Tell me about it, what happened here? How was it like etc. Just curious about how life was lived here
Sumeria
Ian Ward
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
amazon.fr
ancient.eu
ancient.eu
copper.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
ancient-origins.net
en.wikipedia.org
cambridge.org
tf.uni-kiel.de
sumerianshakespeare.com
bronsereplika.no
twitter.com
Connor Lewis
The Sumerians were the most extraordinary people who ever lived on the face of the earth. They seemed to come from out of nowhere, and they single-handedly invented civilization when most of the rest of the world was still living in the Stone Age. What’s more, they did it thousands of years before anyone else. In regard to the Sumerians, you will need to revise your concept of ancient in comparison to the "ancient" Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians. The Sumerian civilization was already ancient when it ended in 2004 B.C., twenty centuries before Julius Caesar, sixteen centuries before Socrates, and seven centuries before Tutankhamen.
At the dawn of history, the Egyptians were the only people with a civilization comparable to that of the Sumerians (although the Sumerian civilization was much older). There has been some debate on whether they created their civilizations independently or if they cooperated with each other. The historic record seems to indicate that they built their civilizations independently. There is no mention of the Egyptians in the Sumerian archives, or vice-versa, and there is no direct evidence they had a noticeable influence on one another, except for their propensity to build giant pyramids and ziggurats. Though on a modern map they seem to be quite close, they never had any direct contact with each other. Back then, the world
was a much larger place. The only contact between the two great civilizations was through
intermediary traders.
Wyatt Walker
What’s so remarkable about the Sumerians’ invention of civilization is they did it with so few natural resources. Like the Egyptians, the Sumerians did not have a lot of timber; so it’s somewhat surprising that the world’s first civilizations should arise where there isn't a plentiful supply of wood, which could be used for fuel, the construction of houses, and for many of the utilitarian items needed in daily life. Unlike the Egyptians, however, the Sumerians did not have a lot of stone (imagine Egyptian civilization without its endless supply of stone). Neither did the Sumerians have much mineral wealth. The only thing they had in abundance was mud, but with that mud they built a great civilization. For with that mud they built towering ziggurats, and on that mud they invented writing.
Examples of Sumerian technological inventions include the wheel, copper, bronze, the arch, sailboats, lunar calendars, sundials, saws, chisels, hammers, rivets, sickles, hoes, glue (bitumen), swords and scabbards, harnesses, armor, musical instruments (the lyre and harp), chariots, the kiln, sun-dried and kiln-fired bricks (mixed with straw to give them greater strength), the pottery wheel, printing, plows, metal cooking pots, and (last but not least) beer. There are probably numerous other items that the Sumerians invented for which they haven’t received proper credit. Basically anything that the Sumerians used, which had not already been invented in the Stone Age, they had to invent for themselves.
They also invented civilization in the literal sense of the word. “Civilization” is derived from the Roman word civitas, meaning “city”. The first large cities in the world were Sumerian.
Charles Rivera
The Sumerians also invented the more fundamental aspects of civilization: writing, arithmetic, geometry, monumental architecture, irrigation systems and large scale farming (mono-crops), sewage systems, schools, dictionaries, literature, realistic human portraiture, business accounting, the division of labor, and professional armies.
The Sumerian achievements in mathematics are particularly impressive considering the fact that they used the cumbersome sexagesimal number system, based on the number 60, rather than the simpler decimal system (base 10) that we use today. Sumerian mathematics is why we still divide a circle into 360 degrees.
The necessity of having to irrigate large tracts of non-arable land seems to be what first compelled the Sumerians to invent their modern society. This required a division of labor under the direction of a central authority (government). It also necessitated a means to pay for the project (taxation, i.e., “donations” of grain, sheep, cattle, dry goods, etc.) and a method to record these payments, which required the invention of writing. The land had to be allotted to different citizens, the water rights managed, and the surplus food distributed to the people.
Nathan Ramirez
From what I've gathered is that the Akkadians had conquered the Sumerians but how did the Assyrians come along? Did they migrate from Sumer/Akkadia?
Noah Torres
Once a large labor force was mobilized, construction on a monumental scale soon followed (such as palaces, great temples, and city walls), along with the manufacture of the other necessities of civilization (tools, clothing, weapons, luxury goods, artistic works, and so on). The early administrative systems were centered at the temples, each ruled by a high priest. Later, when the city-states became more powerful and competitive, the government was controlled by a king (lugal, meaning “man-great”) who could also command large armies.
Sumerian kings modeled themselves on the ideal of a shepherd. The "shepherd kings" were crucial to the success of Sumer. You cannot understand the Sumerian civilization until you understand the shepherd kings.The Sumerians’ single-handed invention of civilization, their remarkable achievements in science, and their lasting influence on the modern world, is all the more extraordinary
when you consider the fact that Sumer, even at its widest extent, was smaller than the
state of Connecticut.
Technically, it is Sumer, not "Sumeria". Sumeria is a modern literary word. It’s not known exactly what the Sumerians called themselves. “Sumer” is a corruption of the Akkadian word Shumeru. The signs for Sumer are written as ki-en-gi. Ki means “land”, en means “lord”, and gi means "lord". Sumer is the “Land of Civilized Lords”.
