberty of scanning in the relevant pages as well (you can thank me later)

here is J. Oates, Babylon (2000)

linked-image

http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn118/h.../dragondone.jpg

as you can see this source was listed purely as it has copyright over the image used by the British museum so had to be named as a source for that image.

the plague of the Mushussu appears on the left hand side and the small text on the far right hand side of the right page details what is shown

as you can see it does not support your claim that the image is an usumgal at all in fact it states that the image is a representation of Marduks dragon, which we both know was the Mushussu and not the Usumgal

I refer you to wiki in this case

"Marduk was depicted as a human, often with his symbol the snake-dragon which he had taken over from the god Tishpak"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marduk

so if we take a look at Tishpak from this source it is readily apparent that the Mushussu is the snake - dragon associated with Bel Marduk

linked-image

http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn118/h...dragondone2.jpg

as you can see this page (left) states

"the mushussu was originally an attendant of Ninazu the city god of Esnunna"

and passed as a symbol of Bel Marduk from that source, incidentally this is the other original source mentioned in your post which you didn't check to source as its from J. Black and A. Green, Gods, demons and symbols of Mesopotamia (2004)

as you can see it doesn't support a word you said in your last post either.

Esnunna if you need to check didn't exist until Akkadian times, you can't claim that a creature that originates with an akkadian city existed earlier than the city did without evidence, your personal opinion is not good enough in a formal debate such as this.

The author of this article has stated the exact same things that I have, and has cited two well known, scholarly works by experts in the Field.

you could hardly call Jeremy Black an expert in the field as he died in 2004 shortly after revising this book

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Black_(Assyriologist)

"Jeremy Allen Black, BA, BPhil, MA, DPhil (1 September 1951 – Oxford 28 April 2004)"

He states that the Ushumgal is indeed a Sumerian Serpent Dragon, and apparently identical to the Akkadian Mushushuu.

apparently not, as the original source I have provided states quite clearly that the Mushussu is not the same as the usumgal as Usumgal is not even mentioned on the mushussu page

Jeremy Allen Black, BA, BPhil, MA, DPhil (1 September 1951 – Oxford 28 April 2004)

He states it is a metaphor for a god or king and not evil.

a metaphor is not the same as saying "it is the God"

a metaphor is defined as

"A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison"

so it is impossible for two things joined by a metaphor to be the same, in fact they must by needs be not be the same for a metaphor to be used correctly

He states the plaque was probably made for private worship/veneration of the serpent-dragon god.

clearly not as that reference is sourced at in the other book "J. Oates, Babylon (2000)" which provided the image and that source clearly states that the plaque was used as a votive offering or held an apotropaic function

Intended to ward off evil: an apotropaic symbol.

http://www.answers.com/apotropaic

Everything I said then, is corroborated by several scholarly sources and the Sumerologists of the prestigiious British Museum, which boasts on of the world's finest collections of mesopotamian artifacts.

I'm afraid as I have shown it does not, you have merely deliberately misinterpreted the information and failed to check on its veracity because you were reseaching using your unsupported belief as a guide, this is the very definition of pseudo history.

So is a nobody like yourself going to claim these experts and their unimpeachable sources are wrong? I hope not.

I see you do like your petty insults however this will not make your imaginary fantasies come flesh. You need to conduct this debate with the correct scientific rigour or else you will only prove yourself incompetant to debate this subject at a scientific level. This is not a good tactic for you as I am taking this seriously

But you do get 1 point for my mixing up the E.S.P.D. with the E.T.C.S.L. An honest mistake.

I believe myself quite fortunate that it is not you scoring this debate in that case as you have not given me any points for the other mistakes you have made so far, which include without doubt every word you have so far written

:tu:

now just to check my sources were correct I took the liberty of emailing a very well known sumerologist about your belief

the source in this case is Dr Frances Reynolds

you can find her Curriculum Vitae here

http://www.orinst.ox.ac.uk/html/staff/eanes/freynolds.html

note that it states that she teaches the following courses at Oxford

"Akkadian: Elementary and set texts

Sumerian: Elementary and set texts, as required

Mesopotamian cultural and historical topics, as required

Religions and Mythologies of the Ancient Near East (Faculty of Theology)

Mesopotamia: Cradle of Civilization (Department for Continuing Education)

Assyria: Gods, Kings and Scholars in Ancient Iraq (Department for Continuing Education) "

and indeed that she is so well repected and qualified in her field that she is the Consultant (Akkadian, Hittite, Sumerian), used by the Oxford English Dictionary

would you question this source ?

Dear Dr Reynolds

I am having a discussion with a friend over some aspects of the Akkadian Mushussu dragon I say that it was never worshipped as a god but was a symbolic animal for many gods and he says that it was recognised as a deity in its own right and worshipped as such which one of us is correct, a short answer would suffice as neither of us questions your ability to know this offhand as you are a well known professional. thanks

John

this is her reply

Dear John,

Your view is more correct, since the mushhushshu was a servant of various gods,

including Ninazu, Tishpak and Marduk, and was a monster, rather than a god.

