“The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia

by Damien F. Mackey “In the case of the Sumerians, the problems started from the very beginning; their very existence, their identity, their origin, their language, and their demise have all been questioned”. Nita Gleimius Nita Gleimius introduces us, with a standard explanation, of what has come to be called “The Sumerian Problem”: https://www.thecollector.com/sumerian-problem/ The Sumerian Problem(s): Did the Sumerians Exist? Did the Sumerian civilization really exist? Were they immigrants? And why is their language so unique? Oct 22, 2022 • By Nita Gleimius, BA Ancient Near Eastern Cultures & Biblical Archaeology Controversies regarding the Sumerian people — generally called “The Sumerian Problem” — started almost as soon as their civilization was rediscovered. After almost two centuries of discoveries and interpretations, and the deciphering of ancient cuneiform texts from various ancient Near Eastern sources, the very existence of the Sumerians as a distinct nation is still questioned today by some learned scholars. Add to this the various theories about ancient aliens and mysterious teachers, and we have a veritable melting pot of beliefs, myths, and interpretations that defy logic. Many Assyriologists and Sumerologists, like Thorkild Jacobsen and Samuel Noah Kramer, have contributed immensely to the unraveling and interpretation of facts from conjecture. They started to create a semblance of order using the conglomeration of information from archaeology, cuneiform texts, guesswork, and unsubstantiated theories. But even they had to guess and make assumptions. What Is the Sumerian Problem? Discovering our ancient roots is enlightening and wonderfully exciting, one clue leads to a discovery, which leads to another clue, which leads to another discovery, and so on — almost like a top-selling mystery novel. But imagine that your favorite mystery or crime novelist suddenly ends a book without tying up the pieces — and with some crucial pieces of the mystery still missing. Without crucial evidence, without enough hints to lead you further, you may check and recheck if you were right in your analysis and tentative conclusions. Sometimes archaeologists end up with just such a mystery. In the case of the Sumerians, the problems started from the very beginning; their very existence, their identity, their origin, their language, and their demise have all been questioned. Once most of the archaeological and linguistic fraternities agreed that a previously unknown group of people had in fact settled in southern Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) before 4000 BCE, theories abounded. Scholars theorized, reasoned, and debated. Instead of arriving at a reasonable potential geographic location, questions and mysteries multiplied. The issue became several issues. The Sumerian Problem became so emotional for some scholars that they attacked each other openly and personally. The media had a field day, and the scholarly war became in itself part of the problem. …. [End of quote] When, not long ago, I wrote an article entitled “Sumerian Geography in Chaos”, a veritable geographical revolution shifting far westwards (north and south) places that are conventionally thought of as being situated in the lands of Sumer and central Mesopotamia, it had not yet occurred to me that Sumer itself would likewise need to be shifted. Recalling what I wrote there: As explained in e.g. my article: Prince of Lagash (4) Prince of Lagash | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu none of these following locations: Akkad; Dilmun; Magan; Meluḫḫa; Lagash; Eshnunna; Girsu; Gu-Edin was actually located in - as we are commonly told - Sumer (for Akkad; Lagash; Girsu Gu-Edin); or Central Mesopotamia (for Eshnunna); or Bahrain/ Oman/Indus Valley (for Magan and Meluḫḫa). None of these was even situated to the east of the Euphrates River. We have been served up a ridiculous geography of Sumer, in part, and of its environs. So it is not really surprising – could almost be anticipated – that some of the places, such as Lagash and Girsu, seem to ‘fall permanently off the political map’ (and that is because they have never belonged on this map). According to Seth Richardson: Ningirsu returns to his plow: Lagaš and Girsu take leave of Ur (2008) (5) Ningirsu returns to his plow: Lagaš and Girsu take leave of Ur (2008) | Seth Richardson - Academia.edu The Ur III state came to its end through a series of passive defections of individual provinces over the course of about twenty years, rather than by any single catastrophic event. This pattern of defections is nowhere better reflected than in the gradual progression of provinces abandoning the use of Ibbi-Sîn’s year names over his years 2–8. Among the cities that fell away from the control of Ur in those years were Girsu and Lagaš, where Ur III year names are not attested after Ibbi-Sîn’s sixth year. …. Like Puzriš-Dagān and Umma (but unlike Larsa, Uruk, Isin, and Nippur), these cities seemingly fell permanently off the political map of lower Mesopotamia following their departure from Ur’s control, never again the seat of significant institutional life to judge by the low number of texts and inscriptions coming from the sites. At the same time, it is difficult to assert from evidence that any hardship or conflict either precipitated or resulted from Lagaš-Girsu’s decamping from Ur’s authority; no especial difficulty marks the event. …. [End of quote] All of these places in my list above I have re-located far to the west (and