Henry Anderson
Sumerian civilization arose in Mesopotamia between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in the 5th millennium BC. Because the Sumerians seemed to have appeared so suddenly on the scene, and because their language is unrelated to other languages of the region (or to any language in the world) it was originally believed that they were foreign invaders who subjugated the indigenous people already living there. This, however, seems unlikely. It was very difficult for conquerors to impose their language on a native people, and it’s doubtful that the Sumerians could last for thousands of years, through every kind of vicissitude, if they had forced their civilization on an unwilling population. The Sumerians were probably a nomadic people who decided to settle in this region and become farmers. No one knows where they came from. Theories range from India, Caucasia, Iran, Africa, Turkistan, Tibet (?!), you name it. After years of academic debate, no definitive conclusion has been reached. However, it seems the Sumerians were distinct from the Semitic neighbors that surrounded them (the Akkadians, Elamites (Iranians), Gutians, Hamazi, etc.). It's highly improbable that the Sumerians were ethnically the same as their neighbors and yet speak a language that is completely different. Not only was their language different, but their statues and portraits suggest the Sumerians were Caucasians, who originated from the area around the Caspian Sea. The Semites, on the other hand, originated from the Arab Peninsula. Remarkably, the Sumerians were later able to maintain their ethno-cultural identity during two centuries of Akkadian domination (2350 – 2150 B.C.) after they were conquered by Sargon the Great. During that time it would have been so easy for the Sumerians to be assimilated, to “blend back in”, if they were like their neighbors. Instead, they regained their independence and began the Neo-Sumerian Revival, the ultimate expression of Sumerian civilization.
Wyatt Edwards
At first there was very little conflict between the Sumerian city-states. As they became larger and more powerful, their rivalry intensified and they often resorted to civil war to settle their differences. The wars were fought for territory and for the control of water rights. The most
famous conflict involved the cities of Umma and Lagash in a contest for possession of the Guedena, the fertile plain that lay between them. This conflict lasted for many generations. The many civil wars fought between the different city-states, too numerous to recount here, make Sumerian history similar to the history of the rest of the world.
Gavin Sanders
Not only did the Sumerians have to contend with each other, they also had to deal with the Akkadians. Akkad was the region located northwest of Sumer. The histories of Sumer and Akkad are inextricably tied together. The relationship was sometimes symbiotic, sometimes bloody. They spoke different languages, but through the centuries developed a kind of bilingualism, using the same (Sumerian) sign system and exchanging many "loan words" between them. They shared many cultural and religious values, and they benefited from their mutual trade. At other times they were locked in bloody combat, each seeking domination and control of the other. The “King of Kish”, named for a city in Akkad, became the traditional title of any king who ruled both Sumer and Akkad. The title meant "The King of Kings", and it was claimed by many Sumerians and Akkadians during their long history together. In the words of The King List, a Babylonian record of the dynasties of the region, “the kingship was taken” from Kish, then returned to Kish many different times (the kingship could also be carried to a foreign land after an invasion). Fortunately, the Sumerians and the Akkadians never waged “total war” against each other. They never tried to destroy each other in wars of extermination, or to enslave the populations. Instead, the losing side simply became a vassal state of the winning side. The losers also had to pay taxes (tribute) to the victors. Sometimes the Akkadians were in the ascendency, sometimes the Sumerians. Thus their history continued for hundreds of years.
Caleb Scott
>The Sumerians were the most extraordinary people who ever lived on the face of the earth
Define "extraordinary"
>hey seemed to come from out of nowhere,
They didn't, they evolved over millenia from the preceding prehistoric culture such as the Ubaid
>and they single-handedly invented civilization when most of the rest of the world was still living in the Stone Age.
In the stone age? stone age is not a technical term, it doesn't mean anything, but they were by no means the first urban culture, nor they were much more advanced in their copper tools compared to the rest of Eurasia
>and seven centuries before Tutankhamen.
So, 1100 years after Narmer too, if we're talking about Egypt
>At the dawn of history
What age is the down of history?
>, copper, bronze
They're not Sumerian inventions
> chisels,
Not a Sumerian invention
>swords
Developed in the Caucasus first
>armor
No
Musical instruments
Were known since the paleolithic, if you mean only the lyre and the harp you might be correct but I've gotta check
>sun-dried bricks
No, they were developed in the Levant first and discovered independently in other places
Kayden Bailey
Sumer and Akkad not only had to contend with each other, they also had to deal with the Gutians and the Elamites, their foreign enemies to the north and northeast. The Gutians were nomadic tribesmen from the Zagros Mountains. They were barbarian warriors who didn't want to govern an empire; they were far more interested in looting and sacking cities. The Elamites were a bit more civilized (though still barbarians in the eyes of the Sumerians) who originated in the area now known as Iran. They often conquered parts of Sumer and Akkad, and they would later be instrumental in the final destruction of Sumerian civilization. The many wars in this region, between the Sumerians, Akkadians, Gutians, and Elamites, along with the Hamazi and others, prompted the writer of The King List to ask, “Then who was the king? Who was not the king?"
