Talk:Kharsag Epics

Conflict of interest
The creator of this article is acting in good faith but (understandably) without an understanding of our COI policies. He is personally and financially involved in this article, see Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Condemnation without examination by Dougweller is not a basis for removing this entry, verified by genuine specialists and scholars Barton, Kramer, O'Brien, Finkel and others, who have clearly identified the Kharsag records as the earliest written history of our most ancient ancestors. Personal abuse and unfounded character attacks to justify personal prejudice, must not be allowed to leave Wiki readers in everlasting ignorange by removing such a vital clue in the proper understaning of our past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.51.188 (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have examined it, spent a lot of time. Kramer, Barton, etc. (do not verify that there is anything called the Kharsag Epics or some sort of 'super race' called the Shining Ones. As for personal attacks, the only ones that I've seen are yours just now, an anonymous IP. Dougweller (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And thanks for your time Doug! I can't help but notice that you didn't mention there isn't something verifiably called Kharsag or Hursag for Kramer, who despite being a noted scholar has considerable religious/supernatural perspective in his incomplete translations. I'd be interested in your opinions about these against the O'Brien translation citedKharsag Epic 1 translated by Christian O'Brien. It would certainly help me out if there were a 2010 translation from a noteable scholar who could translate that misleading piece of Sumerian: 'shining Ones' merely as 'smart people' and am working hard at my telecoms job 3 x 12 hour days a week to get a Masters in cuneiform studies and do exactly that. On a more relevant note, please let me know if there's anything that needs a more neutral viewpoint in this article and I will try to amend. Paul Bedson (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know what O'Brien decided to call the Anunnaki 'Anannage'. This is confusing and frankly this sort of change of terminology usually bodes no good. As our article says, Anunnaki is variously written "da-nuna", "da-nuna-ke4-ne", or "da-nun-na", meaning something to the effect of 'those of royal blood' (Leick, Gwendolyn: A Dictionary of Ancient Near Eastern Mythology (NY: Routledge, 1998), p. 7( or 'princely offspring'.(Black, Jeremy and Green, Anthony: Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary University of Texas Press (Aug 1992) ISBN: 978-0292707948 p.34). Not 'shining ones' or 'wise mean'. The thing is that translation of ancient languages is not a technical thing, you need to understand the context and that's one of the reasons it isn't a job for amateurs. Even translating modern day languages isn't always a technical thing. Dougweller (talk) 06:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I bow to your understanding of the subject, and am in awe of the job you've done cross-referencing the as yet un-verified 'Epics'. I have also to confess my relative amateur status in this field by pointing out that my direct translation of Kramer's 'Hursag' does not tie up exactly with Barton's 'Kharsag'. As you'll see if you visit my sandbox, Kharsag can be also be 'Har-sag' and 'Ghar-sagn', I suspect it can be written in different verbal forms like Anunaki can be. I'll let you decide whether that can be referenced and is suitable for inclusion however. Also please do let me know if this article is getting close to deletion without retreival, so I can sandbox it. It's looking better and better, even if the official position hasn't changed. Paul Bedson (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it was quite a bit of work. :-) See WP:Userfication, that should answer your sandbox question. As for translations, we would just rely on what the recognised scholarship says. Dougweller (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Comparing to Barton
Ok, I've spent a long time trying to figure this out. The online text of Barton is broken up badly and very hard to follow. I found another way of searching through Google books giving snippets, and by tediously typing in various text and numbers, came up with this:

O'Brien's list:

14,005	The Arrival of the Anannage,005	The Arrival of the Anannage

8,383	The Decision to Settle

9,205	The Romance of Enlil and Ninlil

11,065	The Planning of the Cultivation

8,322	The Building of the Settlement

8,384	The Great House of Enlil

8,310	The Cold Winter Storm

8,317	The Thousand Year Storm

19,751, 2,204, 2,270 & 2,302 The Final Destruction

From Barton (his words, not mine) The texts in this volume have been copied from tablets in the University Museum, Philadelphia, and edited in moments snatched from many other exacting duties. They present considerable variety. No. i is an incantation copied from a foundation cylinder of the time of the dynasty of Agade. It is the oldest known religious text from Babylonia, and perhaps the oldest in the world. No. 8 contains a new account of the creation of man and the development of agriculture and city life. No. 9 is an oracle of Ishbiurra, founder of the dynasty of Nisin, and throws an interesting light upon his career.

Table of contents:

8383 THE OLDEST RELIGIOUS TEXT FROM BABYLONIA (foundation cylinder containing an incantation

8322 AN OLD BABYLONIAN ORACLE(?) 21

11065 A HYMN TO DUNGI 26

9205 A MYTH OF ENLIL AND NINLIL 34

11932 FRAGMENT OF AN INCANTATION RITUAL 42

19,751, 2,204, 2,270 & 2,302 A PRAYER FOR THE CITY OF UR 45

8310 A HYMN TO IBI-SIN 49

14005	A NEW CREATION MYTH 52

7772 AN ORACLE FOR ISHBIURRA, FOUNDER OF THE DYNASTY OF ISIN 57

8317	AN EXCERPT FROM AN EXORCISM 60

8384 A FRAGMENT OF THE SO-CALLED " LITURGY TO NINTUD" ; 62 So all the texts come from Barton (which we know was his inspiration, but he used them in a different sequence, translated them differently, and doesn't seem to have used 11932.

Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What does this mean in terms of the article? Silver  seren C 19:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing I think, the article is not about Barton's publication but O'Brien's use of Barton. An article about Barton's publication would be entirely different and wouldn't mention O'Brien, he isn't significant enough -- see WP:NPOV. O'Brien's article is still the place for his views on these texts. If someday O'Brien's views on these texts become significant and mentioned in reliable sources talking about 'Kharsag texts', that is the time for a separate article. We aren't here to create significance. I can sympathise with Paul's desire to use Wikipedia to bring these ideas more into the public limelight, but that's not what Wikiedia is about. Dougweller (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge
I've completed the merger. Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)