Best wishes,

Frances Reynolds

so there you have it, Sumerologists do not in any way support a link between the Usumgal and the Mususshu, they do not in any way support yor claim that either was worshipped and they especially are not providing evidence that basing what is for you almost a religious belief in dragons on 30 year old out of date information and misinterpreted facts is such a great idea

and again I'd ask you to restrict your diatribe to the actual topic of this debate which in case you have forgotten is Sumerians didn't worship the Mushussu, further name calling on your part is not is not an acceptable form of discussion

:tu:

now perhaps you can present your next piece of evidence, which I believe will most likely take the form of the vase of Gudea or your interpretation of the Enuma Elish (both of which post date the sumerian civilisation by quite a margin

thats all you got left right ?

:P

Edited by legionromanes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you know full well that no aspect of sumerology could be considered common knowledge, most common people don't know the first thing about it, its for their benefit when reading this thread that you are asked to post all sources, if you can't do that then it is your credibility thats suffering

I have not at any time claimed to be a sumerologist, that is another fabrication on your part

so far you have provided only one referene which at first glance appears to support your contentions, when you dig deeper it doesn't and is just one more example of your need to fabricate evidence to support an unsupportable belief on your part

again you need to check your sources, I have not claimed to be a sumerologist at any time, so cannot be an imposter. in fact according to the search function only one claim that anyone is a sumerologist is in evidence, and its where you accused me of being one. Now please provide direct evidence that I ever made such a claim or drop it. You have just demonstrated quite correctly the aspect of a straw man argument for anyone reading who had wondered what the term meant. Its where someone makes a claim that doesn't have any support so that in the next breath they can say "theres no support for it"

well heres where you should have considered the source, not considering the source is a mistake that most thringe theorists make by stopping when they hear what they want to and not looking any further. In this case you really should have. The information listed at the British Museum is out of date.

the two books which the information was sourced from in that case are dated 1992 and 1979. You will no doubt be overjoyed to hear that both books have been revised since they were written 17 years ago and 30 years respetively

I happen to own an edition of J. Black and A. Green, Gods, demons and symbols of Mesopotamia which dates as far back as 2004, which means that the information contained in it is 12 years more recent than that provided by you and a 2000 edition of J. Oates, Babylon making the information contained in it only 21 years more recent than that you have provided.

here is the evidence of my ownership of these books an image that I created with my flatbed scanner a little while ago

as you can see this source was listed purely as it has copyright over the image used by the British museum so had to be named as a source for that image.

the plague of the Mushussu appears on the left hand side and the small text on the far right hand side of the right page details what is shown

as you can see it does not support your claim that the image is an usumgal at all in fact it states that the image is a representation of Marduks dragon, which we both know was the Mushussu and not the Usumgal

I refer you to wiki in this case

"Marduk was depicted as a human, often with his symbol the snake-dragon which he had taken over from the god Tishpak"

so if we take a look at Tishpak from this source it is readily apparent that the Mushussu is the snake - dragon associated with Bel Marduk

as you can see this page (left) states

"the mushussu was originally an attendant of Ninazu the city god of Esnunna"

and passed as a symbol of Bel Marduk from that source, incidentally this is the other original source mentioned in your post which you didn't check to source as its from J. Black and A. Green, Gods, demons and symbols of Mesopotamia (2004)

as you can see it doesn't support a word you said in your last post either.

Esnunna if you need to check didn't exist until Akkadian times, you can't claim that a creature that originates with an akkadian city existed earlier than the city did without evidence, your personal opinion is not good enough in a formal debate such as this.

you could hardly call Jeremy Black an expert in the field as he died in 2004 shortly after revising this book

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Black_(Assyriologist)

"Jeremy Allen Black, BA, BPhil, MA, DPhil (1 September 1951 – Oxford 28 April 2004)"

apparently not, as the original source I have provided states quite clearly that the Mushussu is not the same as the usumgal as Usumgal is not even mentioned on the mushussu page

Jeremy Allen Black, BA, BPhil, MA, DPhil (1 September 1951 – Oxford 28 April 2004)

He states it is a metaphor for a god or king and not evil.

a metaphor is not the same as saying "it is the God"

a metaphor is defined as

so it is impossible for two things joined by a metaphor to be the same, in fact they must by needs be not be the same for a metaphor to be used correctly

clearly not as that reference is sourced at in the other book "J. Oates, Babylon (2000)" which provided the image and that source clearly states that the plaque was used as a votive offering or held an apotropaic function

I'm afraid as I have shown it does not, you have merely deliberately misinterpreted the information and failed to check on its veracity because you were reseaching using your unsupported belief as a guide, this is the very definition of pseudo history.

DC: Nonsense. The real sumerologist who wrote the catalogue/caption for the Mushushu plaque for the Brtish Museum came to the exact same conclusion that I did, based on the references at hand. And it is only your opinion that the 'older' source is less accurate as to my knowledge no new finds have been found to contradict it.

