Jump to content

Talk:Mesopotamia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 206.207.175.159 (talk) at 20:40, 23 September 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WP1.0

King Nebuchadnezzar

I need help finding what laws/rules he made. Can you help me someone????? It is for a school project. I also need to find what laws/rules that King sargon I made? HELP!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.204.108 (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC) he made the laws that said no one was allowed to kill themselves —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.191.50 (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Iraq

An interesting question is why some histories of the Ancient Near East talk about the Babylonians, Sumerians etc. as being in Mesopotamia, they baulk at using the modern term Iraq? But Mesopotamia is a Greek term, it was only applied to the region long after some of these civilizations. Also nobody baulks at talking about the history of ancient Egypt, Greece etc. even referring to periods long before these terms were applied to these countries. PatGallacher 02:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I ? ................................................................................................

Okay, but Egypt is also a Greek term (the Egyptian word is Kemet) and the Greek name for Greece is actually Hellas. We use terms like Egypt, Greece and Mesopotamia, not because we're racist, but because we've been doing so for hundreds if not thousands of year. Changing them leads to resistance because long standing traditions are not easily overthrown. ath —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.45.144 (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why people baulk at using a term like "Ancient Iraq" is because it's misleading. Firstly, from a geographic perspective it implies that Mesopotamia somehow corresponded geographically to modern-day Iraq, when this patently isn't the case. I've already raised this issue below because this article is presently perpetuating this myth, but Iraq's present day borders were drawn up by British civil servants in the 20th century. There's more than a touch of irony about someone claiming that denying modern day Iraq's heritage is some sort of western-imperialist brand of racism, when the borders of Iraq itself (and the heterogeneous people we have consequently shoved together under the label of "Iraqis") owe their modern identity to western civil servants.
Secondly, there was no such thing as a homogeneous race of "Mesopotamians" who correspond in any way with the people we refer to as "Iraqis" today. The Assyrians and Babylonians were a semitic people, whilst the Sumerians spoke a language that was completely unrelated in its origins. Implying that a race of Mesopotamians gradually evolved into the Iraqis of today is therefore completely misleading. Neither are modern day Iraqis a homogeneous race of people either. To try and claim that somehow the descendants of Semitic peoples (Assyrians and Babylonians), the linguistically unique Sumerians, Indo-Europeans (Kurds), Arabs and the other peoples who presently occupy Iraq are somehow one group descended from a non-existent race termed "Mesopotamians" is an exercise in confusion.
The only grounds for calling Mesopotamia "Ancient Iraq" are linguistic ones. Trying to make the above argument about modern-day Iraqis all sharing a Mesopotamian heritage is just a piece of nonsense. Blankfrackis (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, I could write a large response and critique all the errors you just made, but that would be time consuming and pointless, so here's something very short instead.

Todays Iraqis should be known as Mesopotamians, in the same way as Iranians are known as Persians, Ancient Iraq is Modern Iraq's history and heritage, and if you are not convinced of this, cest la vie, after all more than half of the human race worships their imagination so what does it matter? Iraq - Over 8000 Years of History.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.210.78 (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no parallel with the example of Persians and Iranians. The Persians were a distinct ethnic group with a common language, culture and history. In contrast there was no "Mesopotamian" ethnicity and no common Mesopotamian language or culture, far less one which is the heritage of present day Iraqis - the vast majority of whom speak Arabic and Kurdish, not Akkadian or Sumerian or descendants of these languages. Not that we refer to Iranians as ethnically Persian in the west in any case, we refer to the ethnic group of Persians as distinct from Iranians as is illustrated here -Iran naming dispute.
Incidentally, there would be nothing pointless about you taking issue with the points raised above - that's what this page is for - and I'd encourage you to voice your opinions. Blankfrackis (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If modern day Iraqis didn't descend from Mesopotamian peoples, who did? Someone must carry the genes of these ethnicities, unless they were all victims of a holocaust that no one has ever heard of. So Blankfrackis, if modern day Iraqis aren't descendants of ancient Mesopotamian peoples, what modern day people would be your best guess? These ancient bloodlines must have gone somewhere. What on earth would make their genes travel further than the land between the two rivers? So be my guest, holocaust or migration? I think we should stick to the consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.157.214 (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Largely Corresponding to Iraq