to the south of west). Akkad was, in fact, the famous port city of Ugarit (Ras Shamra) far away on the Mediterranean coast. The Egyptians knew Ugarit as IKAT (Akkad). It really makes no sense, does it, that the great Assyro-Babylonian monarchs would individually have boasted of being a “king of Sumer and Akkad” if there was no meaningful geographical separation between the two name-places. Locations thought to have been closely associated with Akkad, geographically, such as Dilmun, Magan and Meluḫḫa, were found to have been nowhere near Sumer either. These were, respectively, Tyre, Egypt and Ethiopia. The region of Sumer, long considered to have been the biblical Shinar (Genesis 11:2), and hence the “Cradle of Civilisation”, was, in fact, a region of late settlement due to the waters and marshes left over by the Genesis Flood. Post-Flood civilisation began in SE Turkey, at Karaca Dağ, the mountain of the Ark’s landing according to the brilliant research by Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White, “Candidate site for Noah’s Ark, altar, and tomb” (Journal of Creation 35(3):50–63, December 2021): https://creation.com/karaca-dag From there, it is a small step to the world’s most ancient civilisations of Göbekli Tepe, and other places traditionally considered to be the world’s “first city”, such as Abram’s Ur of the Chaldees (Sanliurfa), and Harran. Lagash and Eshnunna. This is the same place. And it is to be found in Judah. I had, in my university thesis (2007) distinguished between two forts named Ashdod, the well-known coastal one belonging to the Philistines, known in Sargon II’s Annals as Ashdudimmu, “Ashdod-by-the-Sea”, and another Ashdod that Sargon II’s General (Turtan) captured (Isaiah 20:1), which I determined to have been the famous Lachish. It needs to be noted that Lachish was second in importance to Jerusalem itself: https://www.baslibrary.org/biblical-archaeology-review/31/4/8 “Among cities in ancient Judah, Lachish was second only to Jerusalem in importance. A principal Canaanite and, later, Israelite site, Lachish occupied a major tell (mound) 25 miles southwest of Jerusalem, nestled in the foothills of Judah (the region known as the Shephelah)”. Eventually it struck me that my combination, Ashdod-Lachish, had to be the supposed Sumerian combination of Eshnunna-Lagash. (Friend Robert R. Salverda, at the same time, had come to the conclusion that Lagash was Lachish). Lagash is sometimes referred to as Lakish. Eshnunna as Ashdudda merely requires an n and d interchange. But why do we find Lachish (Lagash) being so important? What about Jerusalem? Well, it is an indication of the importance of Lachish. However, some Sumeriologists think that Lagash was not the capital, but that Girsu, the religious centre, actually was. The religious centre, Girsu, therefore, with Lagash secondary to it, must be Jerusalem. This has since led me to the realisation that the land of Sumer needs to be stripped of some of its most famous names. Places that seemingly just drop out of history. Puzrish-Dagan and Umma, that likewise fall off the map, need to come under scrutiny now as well. Happily, for Sumeriologists and the like, Larsa, Uruk, Isin, and Nippur, seem to be firmly established in Sumer. Though I would distinguish between the well-known Sumerian Uruk and the Urukku seemingly associated with Girsu (my Jerusalem) as its sanctuary. (Ur, Uruk, appear to have been very common ancient names, widely distributed). Also to be distinguished, in this context, are the Sumerian Ur and the home of Abram, “Ur of the Chaldees”, which is Urfa (Şanliurfa) in SE Turkey, far from Sumer. Finally, given my view (and that of others) that Jerusalem was the same site as the antediluvian Garden of Eden, then the Gu-Edin (Guedena) over which the king of Lagash, Eannatum (yet to be identified), and the king of Umma, fought, could perhaps be a reference to the region of Jerusalem (or some place closely associated with it). Akkad will also disappear from history, as did Ugarit at the time of the Sea Peoples. But this will be due purely to external destruction. When the Jews were exiled to Sumer, their history must have become known, but re-cast in Sumerian fashion, with Sumerian pronunciations replacing Hebrew ones. Now - and this will be examined in my next article, “Sumerian History in Chaos” - we have the absurdity that some of what is presented as extremely ancient Sumerian history was, in fact, far less ancient Judean history. [End of quote] Most recently I have argued that Babylon (Babel) itself, thought to have been situated in central-southern Mesopotamia, was actually Carchemish (now in southern Turkey): Correction for Babylon (Babel). Carchemish preferable to Byblos (3) Correction for Babylon (Babel). Carchemish preferable to Byblos | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And, just prior to my writing that article, I had come to the conclusion – belatedly, under the circumstances – that the land of Sumer, now with some of the major locations attributed to it moved far, far away, could no longer be located in the south of Mesopotamia: “With Sumer now de-nuded and gaping, like a mouth emptied of its many teeth, may it not be time to consider for it as well a new, more westerly, location?”: A new location proposed for Sumer (3) A new location proposed for Sumer | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu My tentative new candidate site?: “The stand-out candidate for Sumer, I think, must be the important SUMUR, a virtually identical name, which is a Syrian city situated between Byblos and Arwad”.