It is perfectly logical for that writer to assume the Ushumgal and Mushushu are the same creature, and I believe his is correct for the following reason. The Akkadian mushushu on the Gudiea base represents Ningishzida, who is called an Ushumgal in Sumerian Hymns. Several esteemed scholars recognize the word "Ushumgal" to mean a Serpent-Dragon, EXACTLY as the word Mushushu is usually interpreted.

And if that were not enough proof, BOTH Babylonian and Assyrian sources connect Marduk with the Mushushu Serpent Dragon, but the real reason is far more obvious than that presented in your sources.

Marduk's greatest claim to famie other than the conqueror of Tiamat is the fact that he is the SON of the previously highest eat Sumerian god, Enki, who in hymns is also called a great Serpent Dragon(Ushumgal). So what better way to remind his worshippers that he is the son of the great serpent dragon, than to portray it by his side?

Burther proof, Innanna/Ishtar also has the serpent dragon emblem, and she too is the daughter of Enki.

I see you do like your petty insults however this will not make your imaginary fantasies come flesh. You need to conduct this debate with the correct scientific rigour or else you will only prove yourself incompetant to debate this subject at a scientific level. This is not a good tactic for you as I am taking this seriously

DC: You started the insults in this debate, not I. I merely responded in kind.

I believe myself quite fortunate that it is not you scoring this debate in that case as you have not given me any points for the other mistakes you have made so far, which include without doubt every word you have so far written

DC Perhaps you are blissfully ignorant of your insulting other people, but yopu just did it again.

:tu:

now just to check my sources were correct I took the liberty of emailing a very well known sumerologist about your belief

the source in this case is Dr Frances Reynolds

you can find her Curriculum Vitae here

http://www.orinst.ox.ac.uk/html/staff/eanes/freynolds.html

note that it states that she teaches the following courses at Oxford

"Akkadian: Elementary and set texts

Sumerian: Elementary and set texts, as required

Mesopotamian cultural and historical topics, as required

Religions and Mythologies of the Ancient Near East (Faculty of Theology)

Mesopotamia: Cradle of Civilization (Department for Continuing Education)

Assyria: Gods, Kings and Scholars in Ancient Iraq (Department for Continuing Education) "

and indeed that she is so well repected and qualified in her field that she is the Consultant (Akkadian, Hittite, Sumerian), used by the Oxford English Dictionary

would you question this source ?

this is her reply

so there you have it, Sumerologists do not in any way support a link between the Usumgal and the Mususshu, they do not in any way support yor claim that either was worshipped and they especially are not providing evidence that basing what is for you almost a religious belief in dragons on 30 year old out of date information and misinterpreted facts is such a great idea

DC I have just shown you three excellent examples that provide overwhelming evidence that the Sumerian Ushumgal and Akkadian Mushushu are the same creature. Your expert may well agree with me, as it is pretty black and white.

and again I'd ask you to restrict your diatribe to the actual topic of this debate which in case you have forgotten is Sumerians didn't worship the Mushussu, further name calling on your part is not is not an acceptable form of discussion

DC The Smerians DID INDEED worship Gods such as Ninsgishzida who are called a USHUMGAL (Serpent dragon) in sumerian hymns, and are DEPICTED as MUSHUSHU (Serpent Dragon) in Akkadian Art. And the Mushushu at the side of Marduk probably represents Enki/Ea, who is also calle a USHUMGAL (Serpent Dragon) in Sumerian Hymns.

now perhaps you can present your next piece of evidence, which I believe will most likely take the form of the vase of Gudea or your interpretation of the Enuma Elish (both of which post date the sumerian civilisation by quite a margin

thats all you got left right ?

DC Yes, I have the Gudea Vase, that depicts a former Sumerian Ushumgal as a Mushushu, but not only that, but also the fact that several other Sumerian Gods are Called Ushumgals (serpent dragons) in Sumerian, and retain the Mushushu (serpent Dragon) as their emblem in Akkadian, Babylonian and Assyrian cultures.

I'd say I have a very strong position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DC: Nonsense. The real sumerologist who wrote the catalogue/caption for the Mushushu plaque for the Brtish Museum came to the exact same conclusion that I did, based on the references at hand. And it is only your opinion that the 'older' source is less accurate as to my knowledge no new finds have been found to contradict it.

this is where your lack of knowledge has let you down again, since the 1992 information you have used is way out of date and you are just refusing to admit it, despite me posting credible links from the more recent 2004 edition of J. Black and A. Green, Gods, demons and symbols of Mesopotamia in full page black and white it seems you have a general inability to accept real evidence because you have already made your mind up. Here from wiki is the reason that there is new evidence

Jeremy Allen Black, BA, BPhil, MA, DPhil (1 September 1951 – Oxford 28 April 2004) was a British Assyriologist and Sumerologist, founder of the online Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature.

you didn't know that he founded E.P.S.D. did you, I have posted a link from that source in my first post, it destroyed your claim before we even started, must I post it again before you'll actually read it.

