Edge Rewrite
Jump to content

Talk:Mesopotamia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 4 months ago by Nihilianth in topic "Science and Technology"

Mesopotamian Government: Akkad fell to Gutians?

[edit]

I could be wrong, but wasn't it the Gutians, not the Babylonians who conquered the Akkadian empire? There should be some mention of Lugal-zage-si too, as he was the one who fell to Sargon. To imply that Eannatum and his descendants were the last Sumerian rulers before the Akkadians is false. Lugal-zage-si was even from Umma, Lagash's main rival.

Sumer is the proper term for the region, not Sumeria, correct?

Factual error in section 9.1: Kings

[edit]

The section states that "The Mesopotamians believed their kings and queens were descended from the City of Gods, but, unlike the ancient Egyptians, they never believed their kings were real gods."

This is a significant misquoting of the source, which actually says, "The Mesopotamian people believed that their kings and queens were descendants from the city gods [emphasis added], but the people never believed–as did the Egyptians–that their rulers were divine gods." The full text of the cited source can be found here.

There was no "City of Gods" in Mesopotamian mythology. Rather, the ancient Mesopotamians generally believed that a king was descended from his city's patron god. For example, a Babylonian king would have been regarded as a descendant of that city's patron god, Marduk, while the king of Ur would have been seen as Nanna's descendant, and so on.

I have no expertise with Wikipedia editing, so I hope that someone in a position to do so will correct this factual error. Thanks!  Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:a601:a38f:3300:9d36:118c:30f7:6b99 (talk) 10:59, September 9, 2021 (UTC)

Sumerian King List has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

"Science and Technology"

[edit]

Under the "Technology" subsection of "Science and Technology," the final sentence reads:

"Later, during the Parthian or Sasanian periods, the Baghdad Battery, which may have been the world's first battery, was created in Mesopotamia."

This is dubious at best. While it's fine to use the term "Baghdad Battery" when talking about the specific archeological object itself, the wording that says "which may have been the world's first battery" should probably be eliminated. This claim is soundly rejected by pretty much the entire scientific AND archeological community.

I don't want to make the change myself, as I lack credibility. I was thinking of adding in a [dubious] tag or something, but I don't really know how to do that, and I am too busy to figure it out. I'd rather someone more experienced and knowledgeable of the Wiki community rules to make this change. I typically only focus on editing grammar and spelling mistakes on wiki pages, not on substantive claims and citing sources. But I am pretty damn sure that wording either needs to be struck out altogether or changed in some manner to be more accurate. Nihilianth (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2026 (UTC)Reply