In 2350 B.C. the Sumerians were conquered by Sargon the Great, the Akkadian king who went on to conquer all of Mesopotamia. He defeated the united armies of Sumer in two pitched battles and captured Lugalzagesi, the Sumerian king who had united (or conquered)
all of Sumer and earned the title of “King of Kish”. Sargon brought the captured Lugalzagesi to the city of Nippur in a neck stock. The Akkadians continued to rule Sumer for the next two centuries. Though Sumer was now a vassal state, it was not treated with undue severity because Akkadians and Sumerians shared many of the same cultural and religious values. For instance, although the Akkadian language became the lingua franca of Mesopotamia, it was written with the Sumerian sign system. Nonetheless, the Sumerians were no longer in control of their own destiny. Two hundred years is a long time to be a subject nation (about as long as America is old) so it's somewhat surprising that the Sumerians never lost their core identity, their sense of self.
Isaiah Hill
In 2150 B.C. the Akkadians were destroyed by the Gutians, who also conquered many parts of Sumer. The Sumerians rose up in rebellion under the leadership of Utu-hengal, the king whose city of Uruk was also to be destroyed by the Gutians. Thus the Sumerians’ desire for independence was again rekindled. Utu-hengal defeated the Gutians and captured their king, Tirigan. Utu-hengal died seven years later (under mysterious circumstances). The Sumerian battle standard was then passed to Ur-Namma, the king of Ur. He went on to gain more victories against the Gutians. He also united the Sumerian cities into a single nation and he later reconquered Akkad. So once again the nations were united, except this time the roles were reversed; now the Sumerians were the rulers and the Akkadians were the vassals. Like a phoenix, Sumer had risen from the ashes. Now began the Neo-Sumerian Revival, the apex of Sumerian civilization.
The most important kings of the Neo-Sumerian Revival were Gudea, Ur-Namma, and his son Shulgi. The histories of Gudea and Ur-Namma are given elsewhere on this website. Shulgi began his reign with a punitive expedition against Gutium after his father was killed in combat in yet another battle with the Gutians. For the next twenty years he reigned in relative peace. At some point during his reign he stopped calling himself “The King of Sumer and Akkad”, the title his father had used, and began to use the appellation of "King of the Four Quarters [of the World]". This was the title used by Sargon the Great and his successors in the Akkadian Empire. It suggests that Shulgi began to have imperial ambitions. The second half of his reign is marked by several wars with foreign enemies, which necessitated the building of a defensive wall around the borders. Despite this, he gave the Sumerian people 47 years of unparalleled prosperity and he also continued the artistic renaissance that had begun with the reign of Gudea.
Ayden Foster
After the reigns of his successors, Amar-Suen and Shu-Suen, things started to fall apart. First there was drought, then famine. Amorite tribesmen from the land of Martu started migrating from the west in overwhelming numbers. The Gutians were attacking from the north, and the Elamites were menacing the east. Ibbi-Suen, the last king of Ur-Namma’s dynasty, was besieged on all sides. He appealed for help from Ishbi-erra, the king of Isin. Ishbi-erra kept promising assistance that he never delivered. He took twenty talents of silver for desperately needed grain supplies, then kept the money and the grain for himself. As it turns out, he had his own designs on the throne of Sumer. Then in the ultimate betrayal, while Ibbi-Suen was fighting the enemies of Sumer in the north, Ishbi-erra switched alliances, leaving Ibbi-Suen outflanked in the south.
The end came quickly, and catastrophically, in 2004 B.C. All the cities of Sumer were sacked and plundered by the Gutians and the Elamites. Ibbi-Suen, the last of the Sumerian kings, was placed in a neck stock and taken to the Elamite capital. He was later executed. At the time, despite the totality of their defeat, the Sumerians probably didn’t realize that the show was finally over. They had been conquered several times before, but they had always risen again to their former glory. This time, there would not be a Sumerian resurrection.
Asher James
A period of internecine warfare followed the Fall of Sumer as local lords battled for regional supremacy. Eventually the Akkadians gained the ascendency. The few surviving Sumerians were assimilated into the Akkadian kingdoms. The Sumerians were no longer a distinct and independent people. After 1800 B.C., Sumerian ceased to be a spoken language.The Akkadians later became known as Babylonians. The Babylonians considered themselves to be the inheritors of the Sumerian civilization. They adopted Sumerian history as their own. They worshiped many of the same gods (though under different names), continued many Sumerian cultural traditions, and they still used the Sumerian sign system for the language of religion and the court. After several hundred years, the Babylonian Empire was destroyed in history’s endless cycle of the rise and fall of civilizations. With the final collapse of the Babylonian Empire, all memory of the Sumerians disappeared. The modern world didn't even know of the Sumerians until the late 19th century A.D., when archaeological expeditions started unearthing thousands of Sumerian tablets. At first the tablets were thought to be Babylonian or Assyrian because no one had ever heard of the Sumerians. Now, after a century of scholarly research, a portrait of the Sumerians has finally emerged from the dim shadows of the ancient past. Their extraordinary civilization has once again been resurrected.
Julian Hernandez
>reddit
>spacing
into
the trash
it goes
Joseph Wood
boomp
Carson Lee
Assyrians were not foreigners to the area, they were from north Mesopotamia and spoke a dialect derived from the Akkadian language, and we call it Assyrian language. All they did was conquer the whole region (Mesopotamia). Babylonians too spoke an Akkadian dialect.