It is perfectly logical for that writer to assume the Ushumgal and Mushushu are the same creature,

he states quite clearly that they are not, Ucumgal is not even mentioned in the reference to Mushussu dragons

and I believe his is correct for the following reason.

there you go with your "belief" again, in a formal debate, belief is not an accepted form of currency

The Akkadian mushushu on the Gudiea base represents Ningishzida, who is called an Ushumgal in Sumerian Hymns. Several esteemed scholars recognize the word "Ushumgal" to mean a Serpent-Dragon, EXACTLY as the word Mushushu is usually interpreted.

this is happening only in your mind,

here is a link to mushussu at epsd

http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e3849.html

"serpent-dragon".

and here is a link to ucumgal again at epsd

http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e6320.html

"great dragon, snake"

so these esteemed scholar you are claiming said this, who are they and where are your links to prove it ?

And if that were not enough proof, BOTH Babylonian and Assyrian sources connect Marduk with the Mushushu Serpent Dragon, but the real reason is far more obvious than that presented in your sources.

thats hardly surprising as the Mushussu is the symbolic animal of Bel Marduk, you are stating a fact that doesn't support you, no where does anyone say that the animal of Bel Marduk is an Usumgal

Marduk's greatest claim to famie other than the conqueror of Tiamat is the fact that he is the SON of the previously highest eat Sumerian god, Enki, who in hymns is also called a great Serpent Dragon(Ushumgal). So what better way to remind his worshippers that he is the son of the great serpent dragon, than to portray it by his side?

are you losing control of your ability to debate here or are you just getting confused, you just stated that the mushussu was the animal of Bel Marduk,

Burther proof, Innanna/Ishtar also has the serpent dragon emblem, and she too is the daughter of Enki.[/color]

This is a complete fabrication on your part, heres wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inanna#Iconography

Inanna's symbol is an eight-pointed star or a rosette.[12] She was associated with lions — even then a symbol of power — and was frequently depicted standing on the backs of two lionesses. Her cuneiform ideogram was a hook-shaped twisted knot of reeds, representing the doorpost of the storehouse (and thus fertility and plenty).[13]

in case thats not good enough for you the references for that information come from

Gods, Demons, and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary by Jeremy Black and Anthony Green (1992, ISBN 0-292-70794-0), p. 156, pp. 169-170.

thats the same book again that you claim is an excellent source earlier before you knew there was a better one

and just to be thourough I checked the 2004 edition and here it is

linked-image

DC I have just shown you three excellent examples that provide overwhelming evidence that the Sumerian Ushumgal and Akkadian Mushushu are the same creature. Your expert may well agree with me, as it is pretty black and white.

my expert has already disagreed with you, did you actually read what she wrote, here it is again,

Dear John,

Your view is more correct, since the mushhushshu was a servant of various gods,

including Ninazu, Tishpak and Marduk, and was a monster, rather than a god.

Best wishes,

Frances Reynolds

she clearly calls it a monster, not a God as you claimed and your three examples I have shown to be hideously incorrect and a product of only your imagination. Imagination is not good currency in a formal debate either, especially when like yours it is completely unsupported by academic references

DC The Smerians DID INDEED worship Gods such as Ninsgishzida who are called a USHUMGAL (Serpent dragon) in sumerian hymns, and are DEPICTED as MUSHUSHU (Serpent Dragon) in Akkadian Art. And the Mushushu at the side of Marduk probably represents Enki/Ea, who is also calle a USHUMGAL (Serpent Dragon) in Sumerian Hymns.

again I refer you to the 2004 edition of the book you first mentioned

linked-image

so lets get this right, you are claiming that the Usumgal was worshipped as a God and yet the academic claim is that it is just a term of praise. i.e. not an actual entity in its own right, so again theres another dead end to your belief

DC Yes, I have the Gudea Vase, that depicts a former Sumerian Ushumgal as a Mushushu, but not only that, but also the fact that several other Sumerian Gods are Called Ushumgals (serpent dragons) in Sumerian, and retain the Mushushu (serpent Dragon) as their emblem in Akkadian, Babylonian and Assyrian cultures.

the animal on the Vase of Gudea is a Basmu Dragon and the Basmu dragon is the symbol of Ninsgizzida who is actually mentioned in cuneiform on the vase. It isn't an Ucumgal (which is a term of praise) or a mushussu dragon, if you'd like to submit some evidence that supports your view then post it, otherwise you can leave that ridiculous claim right there as you just proved that personally you don't know the difference

I'd say I have a very strong position

interesting viewpoint, most people have told me that you lost this debate with my first post and since have been rapidly going downhill, do you actually have any references or support from qualified experts like I do or am I going to have to read your unsupported opinion again in your next post, thats getting tedious as it seems you have bought a knife to a gunfight

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You still don't get it. Your attempt to confuse the situation with the various terms for dragons in Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian etc is only a smokescreen.

Here is the bare bones again.

Several Sumerian Gods are given the title Usumgal/Ushumgal, and I think we all agree this term refers to a kind of serpent-dragon.

Regretably, there is not a lot of art from this early period, but one of the Gods called an Usumgal 'dragon' is Ningishzida.