As far as I'm aware, Mesopotamia only referred to land between the Tigris and Euphrates. Whilst this is contained within modern day Iraq, it doesn't correspond to Iraq's modern day borders in any meaningful sense. The borders of modern day Iraq were drawn up by British officials in the twentieth century and don't reflect historical boundaries. Does anyone have any extra information on this? I would say it's a little misleading the way this sentence is worded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.159.248.44 (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, it's a common misconception that the state of Iraq is the historical descendant of Mesopotamia. There's a great deal of confusion about this subject and this article at present simply contributes to it. On another point, I think that describing Mesopotamia as a "cradle of civilization" is a little misleading. Mesopotamia was just a geographical term and we should describe it first in geographic terms before stating that some scholars have argued that it constitutes a cradle of civilization.
Describing Mesopotamia as "a cradle of civilization" is like describing Bethlehem as "the birthplace of Jesus Christ" rather than as a city. I would advocate rewording the introductory sentence as follows -
"Mesopotamia was an ancient geographic term for an area of land located between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers: now largely contained within the borders of modern-day Iraq. It has been identified by some scholars as a cradle of civilization." Blankfrackis 20:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

earliest written work in the world???

Writings from Mesopotamia (Uruk, modern Warka) are the earliest written work in the world, giving :Mesopotamia the reputation of being the "Cradle of Civilization".

Is this true? Ilya K 18:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- - - - -

The issue of the earliest development and earliest people of writing is cool. I have read differing accounts; most agree that the Sumerians/Akkadians began developing writing either earlier than or simultaneous with other ancient civilizations. The most consistent account I come across is that Egypt and Mesopotamia began developing writing at about the same time.

However, it is quite difficult to chart the actual development of writing in Mesopotamia because the earliest examples of writing found often do not show a clear progression that can be studied. Another interesting thing to note is that many of the earliest documents we have survived by mistake. Ancient Mesopotamians would write on clay, but for quite some time they did not bake it; instead, they would leave it wet so that they could erase and begin again. Baking clay tablets was a later development, but we do have some extant copies of early documents that baked accidentally when a house or village burned down.

Mesopotamia is called the Cradle of Civilization for many reasons. Besides writing (c. 3500-3200 BCE), very early on Mesopotamians engineered elaborate irrigation techniques (8000-2500 BCE), invented the wheel (4000-3000 BCE), learned to exploit food surpluses and other agricultural inventions, and established distant trade routes to import goods. In the third millennium, rulers of Mesopotamia were already amassing fortunes to build elaborate public works including huge temple complexes (including the famous ziggurats) and palaces.

These dates are, of course, open to interpretation.

--KTN all the idiouts read this

reality of Mesopotamia

Mesopotamia starts from south-east of Turkey and goes down to syria and iraq. It is not a specific place where kurdish people live. Most of kurdish live in area where it is currently Iran. There are many other nations that live in Mesopotamia.

Please unlink this article from any kurdish or terrorist links. Mesopotamia is never a kurdish area.

Mesopotamia is the region which Kurds do live and lived for over 5000 years. 87.194.65.125 19:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not correct, Assyrians have been living 6757 years after the fall of the Assyrian empire til this day. Assyrians are the Indegenous people of Mesopotamia along with the Ancient Akkadians (Ancestors of the Assyrians), Sumerians, Babylonians & also Arameans (in which had intermarried with Assyrians & Babylonians)ILLeSt 15:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is so correct. Mesopotamia has always been characterised by ethnic diversity. Kurdish people have been living in the area since pre-historic times, and are thought to have developed from an Iranian admixture over a Hurro-Urartuan population. These people, as Subartu, havebeen dwelling in northern Mesopotamia since before the Sumerian period. It is thought the Halaf culture (5,500 BCE) may have been Hurrian speaking. John D. Croft 07:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Also in the rivers, Tigris and Euphrates there are a few other powerful civilizations such as Assyrians and Sumerians which are part of Kurdistan.