Angel Kelly
Dude, there is like 50% of inaccuracies in what you're writing, I can't even count them
Logan White
So Assyrians were their own independent thing while Sumer/Akkadia existed. Were the ancient Assyrians homogeneous like the Sumerians probably were, or were they a collection of different Semitic tribes bound by a language and cultural influence?
Cooper Perry
When the Akkadian empire collapsed, a lot of kingdoms formed. In the south, there was some sort of Sumerian renaissance with Sumero-akkadian city states coming back to fashion (Uruk, Lagash, etc.). But in the north, larger kingdoms formed, Babylon was one of them and Assyria was another. Eventually, Babylon conquered the south and later it was the Assyrians.
But in the end, it was all Sumerian and Akkadian people, whether they spoke Babylonian, Assyrian or any other dialect.
Kayden Gomez
When I first heard this song, it freaked me out.
It seems to remember back when bread was first created. The idea that the ones writing it down still had a concept of the time when bread came into being. The lyrics seems so ancient. Dunno how to describe it really.
>youtube.com
spooky stuff
Hunter Lewis
No arguments here
Dylan Brown
I've listened to that song on repeat for a while. Reckon you can try to play it on a regular guitar too with the lyrics included?
Oliver Hernandez
If you want to get into details, I would recommend reading this :
amazon.fr
It's not totally up to date (1992) but you get a general image of ancient Mesopotamia. Also read Jean Bottero's books, they're amazing.
Jaxson Perez
Thanks for the recommendation, will be sure to check it out.
Ian Price
fine have it your way
>Define "extraordinary"
literally the first civilization
>They didn't, they evolved over millenia from the preceding prehistoric culture such as the Ubaid
Wrong. The first settlers were not Sumerians ancient.eu
>In the stone age? stone age is not a technical term, it doesn't mean anything
And where did I use it as a technical term? The terms "Stone Age", "Bronze Age", and "Iron Age" were never meant to suggest that advancement and time periods in prehistory are only measured by the type of tool material, rather than, for example, social organization, food sources exploited, adaptation to climate, adoption of agriculture, cooking, settlement and religion. Like pottery, the typology of the stone tools combined with the relative sequence of the types in various regions provide a chronological framework for the evolution of man and society. They serve as diagnostics of date, rather than characterizing the people or the society. So take your straw men elsewhere.
>but they were by no means the first urban culture
Wrong. ancient.eu
>nor they were much more advanced in their copper tools compared to the rest of Eurasia
Wrong. copper.org
>So, 1100 years after Narmer too, if we're talking about Egypt
So, still later than the rise of Sumer
>What age is the down of history?
3200BC when cuneiform writing was developed.
>copper, bronze. They're not Sumerian inventions
Nobody knows for sure who first "invented" copper or bronze, but the Sumerians were the first to fully utilize it, so they get credit for it. copper.org
>swords >Developed in the Caucasus first
Wrong. Once again, there's no real answer as multiple cultures invented swords independently, but since the Sumerians were first to fully utilize bronze, they probably made the first swords
John Wood
Dude, Sumerians are a major link in the chain of ancient Middle-eastern civilization, but definitely not the first. People mentioned the Obeïd Culture, but how about the culture that built Göbekli Tepe ? This city is more than just a pile of shit, it's civilization.
Grayson Howard
> chisels Not a Sumerian invention
The first copper chisels for the direct purpose of carving shapes were created in Sumer. inb4 a stone axe could be used as a chisel.
>>armor No
Sumer had the first professional standing armies and therefore the first clothing specifically designed to protect a soldier.
>Musical instruments Were known since the paleolithic, if you mean only the lyre and the harp you might be correct but I've gotta check
What part of "musical instruments (the lyre and harp)" didn't you undestand?
>sun-dried bricks No, they were developed in the Levant first and discovered independently in other places
Wrong. en.wikipedia.org
They were first used in mesopotamia (before the sumerians granted) but first used on a mass scale by the Sumerians
Bentley Young
>Obeid culture
not a civilization
>Göbekli Tepe
as much of a civilization as Stone Henge aka not a civilization. Sumer was the first civilization with written records, complex division of labor, large walled cities, stratified social classes, and organized administration and agriculture. Thanks for playing
Wyatt Perez
nice song
Xavier Nelson
My Kurdish ancestors :)
Henry Smith
>Kurdish
Go fuck yourself.
Oliver James
Not him but cities like Jericho and Catal Huyuk are both older
Samuel Taylor
Finally a normal thread, autist please don't ruin it
Elijah Cox
The oldest true cities were Uruk and Eridu in Sumer.
Jericho is old as fuck and probably the oldest CONTINUOUSLY INHABITED city, and Catal Huyuk was not a true city because it lacked centralized rule and urban planning. en.wikipedia.org
Luke Adams
I agree about the written records, but how do you know Göbekli Tepe didn't have complex division of labor, stratified social classes and organized administration and agriculture ?
And also, why do you take this discussion to heart ? Are you some Iraqian wewuzer ?
Noah Peterson
>how do you know Göbekli Tepe didn't have complex division of labor, stratified social classes and organized administration and agriculture ?