Ningishzida is carried over into Akkadian culture, and the Gudea vase represents Ningishzida as a serpent headed, winged, claw-footed, snake tailed "dragon".

Now if Ningihzida is a "dragon" in Sumerian literature, and depicted as a dragon in Akkadian art, then it is logical that the Sumerian percetiption of Ningishzida the dragon, would be similar in both cultures. This is simple logic anyone here can understand.

Furthermore, the Babylonian plaque in the British museum is identical to the type of plaques in which other gods are portrayed. In a way, they were inexpenive idols of deities for the home. This is proof that dragon gods were worshipped in Babylon.

http://www.bibleorigins.net/ningishzida.html

The whole point of this disuccsion in not quibbling over the specific name used for gods who are identified as dragons, (Usumgal vs. the later Mushushu), BUT the fact that various high sumerian gods are identied as dragons by the word Usumgal. Some authorative sources call the Sumerian Usumgal dragon ningishzida a Mushushu when depicted on the Gudea vase. If thi is incorrect and Basmu dragon is more correct, it still doesn't change the fact he is still a dragon in BOTH sumerian and akkadian literature.

And as he is a god that is worshipped and both called a dragon and described as a dragon in his hymns, then I am correct, and "win" this debate.

I suggest anyone interested in this topic go the the article at the link below. While the article is quite good a it stands, it has quotations from numerous scholars who identify various sumerian gods with dragon connotations to the serpent in the Hebrew Eden story. Again, all of these scholars (something like at least 20), all cite Sumerian gods with dragon connotations.

http://www.bibleorigins.net/ningishzida.html

I don't think anyone, after reading this can honestly refute that these many gods are given the title of a 'great dragon' (Usumgal).

Most authorities still recognize the term Ushumgal as a kind of "serpent-dragon", abd but the term is NOT limited to Getserpent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You still don't get it. Your attempt to confuse the situation with the various terms for dragons in Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian etc is only a smokescreen.

thats amusing, this is not my attempt to confuse the situation, this is the science of sumerology, that you are confused just goes to show that you don't know what youre talking about

Several Sumerian Gods are given the title Usumgal/Ushumgal, and I think we all agree this term refers to a kind of serpent-dragon.

as I have already more than proven that Usumgal is a term of praise and not an entity in its own right with the testimony of a professional sumerologist I would think you might have learned something by now, no matter, on with the slaughter

Regretably, there is not a lot of art from this early period, but one of the Gods called an Usumgal 'dragon' is Ningishzida.

Ningishzida is carried over into Akkadian culture, and the Gudea vase represents Ningishzida as a serpent headed, winged, claw-footed, snake tailed "dragon".

as the link I posted earlier already proved that Ningizida has the symbolic animal of a Basmu dragon and it is that which is represented upon the vase of Gudea you are just repeating fallacies

first here is the extract from J. Black and A. Green, Gods, demons and symbols of Mesopotamia 2004 (thats the one thats 12 years newer than any evidence you have produced so far

linked-image

and this is how Ningizida is represented in Akkadian art

linked-imagelinked-image

Ningizida is the central fully human figure who is holding the hand of Gudea pictured on left

you'll notice a complete lack of serpentine features in the God, you will also notice the heads of his two symbolic animals peeking over his shoulder, how can this be as you claim, both Ningizida the god depicted as a serpent when his two serpents are looking over his shoulders. clearly you got it wrong again because you don't know what youre talking about

heres another picture of Ningizzida

linked-image

again he is fully human and again his symbolic animal is present, this of course would not be possible if he was a dragon, so clearly youre totally wrong, again

:w00t:

Now if Ningihzida is a "dragon" in Sumerian literature, and depicted as a dragon in Akkadian art, then it is logical that the Sumerian percetiption of Ningishzida the dragon, would be similar in both cultures. This is simple logic anyone here can understand.

yes, but as I just showed everyone how flawed your logic is I think we can dispense with your auto erotic dragon fantasies

Furthermore, the Babylonian plaque in the British museum is identical to the type of plaques in which other gods are portrayed. In a way, they were inexpenive idols of deities for the home. This is proof that dragon gods were worshipped in Babylon.

riiiight, so youre saying that a 12 inch babylonian plaque proves that dragons were worshipped by a culture which had vanished by more than 2000 years when it was made, thats pretty weak, you don't have say the evidence of a temple dedicated to them, nope thought not, guess that settles that one then. Fact of the matter is that is dragons were worshipped as Gods in ancient Sumer the evidence would at once be ominpotent and overwhelming, and as you have been unable to provide any at all thats obviously not the case

The whole point of this disuccsion in not quibbling over the specific name used for gods who are identified as dragons,

check it

Sumerians didn't worship the Mushussu

see ya got that wrong too

BUT the fact that various high sumerian gods are identied as dragons by the word Usumgal. Some authorative sources call the Sumerian Usumgal dragon ningishzida a Mushushu when depicted on the Gudea vase. If thi is incorrect and Basmu dragon is more correct, it still doesn't change the fact he is still a dragon in BOTH sumerian and akkadian literature.

