Talk:King of the Four Corners

A relevant recent ref on the old babylonian source
https://cdli.ucla.edu/pubs/cdlj/2017/cdlj2017_001.html Ploversegg (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've added the relevant part from the reference to the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Meluhha...
'...would probably have imagined them.'

This page reflects an outdated view and does not reflect Sumerian knowledge of and relations with India, Egypt and Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.101.145.13 (talk) 06:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Then provide a source with the updated view. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Contradiction
"In the view of the Mesopotamian Akkadians, the term referred to four regions on the edge of the then known world; Subartu (probably corresponding to the region of Assyria) in the north, Martu (roughly corresponding to modern Syria) in the west, Elam in the east and Sumer in the south. To Naram-Sin of Akkad (r. 2254–2218 BC), the creator of the title, it probably, in geographical terms, expressed his dominion over the regions Elam, Subartu, Amurru and Akkad (representing east, north, west and south respectively)."

First, Wayne Horowitz says in 'Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography' (1998: 298) that 'the geographic term 'The Four Regions is based on a tradition of dividing the earth surface into northern, southern, eastern and western quadrants derived from the four winds or compass point directions'. Not a word about identification with specific regions or about 'edges of the world'. So this interpretation should at least be mentioned.

Second, the text in the article contradicts itself. The first sentence says the southern edge of the world was Sumer, the second sentence claims it was Akkad (according to Naram-Sin). The map also shows Akkad as 'the southern corner'. So which is it? If there is a disagreement between sources, that should be stated. For what it's worth, Sumer clearly makes more sense as 'the southern corner' than Akkad - it is farther to the south than Akkad and it's hard to see how the Akkadians could fail to notice it. And Naram-Sin did control it. It's not as if they counted Sumer as part of Akkad or vice versa - after all, they also used the title "King of Sumer and Akkad". However, searching through Google Books, I only find identifications of Akkad as 'the southern corner'. If no source identifies 'the southern corner' as 'Sumer', that version should be removed from the text, but an explanation of this strange geographical blindness of the Akkadians, the Sumerians themselves (since they, too used the title in Ur III times!) and later Mesopotamians would be in order. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)