Because there's no evidence for it, plain and simple. Göbekli Tepe is definitely a head scratcher, and when archaeological digs there resume after the turmoil the middle east subsides, and evidence for a complex society predating Sumer is unearthed, then I'd be convinced. But for now it's just an anomaly.
>And also, why do you take this discussion to heart ?
I got supremely triggered by your cold criticisms. It was just the way you dismissed my comments so brazenly out of hand. I'm not claiming to be all knowing when it comes to ancient history, but this is what I was taught. Sure, I admit, I probably overgeneralized some Sumerian inventions, and they weren't the ones who invented some of those things, but they sure as hell improved on them and took those ideas to the next level to be utilized in complex society.
>Are you some Iraqian wewuzer ?
If I was I'd have kms out of principle.
Liam Collins
I'm not the one who dismissed your comments (aka 3 empty lines between each sentence), I'm the one saying that even if we don't have evidence yet, it's more than likely that Sumerians were not the "first ones". That they were the first ones to write, but probably not the first ones to have a complex society.
Julian Thompson
oh... then FUCK that autist who criticized my post because he's the one who's wrong, not me. And yes, I agree with you, I believe that civilization is much older than Sumer, but that won't be the academic consensus until there is concrete evidence for it, and I hope Göbekli Tepe provides us with that evidence. Also, I don't believe a true civilization can exist without a written language, it's just logistically not possible. Even the Inca had a knot system to keep records and relay information
Ayden Sanders
You’re a major autist, and your comment is full of mistakes, Gobekli tepe is not a civilization anyway and I’ve never mentioned it
Leo Perry
No fuckwit, Jericho already had a city wall encircling it in 9000 bc
Michael Martinez
no arguments here,
>The first cities which fit both Chandler’s and Wirth’s definitions of a `city’ (and, also the early work of the archaeologist Childe) developed in the region known as Mesopotamia between 4500 and 3100 BCE. The city of Uruk, today considered the oldest in the world, was first settled in c. 4500 BCE and walled cities, for defence, were common by 2900 BCE throughout the region. The city of Eridu, close to Uruk, was considered the first city in the world by the Sumerians while other cities which lay claim to the title of `first city' are Byblos, Jericho, Damascus, Aleppo, Jerusalem, Sidon, Luoyang, Athens, Argos, and Varasani. All of these cities are certainly ancient and are located in regions which have been populated from a very early date. Uruk, however, is the only contender for the title of `oldest city’ which has physical evidence and written documentation, in the form of cuneiform texts, dating the activities of the community from the earliest period. Sites such as Jericho, Sidon, and even Eridu, which were no doubt settled before Uruk, lack the same sort of documentation. Their age and continuity of habitation has been gauged based upon the foundations of buildings unearthed in archaeological excavations rather than primary documents found on site.
ancient.eu
Cooper Bennett
Jericho has physical evidence, the walls were built during the early Neolithic
Angel Lee
>muh walls
en.wikipedia.org
and it STLL wasnt a city until the kikes invaded
Henry White
no arguments here
Levi Roberts
Nigga you could walk from Mesopotamia to Egypt in a few weeks if you knew where the oases and shit were.
Lincoln Adams
Still, there is no direct evidence that the two civilizations made any meaningful contact until much later. The Sumerians did however make contact with the Indus valley civilization
Benjamin Butler
Lol you couldn't be more wrong, they might have been proto kikes themselves
Chase Carter
I agree with you in this, you're not a complete idiot
Shut the fuck you dumb retard. There is no evidence for direct contact until much later.
Ryan Bennett
Jericho was a very old settlement but it became a true city much later in its history, certainly after the first cities of Sumer
Why should I care whether you agree. You've already proven that you don't know shit about ancient history.
Dylan Roberts
How does it compare to the Vinca culture?
The Vinca culture was older and they had copper metallurgy. Did the both of them reach similar heights before they were extinguished?
Camden Morris
Your answer to my post when I pointed out your mistakes is full of mistakes I don't even know where to begin with
>Wrong. The first settlers were not Sumerians ancient.eu
And the Sumerians developed thanks to the input of the Ubaid, whether or not they were the same ethnicity, which is debatable, so no they didn't "came out of nowhere"
>A nd where did I use it as a technical term?
It's still wrong and underlies your utter ignorance, stone age doesn't mean shit, you could have said Neolithic, where most societies were agrarian and settled and began to use metals and exploited Obsidian more and more frequently, grouping the Paleolithic and the Neolithic in a retarded "stone age" category is pure stupidity.
>Wrong. ancient.eu
Again, the proto urban settlements of the Levant and Anatolia are way older
>So, still later than the rise of Sumer
Not much
>Nobody knows for sure who first "invented" copper or bronze
No, of course but the oldest evidence for tin alloy bronze comes from Serbia
>but the Sumerians were the first to fully utilize it
Because you say so? As I said there is evidence for the making of bronze earlier in other regions
>but since the Sumerians were first to fully utilize bronze
No, they weren't, as I've already stated.
>they probably made the first swords
No, the first known swords come from Turkey and the Caucasus, whether you like it or not.
Gabriel Brown
>Sumer had the first professional standing armies and therefore the first clothing specifically designed to protect a soldier.