Can anyone explain this sentence for me? Are there powerful civilizations in the rivers? Assyrians and Sumerians part of Kurdistan? --Bjarki 21:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have gone now Earthlyreason (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mitanni

I take exception to this statement: "The Mitanni were an eastern Indo-European people (belonging to the linguistic "satem" group)". Most certainly not.

Having said this, a chariot-using Indo-Aryan group seems to have imposed itself on the Mitanni, leaving scant linguistic remnants in otherwise non-IE documents, and in particular a famous horse-care manual, but the Mitanni themselves were not IE speaking. --FourthAve 18:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  Origin of name

I understood it that the name means "between two rivers" in Greek. Is it possible that this name is simply an indigenous development to Greek? I once visited a village on the island of Naxos in Greece called "Mesapotamia" or something like that, which was between two rivers.

An interesting question is why some histories of the Ancient Near East talk about the Babylonians, Sumerians etc. as being in Mesopotamia, they baulk at using the modern term Iraq? But Mesopotamia is a Greek term, it was only applied to the region long after some of these civilizations. Also nobody baulks at talking about the history of ancient Egypt, Greece etc. even referring to periods long before these terms were applied to these countries. PatGallacher 02:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


- - - - - -

In answer to your questions, Mesopotamia is indeed a Greek term. No such name was ever used by the various peoples of Mesopotamia themselves. Many simply called it "The Land."

Additionally, I do not find it odd that Assyriologists resist using the term Iraq to designate Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia is not confined to Iraq; it also encompassed, at varying times, parts of Iran and Syria. Also, the different peoples of Mesopotamia you mentioned usually lived in specific parts of the region. The Sumerians, for instance, lived in the south, and it would be therefore somewhat incorrect to speak of the entirety of Iraq as their home. Traditionally, as far as I see it, many scholars use the term 'Near East' to refer to Mesopotamia, the Levant, and parts of Iran; scholars will name specific kingdoms or parts of the Near East to talk about certain peoples. This simply allows them to be more specific. --KTN

meso

with the exeption of religous ceromonies when did they play music? also i do not see any imformation on family and kin!!! please can anyone help!--209.129.228.126 21:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC) 22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.209.57 (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old Persian word Miyanrudan

Mesopotamia (Greek: Μεσοποταμία, translated from Old Persian Miyanrudan "the fertile cresent"; Aramaic name being Beth-Nahrain "House of Two Rivers") Miyanrudan seems to mean "between rivers i.e Miyan(between)+rud(river)+an(plural sign). Can we check the sources which translate this word as "the fertile cresent" , I feel sure thats not the literal meaning of the word.Pasha 19:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I checked some sources and found that Miyanrudan actually means what I suggested above "between rivers" which is understood as "a land between rivers".Pasha 12:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Improvement drive

A related topic, History of the world is currently a nomination on WP:IDRIVE. Support the article with your vote to improve its quality. --Fenice 14:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia naming conventions

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates): "For years BC, the format is "<year number> BC", for example 44 BC." --JFK 08:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed needs copy edit and wikify tags! Need references now!

cleanup

this article requires some serious work, and a plan. It just won't do to list the value of a shekel in various units, or individual laws of Hammurabi on an overview article on Mesopotamia. Write flowing, coherent summary paragraphs of the various sub-articles, and weed out all the flotsam that appears to have accreted here. dab () 16:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agreed. I'll work on it as much as possible, or, if others are interested, we could do a complete rewrite. -b 06:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merge