And as he is a god that is worshipped and both called a dragon and described as a dragon in his hymns, then I am correct, and "win" this debate.

firstly as I have already proven that the two terms were used at the same time in Akkad, your claim that one is a later version of the other doesnt hold water

secondly lol youd like to win wouldn't you, however to do so you would have to produce at least some credible evidence, as it is all youve submitted so far is your own foaming at the mouth rhetoric and considering the source thats not nearly good enough, as it is I am fast earning the nickname "mr Pwn" for what I am showing everyone here

I don't think anyone, after reading this can honestly refute that these many gods are given the title of a 'great dragon' (Usumgal).

yes and I posted this link earlier to show why that is

linked-image

its a term of praise, thats three times this links been posted which utterly destroys your claim all on its own, will you address it at some point

Most authorities still recognize the term Ushumgal as a kind of "serpent-dragon", abd but the term is NOT limited to Getserpent

All authorities recognise it as a "term of praise", you haven't produced a shred of evidence that states otherwise. Are you going to start producing this evidence you claimed exists at some point or are you going to admit you dont have any and save us all wasting any more time

:tu:

Edited by legionromanes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Appparently you have a reading problem. Your own source clearly states the Usumgal is a serpentine MONSTER and listed in the DRAGON category. Yes it does say it CAN also be a favorable epitaph for a king or God. If you want to contradict your own source and state is is ONLY an epitaph for kings and gods as it certainly seems like you are saying, then you have proven to everyone here you don't know wht you are talking about. Usumgal is clearly a dragon/monster in its own right, such as we see when this term is used to describe Tiamat's monster children. This is why you own source uses the word CAN regarding the gods.

The Sumerians believed the dragon gods could shapeshift into the human form. It is mentioned in various myths as you must know.

Do I believe they can turn into humans? No. Could ancient man believe this if the dragons had human assistants that posed as them while they were away? Of course.

When Ningishzida is shown in a cylinder seal a both a dragon and a human, this is to reinforce the belief in this ability to change his form, just as the myths and hymns state.

Ningishzida is described as a terrible serpent dragon in one of the hymns that was in the last link. He is shown as a serpent dragon on the Gudea vase. He is also called an Usumgal, which your own source states is a dragon/serpentine monster.

So yes, the Sumerians did worhship gods that assumed dragon forms. You lose, and even your own touted sources support what I am saying. If you have so much trouble reading that, maybe a 'third party' here can read the citation and tell you what it means.

Edited by draconic chronicler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Appparently you have a reading problem. Your own source clearly states the Usumgal is a serpentine MONSTER and listed in the DRAGON category.

lol no, it states that the word Usumgal means great dragon, snake, it does not say that it was either a God, or worshipped as such. thanks for clearing that up

Yes it does say it CAN also be a favorable epitaph for a king or God.

do you know why it was used as an epithet DC, do you know the significance of likening someone to a snake, its not to do with appearence its to do with immortality which a snake represented. Snakes represented immortality all over the ancient world, calling someone a great snake just applies doubly so, how can you claim to know anything if you don't know that

Some cultures regarded snakes as immortal because they appeared to be reincarnated from themselves when they sloughed their skins. Snakes were often also associated with immortality because they were observed biting their tails to form a circle and when they coiled they formed spirals. Both circles and spirals were seen as symbols of eternity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakes_in_myt...and_immortality

If you want to contradict your own source and state is is ONLY an epitaph for kings and gods as it certainly seems like you are saying, then you have proven to everyone here you don't know wht you are talking about.

riiight, so professor Jeremy Black doesn't know what hes talking about either then when he said

linked-image

funny isn't it how you need everyone to not know what theyre talking about, none of my qualified experts matches your knowledge according to you, I'm sure they'd be amused to knw that you think only you have it right and that the last 100 years of academic study was a waste of time

:w00t:

Usumgal is clearly a dragon/monster in its own right, such as we see when this term is used to describe Tiamat's monster children. This is why you own source uses the word CAN regarding the gods.

lol it also says "it is". deliberately misinterpret that if you can

The Sumerians believed the dragon gods could shapeshift into the human form. It is mentioned in various myths as you must know.

its not mentioned in any translated text that I have ever read, if it was no doubt you would have posted an extract, I can only presume that as you havent you are now fabricating evidence again, whats that the third time now ?