You gotta be fucking kidding me. Armors were known even to tribal peoples, you don't need a state army to built armors, Siberian tribes had them even back in 2000 bc ancient-origins.net
Bronze age Europeans had them even in fucking Germany, Celts had them too of course, many tribes without a state used armor extensively
>They were first used in mesopotamia (before the sumerians granted) but first used on a mass scale by the Sumerians
In a massive scale? Excuse me? all of the houses in proto cities like Catal Huyuk were made with dried bricks
Parker Davis
Sumerians are older than Celts in Germany.
Zachary Russell
Yeah and Celt and Proto celts designs had nothing to do with the Sumerian armors, so?
Also since there is evidence for armor in fucking Iberia in a period contemporary to the Sumerians it's obvious that armors developed independently and it certainly wasn't a Sumerian invention
Chase Miller
Not him but Vinca didn't have cities, just really large villages, and didn't have writing, nevertheless quite a developed culture
Dylan Barnes
We seem to still have not been able to identify where sumerians come from, but, why aren't haploautists doing any research on it? Considering how much time they waste trying to find even one example of blonde blue eyed german superman amongst the black haired PIE peoples, you'd think they'd be able to examine sumerian skeletons for data
Chase Nguyen
Yes we have Einstein, they descended mostly Zagros' mountain farmers
Oliver Garcia
Base 60 is better imo. Or even base 12. Base 10 is retarded, especially when doing basic division.
Zachary Stewart
>And the Sumerians developed thanks to the input of the Ubaid, whether or not they were the same ethnicity, which is debatable, so no they didn't "came out of nowhere"
You literally said the Sumerians evolved from the Ubaid, which is patently false. Of course they borrowed technology from other cultures when they created the first civilization, I never denied that, you implored it.
> stone age doesn't mean shit
They were the first to completely phase out stone tools and marked the transition from the chalcolithic to the bronze age. You can deconstruct the term all you like, but the Sumerians were the first to exit the stone age
>Again, the proto urban settlements of the Levant and Anatolia are way older
>proto
who gives a shit where the first villages were. That's not civilization. My original statement was that Sumer had the first true cities in history, which is a fact.
>Not much
So, still earlier than Egypt.
>No, of course but the oldest evidence for tin alloy bronze comes from Serbia
False, The vinca culture only worked with copper, and even then used it as jewelry and trinkets. en.wikipedia.org
The first bronze alloys were with arsenic, and the much later tin alloys originated in Mesopotamia. Sumer was the first to fully use bronze tools on a large scale, which was my original point.
>Because you say so?
Because there is physical and written evidence to support it. Again, I don't give a shit about Serbian copper trinkets.
>No, they weren't, as I've already stated.
Except they were, as I've already stated.
>No, the first known swords come from Turkey and the Caucasus, whether you like it or not.
Because you say so? As I said the earliest civilization to develop the smelting technology needed to create actual swords was Sumer.
Brody Wood
>Armors were known even to tribal peoples
You gotta be fucking kidding me. A caveman wearing furs is not armor. The difference between clothing and armor is intent. As I said before Sumer had the first armies
>Siberian tribes, Germany, Celts
So, after Sumer
>In a massive scale? Excuse me? all of the houses in proto cities like Catal Huyuk were made with dried bricks
One proto-city is not massive. Like I said, Sumer was first to implement uniform brick making across multiple city states.
Colton Barnes
but base 10 is more convenient when doing arithmetic with large numbers
Chase Stewart
This is a theory. We don't have Sumerian DNA.
Ian Lewis
I thought they had some proto-writing or some glyphs that we have yet to decipher. I think I remember the artifact - it was a portion of a disc with the writing running around it in a spiral. It was excavated by the edge of a river, near some hut or something. People were flipping their shit because it was one of the oldest recorded examples of writing.
My memory is pretty shoddy though, so I could be misremembering.
Alexander Lee
I would argue that's because of familiarity. It's easier to solve many problems with base 12/60 and get whole numbers. Sumerians probably wouldn't have done well in advanced math if they had to deal with 3.333s and other bullshit of base 10
Aaron Fisher
I'm not the guy you just replied to, but: why can't leather be armor user?
I think you're trapped in a semantic debate.
You mean combat gear specifically for the context of a battlefield with mass armies, utilizing metallurgy.
Tribals still had armor for tribal warfare, but it was different.
Angel Sullivan
We will never decipher them.
>The vinca culture only worked with copper
>he earliest tin-alloy bronze dates to 4500 BCE in a Vinča culture site in Pločnik (Serbia).[10]
Samuel Moore
Vinca culture definitely showed sophistication, but nowhere near the level of the Sumerians, who left literally thousands of cuneiform tablets
Jace Lee
Oh boy here we go again
>You literally said the Sumerians evolved from the Ubaid, which is patently false.
And you said they came "out of nowhere" which si false since they burrowed a lot from the agrarian societies which inhabited the region
>They were the first to completely phase out stone tools and marked the transition from the chalcolithic to the bronze age.
But they didn't completely phase out stone tools, this is false.
>You can deconstruct the term all you like, but the Sumerians were the first to exit the stone age
They weren't, copper was smelted at the same time or perhaps even earlier in Anatolia and South Eastern Europe
>who gives a shit where the first villages were
Settlements with a population of thousands of inhabitants, sometimes surrounded by towered walls are not simple villages
>False, The vinca culture only worked with copper, and even then used it as jewelry and trinkets.