Dbachmann has proposed that History of Ancient Mesopotamia be merged into Mesopotamia. I have corrected the merge tags as the editor had only tagged the History of Ancient Mesopotamia page. I have no strong thoughts on this proposal, but I would like to point out that, based on the current article sizes, the resulting article will be close to or slightly exceed the recommended article size limit. Road Wizard 17:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger. The Mesopotamia article could do with some expansion in several sections, while the History of Ancient Mesopotamia article could as well, but mainly, would suffer greatly if downsized. A merger makes no sense, based on article size. Wikipedia has is fair share History of articles. I can't see a reason to get rid of it. *shrug* -b 06:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger. Articles that try to cover too much become long and overly complicated to read. Basically I like the Mesopotamia article. Although it could benefit from some expansion and clarification, it is a good summary article. Mattisse 10:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the point is that as the ToC was organized, the 'history' article is the "main" article of about 90% of this article. That doesn't make sense. Maybe change "history" to "timeline", and make this one the "ancient Mesopotamia" article. dab () 11:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right. I am just learning about Mesopotamia through reading these articles and I found this article the most helpful (to me) of the ones I have come across so far. I have not read all of them but some are almost incomprehensible to an uninformed person. Mattisse 12:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map

We need a better map for this article. The current one doesn't even include Eridu. JDG 19:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eridu is seven miles from Ur. There is only so much detail you can cram into a thumbnail overview map. But you are welcome to fire up the GIMP, of course. dab () 11:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A map of Mesopotamia with the current political boundaries would be beneficial in giving people a better understanding of its location. Mikemill 01:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

Can this article be extended with a list of well-known standard works on Mesopotamia and its history? Would be nice, thanks

Law examples

On this page (under "Laws") there were about 30 examples of laws from the Code of Hammurabi. I have moved them to the article Code of Hammurabi, since I think that is their proper place. I really think that article should contain the entire set of laws (since it is not so big), and I will probably make an effort to do this (but not right now). If someone else feel the urge, it would be greatly appreciated. The entire set can be found here:

My regards, Dennis Nilsson. --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 11:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enlil

Under the section on Mesopotamian gods, it is stated that Enlil is the most important god in the Mesopotamian region. I believe that statement is somewhat misleading. To my knowledge, over the thousands of years of Mesopotamian history, that honor changed hands quite a few times depending on what particular group held power. It should either be qualified or changed; if I have some time later, I will try to come up with a more constructive suggestion for changing it, but for now I wanted to pose it to discussion group to make sure I wasn't just splitting hairs. Any thoughts? Porlesa 15:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Games

I doubt that "Cuniform was fun too." in the 5.2 Games section is quite up to the finest quality one could hope in such a page. Could someone consider this?

Textbook?

HUGE parts of this article looks as if it's been copy right out of a textbook. Especially the Religion part... Could someone fix this. 71.135.55.211 07:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wiki spam

There was some wiki spam in this that I took out. It was somehow triggered or near this code (see the source under "edit" of this page - which I couldn't get to reproduce.. ??:

[1].

ziggurats

I suggest moving ziggurat section from religion to architecture. In fact I plan to create a subheading Temples and Sanctuaries under Architecture. Ziggurats should probably go under that. Any disagreements? --Warpalawas 01:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has nonsensified the section on Ziggurats by entering general information about Mesopotamia after the correct information regarding Ziggurats. Ideally this extra entry should be edited out or transferred to where it really belongs. AND, this extra entry itself is badly in need of being tidied up. donkeyhotey 20.35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Donkeyhotey (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of Lagash

its mentioned in the article that the kings rulling from 2494-2351 is from Lagash, but im pretty sure that in fact they were all from the city of Kish. also the last king Uruinimgina is also called Urukagina. 80.62.121.24 18:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would that matter, as long as they call themselves ensi of Lagash? The Hellenistic kings of Pergamon were all from the Black Sea. That doesn't negate the fact that they were Attalids of Pergamon --Warpalawas 03:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

These dates can't be right...