Do I believe they can turn into humans? No. Could ancient man believe this if the dragons had human assistants that posed as them while they were away? Of course.

ok this is starting to resemble the plot of a straight to video movie now, this again is just your own vivid imagination, unless you have evidence froma credible source you are again just wasting everyones time with your fantasies

When Ningishzida is shown in a cylinder seal a both a dragon and a human, this is to reinforce the belief in this ability to change his form, just as the myths and hymns state.

lol earlier you stated that Ningizzida was always depicted as a dragon,now you are claiming hes also depicted as a human, did you perhaps learn something, now please explain to me how it is that hes depicted as one human yet two dragons, when you can't manufacture anything half convincing perhaps you should look up the term "symbolic animal" or you could just read this again which was written as you know by about the most qualified Sumerologist of modern times

linked-image

Ningishzida is described as a terrible serpent dragon in one of the hymns that was in the last link.

yes as an epithet

the text actually states

Anu as "the father of the gods" is ultimately the father or progenitor as well of _all_ gods some of whom are associated with Serpents, either iconographically as in the case of Ningishzida, or via epithets like ushumgal.

funny that, doesn't say that there are actually any dragon gods, says its an epithet like I have been telling you all along, got hoist by your own petard there didn't you

He is shown as a serpent dragon on the Gudea vase. He is also called an Usumgal, which your own source states is a dragon/serpentine monster.

thats another error on your part, there are two "basmu" dragons on the vase of Gudea. not one, so you are claiming that Nngizzida could transform into two dragons are you

can you hear yourself ?

:w00t:

So yes, the Sumerians did worhship gods that assumed dragon forms.

you have provided no evidene at all that they did so, compared to my overwhelming evidence that they didn't

You lose,

lol funny, reality is sliping away from you isn't it

and even your own touted sources support what I am saying.

right, these are the sources that a little while ago you claimed were wrong and now youre claiming they support you, how far does your delusion go DC,

If you have so much trouble reading that, maybe a 'third party' here can read the citation and tell you what it means.

sure, perhaps you should read the comments on my profile, third parties are already calling my knowledge superior, or the numerous private messages I have received congratulating me on pwning you

once again this is just another example of your inability to understand the truth isn't it, you want dragons to be real so badly you have allowed it to make a mockery of your hypothesis and your ability to reason and in doing so your popularity as a poster here at this site has evaporated

here endeth todays lesson

Edited by legionromanes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

deleted by poster.

I posted to what Ii thought had become an open forum, my apologies.

Edited by Archosaur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hold on here folks...The debate has to be finished before comments from others are brought into the mix. So, Archosaur's input will have to wait until the end of the debate to be addressed. Thanks...proceed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

lol no, it states that the word Usumgal means great dragon, snake, it does not say that it was either a God, or worshipped as such. thanks for clearing that up

DC: Okay you do admit they believed it was a large reptilian monster of some sort, and not just an epithet. Now we are making Progress.

do you know why it was used as an epithet DC, do you know the significance of likening someone to a snake, its not to do with appearence its to do with immortality which a snake represented. Snakes represented immortality all over the ancient world, calling someone a great snake just applies doubly so, how can you claim to know anything if you don't know that

DC: While epitthet's like "strong as a bull" are used in hymns, they clearly state that the gods ARE these dragons, and even give PHYSICAL DESCRIPTIONS of their physical appearance, as anyone can read.

riiight, so professor Jeremy Black doesn't know what hes talking about either then when he said

funny isn't it how you need everyone to not know what theyre talking about, none of my qualified experts matches your knowledge according to you, I'm sure they'd be amused to knw that you think only you have it right and that the last 100 years of academic study was a waste of time

DC: NO, the QUALIFIED EXPERTS Like Black support what I am saying, just like the expert used in the British Museum to correctly identify the dragon idol in their collection as a probable God. Other tablets like this do depict Humanoid Gods as well, and these were all household idols. You just know nothing about the archaeology, unlike the British Museum experts who in fact cited your own sources!

lol it also says "it is". deliberately misinterpret that if you can

DC Usumgal is listed in the dragon category, I agree.

its not mentioned in any translated text that I have ever read, if it was no doubt you would have posted an extract, I can only presume that as you havent you are now fabricating evidence again, whats that the third time now ?

DC I believe just about everyone translates Usumgal as dragon or serpent dragon. So doesn't your quoted source. It DOES NOT say this word was only an epithet, but CAN be one. If a hymn say "like a dragon" it would be an ephitet, but many hymns physically describe these gods as dragons and to remove all doubt they are DEPICTED in art as Dragons. It is no different than the Chines emyths of dragons who can change to the form of men, probably so they can intermingle with humans and not seem terrifying to them.

ok this is starting to resemble the plot of a straight to video movie now, this again is just your own vivid imagination, unless you have evidence froma credible source you are again just wasting everyones time with your fantasies

lol earlier you stated that Ningizzida was always depicted as a dragon,now you are claiming hes also depicted as a human, did you perhaps learn something, now please explain to me how it is that hes depicted as one human yet two dragons, when you can't manufacture anything half convincing perhaps you should look up the term "symbolic animal" or you could just read this again which was written as you know by about the most qualified Sumerologist of modern times

DC I don't believe I ever said Ningishzida was ONLY depicted as a dragon, pleas show me where I did. And in Nigishzida's case his physical appearance is even described as a dragon with claws and a serpent like heads. Therefore this is not an Ephitet but a physical description in his dragon form.

yes as an epithet

the text actually states

funny that, doesn't say that there are actually any dragon gods, says its an epithet like I have been telling you all along, got hoist by your own petard there didn't you

thats another error on your part, there are two "basmu" dragons on the vase of Gudea. not one, so you are claiming that Nngizzida could transform into two dragons are you