False, they had copper daggers, and they were the first to discover tin alloy bronze in 4500 bc cambridge.org
>Because you say so? As I said the earliest civilization to develop the smelting technology needed to create actual swords was Sumer.
This is false, the first swords were from Arslantepe in Turkey, and there are some contendants from the Makyop culture in the Caucasus, not from Sumerian territories.
>You gotta be fucking kidding me. A caveman wearing furs is not armor. The difference between clothing and armor is intent. As I said before Sumer had the first armies
Oh my God, tribal doesn't mean caveman, it means they lacked cities and an unified government, tribal people can have agriculture, advanced metallurgy or architecture, the Urnfield culture from central Europe created some of the worlds's earliest bronze cuirasses in 1200 bc which were leagues ahead of any Sumerian armor, despite the fact that they lacked a state.
Liam Roberts
>We will never decipher them.
Come user, let a man dream.
Maybe one day we'll find a motherlode of annotated pictures stored in some religious enclave.
I mean, we probably never will.
But sometimes miracles happen!
Nathan Torres
You autism never ceases to amaze me
>And you said they came "out of nowhere" which si false since they burrowed a lot from the agrarian societies which inhabited the region
From the perspective of the natives who lived in pre Sumerian times, they literally came out of nowhere. The issue is not borrowing technology, it's the origin of the Sumerian people. So you're wrong.
>But they didn't completely phase out stone tools, this is false.
Somewhere someone in America today has a stone tool, and by your asinine standards that makes the United States a neolithic society. Sumer was the first to phase out stone tools in favor of bronze tools.
>They weren't, copper was smelted at the same time or perhaps even earlier in Anatolia and South Eastern Europe
The earliest bronze artifacts so far known coming from the Iranian plateau in the 5th millennium BCE, not Anatolia or South Eastern Europe. And sumer was the pivot of the early bronze trade via the Tigris and Euphrates, with large scale bronze manufacturing in Sumer
>copper daggers
A copper dagger is not a bronze sword. Also: the people of the Vinča network practised only an early and limited form of metallurgy. Copper ores were mined on a large scale at sites like Rudna Glava, but only a fraction were smelted and cast into metal artefacts – and these were ornaments and trinkets rather than functional tools, which continued to be made from chipped stone, bone and antler. It is likely that the primary use of mined ores was in their powdered form, in the production of pottery or as bodily decoration. Quit shilling for Vinca, it's fake news
>Arslantepe
>Makyop
A copper dagger is not a bronze sword. Try again.
>Oh my God, tribal doesn't mean caveman
Never said it did.
>it means they lacked cities and an unified government
And Sumer didn't
>the Urnfield culture
Are you seriously going to sit here and compare 1200bc proto celtic armor with 3000bc Sumerian armor?
Owen Brown
>Settlements with a population of thousands of inhabitants, sometimes surrounded by towered walls are not simple villages
They're not true cities either, which was the original point: Sumer had the first cities, not just settlements
John Moore
>Being this mad about your retarded claims being corrected
We got some weapons grade autism here gentlemen
Anthony Hill
>being this mad about your retarded arguments being proved wrong
Holy shit we need a containment board for you atusts
Adam Hughes
Truly a manchild who can't admit you're wrong, that's what you are
>From the perspective of the natives who lived in pre Sumerian times, they literally came out of nowhere.
No, they didn't, what the fuck are you talking about? What do you think they were, aliens?
> Sumer was the first to phase out stone tools in favor of bronze tools.
This is simply false though, copper smelting and copper tools were developed in other parts of the world prior of the existence of the Sumerians: tf.uni-kiel.de
>The earliest bronze artifacts so far known coming from the Iranian plateau in the 5th millennium BCE, not Anatolia or South Eastern Europe
Maybe the first Arsenical bronze, the first tin bronze comes from Serbia no matter how much you repeat your little mantra
>A copper dagger is not a bronze sword.
Strawman? I never said it was, in fact I said the first swords were developed in Turkey and the Caucausus, which is the truth until proven otherwise by other discoveries.
>Quit shilling for Vinca, it's fake news
I just said that they developed tin alloys before the Sumerians, which is the truth. Also copper metallurgy developed further after the Vinca in South Eastern Europe and beyond, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Sumerians employed it on a larger scale before other cultures did, and they didn't pioneer any particular metallurgical technique, even the lost wax technique was pioneered elsewhere, in Israel to be precise.
>A copper dagger is not a bronze sword. Try again.
They were swords made of the arsenic bronze you bring up so much, they surely weren't daggers since they were long up to 70 centimeters
>Never said it did.
You know that we can all see your posts, right? You did
>And Sumer didn't
Not the argument I was making, cretin.
>re you seriously going to sit here and compare 1200bc proto celtic armor with 3000bc Sumerian armor?
Strawman
Christopher Garcia
For the record these are the Arslan tepe swords, they're swords, not daggers.
Bentley Robinson
How autistic do you have to be to deny the facts. I literally posted dozens of links to support my arguments. You just made inaccurate assertions and provided no sources to back your arguments.