  1. Akkadian Empire (ca 2350 BC - 2193 BC).
  2. Third dynasty of Ur ("Sumerian Renaissance" or "Neo-Sumerian Period") (ca 2119 BC - 2204 BC)

Can someone correct them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.52.105 (talkcontribs)

I don't see any problem w/ them. They appear to be correct. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 13:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burials

I have added a link to Catalhoyuk pointing out that it's people also buried their dead underneath their homes. 17 July 2007

Revert move

Need to undo this weird move... siafu 21:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.195.137.85.173 23:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agriculture

I just found that the Agriculture section talks nothing about the farming of the land in its subtitles. I might be wrong about the meaning of agriculture, so I think that someone else should do it. Thx. leujohn 12:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Twinkie

"Anu was the Sumerian god of the sky. He was married to Danny twinkie Pisarino, but in some other Mesopotamian religions he has a wife called Uraš. "

It doesn't sound quite right that he was married to "Danny Twinkie Pisarino", but I don't have better information to replace this with —Preceding unsigned comment added by Confusimo (talkcontribs) 11:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you are probably right. The word twinkle is probably not in cunieform. Thx for pointing it out, but I really can't find info on it. Can someone help? leujohn 14:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anu's wife was typically Ki, goddess of the Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.55 (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is all wrong. How would they know about twinkies back then?? they were lucky if they found bread let alone icing!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.191.50 (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original Mesopotamia

The west Part of Iran it is not originally Mesopotamia it was conquered by Mesopotamia (Khuzestan) just like Mesopotamia conquered Sham, Egypt and so on, so saying the west part of Iran is Mesopotamia is officially wrong, and I added strong sources prove that (I don’t need to because everyone know it) but I have to because some members insets to repeat the mistakes, and the strong sources are Mesopotamia official website, The British Museum and New York Museum… Mussav (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, indeed the Elam and other Iranian based dynasties where also partly Mesopotamian. Achaemenid Empire has been Mesopotamian in art and literature.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Fallah, what are you talking about is true, they were part of Mesopotamia but my point was about the Original Mesopotamia, Mesopotamia Invaded/conquered nations and Nations Conquered/Invaded Mesopotamia, but the other Nations aren’t Originally Mesopotamian, didn't you read your own sources? "Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, Kassite, Neo-Babylonian, and Assyrian invasions periodically crossed Khuzestan...etc". That proves my point, and enter here Susa, it says (Šušan was incorporated by Sargon the Great into his Akkadian Empire in approximately 2330 BC) so officially it wasn’t Originally Mesopotamian. Peace Mussav (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


HIS WIFE IS YOUR MOTHER!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.39.98 (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POPULATION

I am doing a project on mesopotamia for school and need to know the population in the anccient days( the number of people that lived there). PLEASE SOMEONE HELP ME!!

Table too large

Whoever added the table in the article messed up. Please go back and fix what you've done so that the Etymology section of the article can be read without inducing headaches. TheMadChild (talk) 06:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, please add text to the "trends" section so that the table isn't just hanging there by itself. TheMadChild (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you make the introduction longer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.9.123 (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need better first image

I propose the first image should be a clear map of the area, ancient and modern. The present 'Trends in Ancient Mesopotamia' is overly complex, and should only be included at all if that aspect is discussed in the text. It certainly shouldn't be first. 219.78.119.85 (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mesopotamia as synonym for Iraq

I would like to add a line to the opening paragraph to the effect that some commentators (eg NY Times[1], Slate[2]) use Mesopotamia as a synonym for (modern) Iraq. (This is mostly some sections of the US media, but is widespread enough to be noted.)

The present article makes very little of any modern sense of the term (though see the first discussion in this talk section).

Any comment?

Earthlyreason (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest danger with this article as far as I'm concerned is that we erroneously suggest that Mesopotamia is a "nation" that modern day Iraqis are descended from. There's a great deal of confusion about this subject amongst many people (the media included) so if you want to make this point it has to be exceptionally clear that Mesopotamia is not the historical predecessor of Iraq. Blankfrackis (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Style

Is it just me or is the style of the section on Babylonian philosophy far too academic for Wikipedia. I'm not a very stupid person, or uneducated -- I have written three well-received books -- but for the life of me, I can't get my head round passages like these:

The earliest form of logic was developed by the Babylonians, notably in the rigorous nonergodic nature of their social systems. Babylonian thought was axiomatic and is comparable to the "ordinary logic" described by John Maynard Keynes. Babylonian thought was also based on an open-systems ontology which is compatible with ergodic axioms.[21] ... In particular, the Babylonian text Dialog of Pessimism contains similarities to the agonistic thought of the sophists, the Heraclitean doctrine of contrasts, and the dialectic and dialogs of Plato, as well as a precursor to the maieutic Socratic method of Socrates.[22]

Can somebody please be kind and translate into everyday language.

