Talk:Debate between sheep and grain

statement sourced to Sarah Roth Lieberman

I've deleted the sentence starting "arah Roth Lieberman has noted the paralells and variations between the story and the later one of Cain and Abel " - I don't think this 1975 PhD dissertation is an adequate reference and lacks significance as I can't find it picked up elsewhere, nor does the author seem to have built on it or published it. Before restoring it the question of whether this is a source of reliability and weight enough to be used in the article, and the context and accuracy of the claim. I can find [1] but that's all. Paul, have you actually read her PhD? She seems to be lecturing in adult education (lifetime learning). Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, seems i might have to create the Debate between Summer and Winter to raise this point. [2]. However it seems very much like Eve Wood-Langford has possibly got the wrong name on the tale she is discussing. It's very similar to this one. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 11:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Scratch that cos Kramer's mentioned it in relation to this myth.Samuel Noah Kramer (1961). Sumerian mythology: a study of spiritual and literary achievement in the third millennium B.C. Forgotten Books. pp. 78–. ISBN 9781605060491. Retrieved 26 May 2011. Which is a good job as the parallels are so obvious. I'm presuming you'll have no problems with that source. Summer and Winter's a good idea though! It also originates from George Aaron Barton's translations, "Hymn to Ibi-sin" mentioning that hursag word in those epics we don't talk about anymore ;-) Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 11:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

people watching TV

As of now we've got a picture of a sheep and a picture of some grain ... as if readers didn't know what they look like. Should it even be sheep, or should it be a cow, or even a goat ... ? It reminds me of the TV news when they don't actually have a picture of the specific incident so they show something vaguely connected. Can't we find something more pertinent? If not, couldn't we just get by without? JIMp _talk·cont 00:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Firstly, thanks for your contributions. You raise a good point about Anno Domini, someone changed that on me and I wondered what crazy "merge BC" discussion must have taken place to get to that state of affairs. Perhaps Wikipedia doesn't want people to think our history extended further back than 2000 years! Second, I see your point about the images, but the Wikifairy in me considers images that represent the disputants pertinent to the article, look pretty and fit with the fable-like debates where 2 images feature on the other articles in the series. Plus, Wiki is modern media and licensed to use the same tricks as TV news to attract the interest humankind's earliest creation myths need, like the 12,800 hits the article took yesterday due to a cute looking sheepie on the homepage. Although the myth involves various animals and it has been noted that the older name of it, "cattle" is interchangeable with "sheep", a good body of academia referred to it as the Debate between ewe and grain and the majority of recent work calls it a sheep.

I'd support a change to an image of the actual cuneiform tablet itself from Penn museum or a suitable Sumerian stela involving farming, but neither are available on Commons at the current time. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 12:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

They are pretty ... could we get a sheep in boxing gloves punching at some wheat? Yeah, the actual tablets would be good. JIMp _talk·cont 17:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Babylonian Garden of Eden

This needs clarifying somewhere, as I doubt the average reader would understand what it means. It links to Garden of Eden which is not the 'Babylonian Garden of Eden', and our Garden of Eden article doesn't clarify it. Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be almost a century since scholars mentioned this. It appears to be an obsolete concept, but I may be missing something. The only serious current mention seems to be here [3] where it's linked to the speculation of 19th century Assyriologists. I'm not counting Lieberman's PhD here. Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Doug! I was getting a little bored with nothing to discuss with you for so long, so thanks for raising this. The Assyriologist group of thought about this last century seems to have been led by Friedrich Delitzsch who introduced the suggestion of Dilmun as Bahrain in "Wo lag das Paradies?" ,[4] creating numerous branches of discussion and speculation that Edward Chiera was party to and continue to this day. I like Isaac Asimov's discussion on the subject as he suggests the Sumerians came from (Anti-Lebanon?) mountains to the northeast and referred to the plain they came to at Eridu as Edin (steppe) (this is well documented, even to present day also), he gives a good explanation here.[5] You're correct in many ways as the Babylonians didn't call it the Garden of Eden, they refer to a Garden of the gods (Sumerian mythology), which is along the lines I'd want to unravel the confusion. Alessandro Scafi also gives the concept a once-over in 2006, calling it the Babylonian Garden of Eden in a chapter on Babylonian Paradise here.[6] Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 15:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Paul, I saw the Scafi snippet when I wrote the above and I can't tell from that what he is saying. How can you? What he does do is discusses Sayce's arguments for a Babylonian Garden of Eden, and Dielitzch's ideas and map, but this is a purely historical discussion and he makes no suggestion that I can see (Amazon) that it is anything but an obsolete concept. There are very few times when we can use snippets as sources. Dougweller (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I can see a chapter on Babylonian Paradise, and I can see he mentions the term "Babylonian Garden of Eden" in it, so I can see it's a current concept there. I take your point and try only to use snippets in exceptional circumstance, And if we are going to discuss the core of the argument, I'll have to quote the old "notability is not temporal" rule at you, Chiera is perfectly notable, 1924 is not that long ago and just because the concept hasn't been rehashed much since then doesn't mean it isn't notable. I'll admit, you have inspired me to go dig away at the core of the issue, which is that, apart from naming parts of temple complexes after some of the terms, Sumerians and Babylonians had a concept of a mythological (in my view historical) "garden of the gods", "netherworld", "assembly of the gods", where the Enamtila in the Ekur was their paradise and Kur across the Hubur was their Abzu or Hell. I will go do some research on this and let you know who is discussing it in what detail. ([7] - A.R. Millard comparing the setting of Atrahasis with Genesis. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