>No, they didn't, what the fuck are you talking about? What do you think they were, aliens?
Muhh annunaki strawman. The Sumerians were not endemic to southern Mesopotamia and were culturally, ethnically, and linguistically unrelated to the Ubaid peoples. "The first settlers were not Sumerians but a people of unknown origin whom archaeologists have termed the Ubaid people" ancient.eu
>This is simply false though, copper smelting and copper tools were developed in other parts of the world prior of the existence of the Sumerians
And they never reached the complexity and scale of bronze tool production of the Sumerians, and continued using stone tools well after Sumer phased it out. Your link doesn't even support your argument. Red herring
>Maybe the first Arsenical bronze
Finally you admit you're wrong. Was that so difficult?
>I never said it was, in fact I said the first swords
>swords
those weapons found in Turkey and Caucasus were copper daggers, not bronze swords. The technology needed to forge large objects like actual swords was first developed in Sumer. Keep trying.
>they surely weren't daggers since they were long up to 70 centimeters
Pic related. You're getting desperate.
>You know that we can all see your posts, right? You did
Show me exactly where I said that "tribal means caveman" as you claim i said in your words. I said that just because a caveman is wearing furs, that doesn't mean that he's wearing armor. Tribal society has nothing to do with that factual statement.
>Not the argument I was making, cretin.
So then you do admit that Sumer was the first civilization after all? You're moving the goal posts, lad.
>Strawman
Sumer created armor. No amount of we wuz keltz will change that fact.
Grayson Foster
>conveniently choosing a pic without a scale
get back in the shed
Evan Hill
>in what you're writing
>The histories of Gudea and Ur-Namma are given elsewhere on this website.
It's probably copied from a thirdparty site
Ryder Martinez
divide 5 by twelve.
Landon Jenkins
It was just a matter of time until someone found out
sumerianshakespeare.com
I had a fun night larping as a historian and arguing with these autists though
Asher Gomez
either they had giant hands or their swords were short due to the limitations of bronze
Jace Parker
> The Sumerians were not endemic to southern Mesopotamia
Literally zero proof of this
>nd were culturally, ethnically, and linguistically unrelated to the Ubaid peoples.
Yeah as we can tell from all those Ubaid written texts, right?
>Finally you admit you're wrong. Was that so difficult?
Not really, arsenical bronze is not actual bronze, tin alloy bronze is the real bronze, everybody knows this
>those weapons found in Turkey and Caucasus were copper daggers, not bronze swords.
They were arsenical copper swords, the arsenical copper that you bring up so much, and yes they're considered swords, not daggers, you revisionist. They're not even the only swords from that period since an even longer sword was found in the caucasus belonging to the maykop culture bronsereplika.no
> I said that just because a caveman is wearing furs, that doesn't mean that he's wearing armor.
And why did you say such an out of topic thing? you said it because you thought cavemen and tribal people were the same thing, you autist.
>So then you do admit that Sumer was the first civilization after all?
Not at all, armor making doesn't mean you're a state society that was my point to begin with, you colossal moron.
>Sumer created armor.
And? They weren't the first and their armor was quite mediocre compared to that produced by tribal societies like the urnfield
Henry King
>in 2004 B.C. All the cities of Sumer were sacked and plundered
Funny how something similar happened to the cities of the region in 2004 A.D.
Gavin Brooks
>go to page, because entertained by what was posted
>very first thing I see is speculation about AYY Lmaos
made me chuckle.
Eli Reyes
>Literally zero proof of this
I literally linked proofs. It's not my fault if you refuse to believe in it. ancient.eu
>Yeah as we can tell from all those Ubaid written texts, right?
No, but you can tell from the physical evidence left behind and compare Ubaid artifacts to Sumerian ones.
>Not really, arsenical bronze is not actual bronze, tin alloy bronze is the real bronze, everybody knows this
You really do have autism. Bronze is any alloy of copper and other metals or metaloids like tin or arsenic. copper.org
>They were arsenical copper swords
So by your own definition they aren't bronze swords. You just proved my point, dumbass
>and yes they're considered swords, not daggers
they're 30cm daggers. Also, from your own source: "9 long daggers or short swords"
Can we just agree to disagree on the semantics? Also your source clearly states that Maikop and Arslantepe had direct links to the Sumerian trade network.
>And why did you say such an out of topic thing?
I was making the point that by your definition, even the most primitive man had armor, which clearly isnt the case. As I mentioned before, the difference between clothing and armor is intent
>Not at all, armor making doesn't mean you're a state society that was my point to begin with
Significant factors in the development of armor include the economic and technological necessities of its production, something tribes couldn't do
>They weren't the first
They literally were, according to the definition of "armor"
>their armor was quite mediocre compared to that produced by tribal societies like the urnfield
Again, you're comparing 3000bc armor to 1000bc armor. Of course newer armor will be better from generations and improvement. The urnfield people didnt live in a vacuum.
Wyatt Morgan
>implying it isn't true
Michael Martinez
the middle east is the most contested land the world because its where 3 continents meet and has the oldest history of human habitation. Kinda makes me sad thinking about all the death and suffering that place endured over the millennia
Luis King
Source on them being probably Caucasians from around the Caspian Sea? Having trouble finding this myself with Google.