Krivuk (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally. This section is semi-protected, why? Wikipedia's own page on "ergotic" in no way suggests what it might mean in a philosophical or social organization context. I know we're not supposed to vent, but this section seems laughably pretentious. Lemccan (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loss of List of Rulers

Sumerophile deleted the list of Mesopotamian Rulers. I feel this is a loss in an encyclopedia, especially since the list is not found anywhere else on the internet - if a Wikipedia list exists, could it have a pointer under "Kings". For this reason I would propose undoing the change. Thoughts anyone?

John D. Croft (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list was rather random. The whole Sumerian king list is at Sumerian king list. None of the Lagash dynasties, or the later Larsa dynasty are included on the actual list, but they are linked to it. I'll add a link to the king list to this article. Sumerophile (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient mesopotamia timeline factual problem

"Ancient Mesopotamia" includes the period from the late 6th millennium BC until the rise of the Achaemenid Persians in the 6th century BC. This long period may be divided as follows:

Well that is the correct definiton, therefore the achamaneid empire should not be included in the timeline of ancient mesopotamia, The Achamaneid empire belongs to a different era,specially since it was not a distinctive mesopotamian civilization, please correct this...

   * Late Neolithic:
         o Hassuna, Samarra and Halaf "cultures"
   * Chalcolithic:
         o Ubaid period (ca 5900 BC–4000 BC)
         o Uruk period (ca 4000 BC–3100 BC)
               + Jemdet Nasr Period (ca 3100 BC–2900 BC)
   * Early Bronze Age
         o Early Dynastic city states (ca 2900 BC–2350 BC)
         o Akkadian Empire (ca 2350 BC–2193 BC).
         o Third dynasty of Ur ("Sumerian Renaissance" or "Neo-Sumerian Period") (ca 2119 BC–2004 BC)
   * Middle Bronze Age
         o Early Assyrian kingdom (20th to 18th c. BC)
         o First Babylonian Dynasty (18th to 17th c. BC)
   * Late Bronze Age
         o Kassite dynasty, Middle Assyrian period (16th to 12th c. BC)
   * Iron Age
         o Syro-Hittite or Neo-Hittite regional states (11th–7th c. BC)
         o Neo-Assyrian Empire (10th to 7th c. BC)
         o Neo-Babylonian Empire (7th to 6th c. BC)
         o Achaemenid Persian Empire (6th-4th c. BC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.119.112 (talk) 07:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] 


You can edit the article, you know... Sumerophile (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mesopotamian Technology

Why was my edit reverted? Didn't Al-Haytham and Al-Jazari's inventions and tecnology set the stage for the modern era? This is common knowledge. [3]InternetHero (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Jazari long post-dates Mesopotamia's existence as a polity. This information belongs under Medieval Muslim/Arabic topics. Sumerophile (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. InternetHero (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of the lead

I found the old version confusing as it is hard to figure out how the two bits of who ruled what fit together. It is also more accurate to mention Mesopotamia as a whole as 'cradle of civilization', a phrase which is also used to describe other areas elsewhere in the world in any case.Doug Weller (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too found myself abit confused with the old version. Chaldean (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Economy?

Someone screwed up the economy section... needs to be expanded/revised!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.74.87 (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History?

somebody write a history article about this???? ---- Teeninvestor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teeninvestor (talkcontribs) 21:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

Should be more specific on location and should include climate. Should tell what causes things to change the geography and how it changes it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.133.240 (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technology

Should give examples of technologies- especially important ones Should tell who made things, when things were made, how things were made, etc. Should tell importance of technologies made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.133.240 (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

social classes

Should show social classes and why they are what they are and what the people in each social class does. Should name some important people from the social classes and explain their importance.

WHERE DO I FIND INFO OF DAILY LIFE!!! OMG!