DC Unlike you, I am actually familiar with the Sumerian culture and legends. What the vase depicts is the famous event in the legend of Adape and the Southwind in which Ningishzida and Damuzi (another shapeshifting dragon who actually cahnges in a story) are guardians of the gates of heaven. This is why the great doors that they clutch have the symbol of a serpent on them (yes, you are right about that). Ningishzida is the gatekeeper of the underworld in another story about Inanna as well, where she actually calls him a dragon. The link I posted previously has all of these Sumerian stories.

you have provided no evidene at all that they did so, compared to my overwhelming evidence that they didn't

DC :You have provided NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that has contradicted my statement that there were Sumerian Gods that were believed could take the shape of dragons, except perhaps, one of your "school teachers" agrees with you.

On the contrary, there are dozens of original sumerian hymns on the link I provided that describe the various Gods as dragons. This is why the exteemed British museum stated the dragon idol was believed to represent a God. Now as for MY evidence, in addition to ALL the sumerian hymns that describe various gods as dragons here is a long list of esteemed scholars who have cited in their books and papers as to which of the many near eastern gods that could become dragons was the "walking talking, dragon (who has his legs taken away as punishement), in the Biblical eden story in which a fantastic reptilian creature (which most of these authorities believe was originally a Mesopotamian dragon god reduced to a mere talking animal in the Hebrew version.

This is taken from the same Bibleorigins link I have provided before, but since your fans are impressed with your "cut and paste antics" here is a long list of scholars you can try to refute. I think you and your school teacher are wrong, in light of the evidence. The only reason there is a serpent (dragon) in the garden of Eden story is because it was an earlier Mesopotamian DRAGON GOD, and NOT an Epithat for a god.

G. Smith:................................Tiamat, a female dragon personifying the salty sea (1876)

J. W. Reynolds:.......................Tiamat "the dragon of the sea" (1878)

W. H. Ward:............................Tiamat, with great reservation (1881)

A. H. Sayce:...........................Nina, daughter of Ea of Eridu (1887)

P. C. A. Jensen: .....................Gilgamesh Serpent possibly behind Eden's Serpent (1890)

Alice Bodington:......................Tiamat, "the dragon of the sea" is behind Eden's Serpent (1893)

W. S. C. Boscawen:................Tiamat's ability to talk and cast spells explains Eve's being beguiled by Eden's Serpent (1895)

M. Jastrow:.............................Enkidu's sexual passion might be "the Serpent" (1898)

J. Skinner:..............................Ea of Eridu (1910)

S. H. Langdon.........................The Sumerian mother-goddess Ninhursag (1915)

J. G. Frazer:...........................The Gilgamesh Serpent (1926)

R. Graves and R. Patai:............Ea of Eridu (1963)

P. R. Davies & J. Rogerson:.....The Gilgamesh Serpent (1989)

B. F. Batto:.............................The Gilgamesh Serpent (1992)

R. J. Clifford:............................The Gilgamesh Serpent (1992)

M. Rice:..................................The Gilgamesh Serpent (1994)

S. A. Nigosian:........................The Gilgamesh Serpent (2004)

Scholars identifying parallels between TWO MESOPOTAMIAN PROTAGONISTS and Eden's Serpent:

A. S. Palmer.....................Tiamat and Ea (1897)

H. Zimmern.......................Anu and Ea of the Adapa and the South Wind Myth and Tiamat (1901)

S. H. Langdon:..................Ningishzida and Dumuzi (1931)

J. Campbell:.................... Enki (1959) and Ningishzida (1964)

T. Ziolkowski:....................The Gilgamesh Serpent and Shamhat's statement to Enkidu: "...you are wise..."(2000)

Scholars identifying MORE THAN TWO MESOPOTAMIAN PROTAGONISTS as behind Eden's Serpent:

W. R. Mattfeld:.................(1) Anu/An; (2) Dumuzi/Tammuz; (3) Ningishzida/Gishzida; (4) Ea/Enki; (5) Enlil/Ellil;

(6) Marduk/Merodach; (7) Inanna/Ishtar; (8) Nergal as the equivalent of Satan "ruler" of Hellcneserpents md I.

lol funny, reality is sliping away from you isn't it

right, these are the sources that a little while ago you claimed were wrong and now youre claiming they support you, how far does your delusion go DC,

sure, perhaps you should read the comments on my profile, third parties are already calling my knowledge superior, or the numerous private messages I have received congratulating me on pwning you

once again this is just another example of your inability to understand the truth isn't it, you want dragons to be real so badly you have allowed it to make a mockery of your hypothesis and your ability to reason and in doing so your popularity as a poster here at this site has evaporated

here endeth todays lesson

DC If your fans think you are right, then they are as ignorant as you on this subject. You have made no case at all. You have merely cut and pasted stuff that says the same thing that I am saying. If anyone is delusional here it is you.

Edited by draconic chronicler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Legionrames is no longer a member and cannot participate i'll close this one down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.