Talk:Gutian dynasty of Sumer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ancient Near East (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Most famous of the Gutian kings is Gudea, a famous builder of temples and irrigation canals. — no he isn't. Or if he was, his article doesn't say so, nor is he mentioned in the King list. Please provide evidence. dab () 08:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gudea was not a Gutian king[edit]

Not true : Gudea was not a Gutian king (he is not in the Gutian kings list).
Gudea was king of Lagash who ruled ca. 2144 - 2124 BC.
His city was small, independant and was not ruled by the Gutians.
He was a small king of a small town, not a high-king or "lugal".

There is no evidence that Gudea was not a Gutian. Indeed his name is a strong indication that he was Gutian at least by lineage. Blimet 07:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

History needed[edit]

I felt that this article really needed a history section, so I wrote one for it. I'd be pleased if anyone added anything else which they thought was missing from the section.--Moosh88 05:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

yes, but specify the chronology you are using. Is it middle chronology? Note that we use short chronology in the intro! dab () 08:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The chronology that I used was short. In my and most scholars' opinions it is better for various reasons.

I agree, but you need to state it in every article, so other editors will know you know what you are doing. Many people indiscriminately mix chronologies from different sources, and this is very difficult to trace. dab () 3 July 2005 13:22 (UTC)


I suggest to change the title of the article into Gutis. Gutian peiod is a small period of Gutians History. Blimet 08:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

At the moment the article is at Gutian dynasty of Sumer, but I think it should reside at Gutium with the text currently there merged in with this one. There's little enough on Gutium as a whole, let alone enough info for just the dynasty to warrant a separate article. Til Eulenspiegel 22:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

what are those nationalist stuff doing here ??[edit]

I read many stuff here without any scientifical proof. Like the stuff about Kurds and nationalism.

I dont think it is nationalistic, maybe the topic is but not its wording. Enlil Ninlil 04:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, there is NOT A SINGLE scientific proof that Gutians were indoeuropeans. | Acctually there are many proofs of that, go read some books.
From Dusan Vukotic in the newsgroups :

"Honigman derives the name 'Kurd' from the word 'Guti'"

This is ridiculous! It is impossible to derive the name Kurdi from the

word Guti. It might have happened contrariwise - Guti from Kurdi. It sounds more logical to associate the name of Hurrians (Hurrites) with the name of the modern Kurds.

Its not ridiculous. The "gutis" may have been called guti while they infact were Kurdi. Kurds are even today called akrad by arabs, kürt by turks and goor/koord by persians.

Peter T. Daniels about the king list :

In the above list are names that are obviously Sumerian, others that are obviously Akkadian, and others that don't offhand look like anything familiar (not that I'm familiar with other ANE languages).

Political stuff about aryans should be removed from here. Saggiga

Some edits, Nov 18 2006[edit]

I have made a few changes. I have capitalized ethnic and language names whether nouns or adjectives, as this is the norm in English. I wrote "Indo-European" in the form used in its own article, and added links to it and to "Kurdish" and "Tocharian".

I have added the word "linguistically" to the phrase on "related", to emphasize that the point here is relations of languages. "Related" in some other, perhaps genetic, sense would be meaningless under such simplistic terms when relating groups spread out over thousands of years in this mixed and turbulent region.

I changed "were long gone" to "would be long gone" to make it clearer that it is a custom, and "by the time" to better evoke the situation.

I changed "Guti's", which would mean "of a single Guti", to Guti, one of two interchangeable plurals used in the article. (The other is "Gutians"-- I suggest being systematic in the use of these two terms--what's the difference?)

The paragraph on the relations of the words "Guti", "Kurd", and "Hurrian" is garbled. On what basis do you call an association of words "impossible"? And if it is impossible, how does changing the direction of change make it likely? And why are you arguing against a claim that you don't cite? The phrase "it sounds more logical" is far too subjective. For now I have changed "logical" (truth derived from premises) to "plausible", (an evaluation of possible reality), and tried to soften the opinion language. Likewise on the evaluation of an opinion as "nationalistic". I assume more tweaking would be good here.

Patience please, I am a newbie, Sukkoth 11:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

you are perfectly right, the "Langauges" section was indeed completely garbled and unsourced. That's the sort of thing confused people add to Wikipedia, and it is best to just remove, per WP:CITE, WP:RS. If people want to make statements about the Guti language, they are welcome to cite their sources. dab () 12:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Changed Sumerian to Akkadian[edit]

According to the page on Lugal-Zage-Si, he was the last Sag-giga ('black-headed' or 'Sumerian') king. It was the Akkadians under Sargon the Great that defeated the Sag-giga ruler and were in turn defeated some 120 years later by the Gutians. The Gutians did not defeat the Sumerians when they destroyed Akkad, they defeated the Akkadians. The third paragraph read "Sumerian King Melem of Unug ..." I have corrected this to "Akkadian King Melem of Unug ...". Gabrieli 13:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


Can we please get a decent amount of sources here? ancient articles that are important cannot be filled in with crap. --Nimrud 07:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree and I have just added some more sources. Til Eulenspiegel 22:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Transfer of info[edit]

Having contributed to parts of both articles, I have for a long time noticed that some of the info here at Gutian dynasty of Sumer would better belong at Gutian people / Gutium, and vice versa. I intend to try to straighten out the two articles, by transferring some info from one to the other, without losing any. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)