He is 'currently' discussing a 19th century concept. There is no evidence that anyone holds this concept today and although as a historical note it's fine we need to both clarify it and make it clear somehow that it is not a contemporary concept. And 1924 is a long time ago. Dougweller (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, ok, but I just spent 2 seconds searching to find the "Sumerian Paradise" well covered by Samuel Noah Kramer in 1963,[8] in terms of Dilmun or Garden of the gods. I've no objection if you want to change "of Eden" to "of the gods" in this context. I am going to make a page about the Garden of the gods that's not in Colorado in revenge though ;-) Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The garden of the gods idea is pure genius. Could never have come up with it on my own. I have found one 1998 source suggesting the Sumerian paradise or Dilmun was the inspiration for the Garden of Eden (not that it was called Eden).[9] The source looks a fairly reliable representation of current ideas. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to be rude about him, but if you can't do better than an "Adjunct Professor of Philosophy and Religion at Valencia Community College" don't you think there's a problem? I think it is a good idea to change to 'of the gods' as that at least is more meaningful to the average reader. There may be something in the Sumerian paradise-Eden relationship (and I think I've read something better about it than Conklin) but that's probably for another article. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Try the scribe of the Kesh temple hymn on for size. Possibly before the Instructions of Shuruppak and the first person to write anything, (c. 100 years before the Barton cylinder) opens mankinds first literature in with: "The princely lord came forth royally from the house. Enlil lifted his glance over all the lands, and the lands raised themselves to Enlil. The four corners of heaven became green for Enlil like a garden."[10] I don't think they had Adjunct Professorships back in 2600 BC, but I suspect he had a vaguely similar qualification to support his notable claim that someone called Enlil had a garden. Seriously, along with hordes of Kramer quoters, this one is quite good too.[11], some interesting discussion on the tree of life parallels here.[12] I think the core concept we've hit on here though is that Delitzch's interpretation doesn't always fit as Bahrain when theres mountains and cedar forests in the landscape. A few clever bods have thought around this and at least made the alternative notable about Mount Mashu being more in the general direction the neolithic revolution came from. Laurence Waddell made the suggestion of the expansion to another "garden" in the Indus Valley quite plausible too, but I expect you'll slap me if I use him (he has got a good biography out though).[13] Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I think there's a good case for a Garden of the gods (Sumerian paradise) article. I don't think I'll go for it though until I've created a few more myth articles about the setting such as Song of the hoe and the sequel to this one; the Debate between plough and hoe, Kramer's paradise myth [14] along with Langdons, which Kramer probably took from. The some of the earliest basalt hoes I've noted were at Kaukaba Station 5km west of Rashaya. They didn't find Enlil's lapis lazuli one yet though. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Been doing some research and think the concept needs to include the following theories to remain unbiased 1) Dilmum/Bahrain as paradise theory with addendum about Kramer's suggestion of Dulmun as the Indus Valley 2) Nippur as paradise theory, possibly Eridu and Ur mentioned too 3) Mount Hermon as Mount Mashu as the cedar Ki Mountain. Then explain the dual concepts of belief in layered and/or historical reallity. Still lots of work to do and I really should make at least one of the Enki and Ninhursag myths to show their importance, even if they include later generation confusion factors. Let me know if there's any notable theories or parts I've missed. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 03:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi I'm not an expert in this at all, and while I appreciate the clarification over the garden of eden, I don't think it belongs in the story part of this article. The entire bulk of the story subheading is like, two lines regarding the contents of the story, and a dozen talking about what the garden of eden is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.131.240.240 (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

After considerable discussion Paul Bedson was given an indefinite block for disruptive content including a variety of things - misuse of sources, fringe pushing, etc. I'll take a look at the article. 22:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

Use of Images

The images on this page were recently deleted by an editor who considered them in his POV silly. I would argue that they are appropriate illustrations which are encouraged in articles and in the title of this one. They also fit with the series of Sumerian disputations that I hope to develop further oneday, possibly with images of copper and silver, etc. I have therefore replaced the images and thought I would open the discussion here for others consideration.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Paul, I agree that they look silly. We wouldn't even need wikilinks for sheep, although maybe grain. Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh Doug, you're such a spoilsport. ;-) Anyone else think they look cute and want them to stay? Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I don't think the images have any place in this article. They clutter it and make it less readable and add nothing to a reader's understanding. "Cute" isn't a reason to use images. --Daniel 02:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, the Wiki-fairy in me is defeated. I've removed the images. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 08:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Lede

The lede doesn't really do an adequate job of explaining the basic premise of the "debate", or how the debate constitutes a creation myth. For the basic question of what it all means, the article now seems to rest solely on the three quotes at bottom, which is a bit WP:PRIMARY. Q·L·1968 ☿ 20:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)