WHERE DO I FIND IT!!! PLEASE TYPE IT BELOW!!! By rr97khl ___________________________________________________________go to classzone.com make an account click S.S Middle school NJ then click on the book__World History: Ancient and Early Modern Times online book and read the first and second chapter. ___________________________________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.229.197 (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC) And in the future, please don't ask questions on article talk pages, but go to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous and ask. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC) daily life was a time where you either work or die. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.191.50 (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be possible to link these difficult words to their counterparts in Wikipedia or even have the information in brackets behind the word. I would be really helpful, I am investigating the subject with my son. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanmcguinness (talkcontribs) 10:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've made some links (note that terms are only linked once, hopefully the first time they are used). Doug Weller (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]



== UMmmm == were did you get the information about all this?Skyfaerie11 (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Footnote 16

What's up with footnote 16?

16. ^ Eves, Chapter 2ghghghghg

--Fpmfpm (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out, (I guess, a pain trying to straighten this out). WHen added last year it just said Eves, chapter 2, but I think I've found the source. dougweller (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Language and Writing section cleanup

This section's three subheadings all have minor to major issues. The first sentence under Literature and Mythology, e.g., is an incomprehensible run-on, and the final sentence under Philosophy just cuts off mid-line. Some tone and word-choice issues persist elsewhere in the section. Busy writing a paper about this stuff at the moment or I'd fix it myself. Does anyone at least have time to fix the serious issues with readability? LeSaint (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did a school paper get added to this article?

I'm not much of a wiki expert, but about halfway through the last entry (on Ziggurats) the style of the article changed to sound like a middle-school paper on the topic, with no references. ("If the wheel had not been invented, modern life would be very different." Indeed.) I'll leave it up to someone else to decide if there's anything there that should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.6.58 (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy

Further information: Babylonian literature: Philosophy

The origins of philosophy can be traced back to early Mesopotamian wisdom, which embodied certain philosophies of life, particularly ethics, in the forms of dialectic, dialogs, epic poetry, folklore, hymns, lyrics, prose, and proverbs. Babylonian reasoning and rationality developed beyond empirical observation.[2]

The earliest form of logic was developed by the Babylonians, notably in the rigorous nonergodic nature of their social systems. Babylonian thought was axiomatic and is comparable to the "ordinary logic" described by John Maynard Keynes. Babylonian thought was also based on an open-systems ontology which is compatible with ergodic axioms.[3] Logic was employed to some extent in Babylonian astronomy and medicine.

Babylonian thought had a considerable influence on early Greek philosophy and Hellenistic philosophy. In particular, the Babylonian text Dialog of Pessimism contains similarities to the agonistic thought of the sophists, the Heraclitean doctrine of contrasts, and the dialectic and dialogs of Plato, as well as a precursor to the maieutic Socratic method of Socrates.[4] The GREEK[[85.72.79.167 (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Phoenicia]]n philosopher Thales is also[reply]

I've made a proposal for WikiProject Mesopotamia because the area needs improving and properly organizing. All opinions needed and all support appreciated. Izzedine (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant

It is not clear why there is an irrelevant reference to an economist in the section about Mesopotamian philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.27.34 (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO MY NAME IS BUTTHOLE<r

''Italic text

Block quote

</math></math>ef>Bold text</ref>{| class="wikitable"

|

|}

  1. ^ Scheffler, Thomas; 2003. “ 'Fertile crescent', 'Orient', 'Middle East': the changing mental maps of Souhwest Asia,” European Review of History 10/2: 253–272. Also: Bahrani, Zainab; 1998. “Conjuring Mesopotamia: imaginative geography and a world past", in Archaeology under fire: Nationalism, politics and heritage in the Eastern Mediteranean and Middle East. L. Meskell (ed.), Routledge: London and New York, 159–174.
  2. ^ Giorgio Buccellati (1981), "Wisdom and Not: The Case of Mesopotamia", Journal of the American Oriental Society 101 (1), p. 35-47.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Sheila was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Giorgio Buccellati (1981), "Wisdom and Not: The Case of Mesopotamia", Journal of the American Oriental Society 101 (1), p. 35-47 43.