酷酷游戏的个人资料

纳玛女神（Namma）可以等同提亚玛特（Tiamat）吗？ Is that the same Namma that equates to Tiamat? It might be convenient to equate these two watery primordial mother goddesses, but can this be proven? Tiamat, the absolute state of tâmtu, means "sea." Kramer in his Sumerian Mythology happens to equate Namma with the sea (p. 39): In a tablet which gives a list of the Sumerian gods, the goddess Nammu, written with the ideogram for "sea," is described as "the mother, who gave birth to heaven and earth." Heaven and earth were therefore conceived by the Sumerians as the created products of the primeval sea. Jacobsen in his 'Sumerian Mythology: A Review Article' in Toward the Image of Tammuz [originally published in JNES 5] rejects this (p. 116): Returning to Dr. Kramer's treatment of the speculations centering in the goddess Nammu, it must be pointed out that the sign with which her name is written does not - as Dr. Kramer avers - mean "sea." "Sea" is a-abba(k) in Sumerian; the sign with which Nammu's name is written denotes - if read engur - primarily the body of sweet water which the Mesopotamians believed lay below the earth, feeding rivers and wells but best observable in the watery deep of the marshes. Nammu is therefore the "watery deep" of the Mesopotamian marshes extending below the surface of the earth as the water-bearing strata. She is not the sea. Apart from both goddesses being the the primordial mothers, and both being closely associated with the Apsu, the fact that they represent different bodies of water might be a deal breaker. [and on June 11th] It might be convenient to equate these two watery primordial mother goddesses, but can this be proven? Perhaps instead of looking for strict lexical equivalences, an answer could be found in Mesopotamian mythological speculation. The Akkadian Apsû, most commonly written with the sign ENGUR, happens to be equated with the sea in a first millennium Babylonian explanatory work, as shown in Livingstone's Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works p. 191: Anu [is present] as himself. Enlil is present as Lugaldukuga, (that is) Enmešarra. Enmešarra is Anu. Ea is present as the Apsû. The Apsû is the sea(Tâmtu). The sea is Ereškigal. Livingstone explains: Apsû and tâmtu(Tiāmat) are similar in that both are watery regions; as mythological figures they were husband and wife. Finally, Ereškigal is equated with Tiāmat, perhaps because both are underworld deities. Jacobsen dismisses this and remains adamant that engur is wholly distinct from "sea," n. 21 to 'Sumerian Mythology: A Review Article': However, as anyone conversant with theological texts of the type of TC, VI, 47 will know, such associations are important rather for what they tell about Mesopotamian speculative thought than as precise contributions to lexicography. One could join the dots and present a hypothetical link between Namma and Tiamat, but, as far as I am aware, a direct equation of the two does not exist. enenuru论坛 2008年帖子很难说明两者是指同一种东西。

转贴:【图片】苏美神话最强神祇(神鸟,神兽)—天之智慧(暴雨):安... 【图片】苏美神话最强神祇(神鸟,神兽)—天之智慧(暴雨):安祖鸟!【苏美尔吧】_百度贴吧来自：http://tieba.baidu.com/p/6219082082?sharefrom=tieba

《地球编年史》这种书籍，有趣的著作，满嘴的谎言跑火车内容，误导他人对亚述学产生歪风邪气的理解。这种老骗子不知祸害多少人，还经常有人来跟我提……真心无语。这件法国罗浮宫展出的中埃兰时期文物，上面白纸黑字写着埃兰语楔形文字，大概意思：埃兰王，Shilhak-Inshushinak，谁谁之子，“Inshushinak神心爱的仆人，给Inshushinak大神上的贡”。然后呢？你个老骗子对楔形文字视若无睹，瞎扯一气？跟别人说这是对涅伽尔的崇拜？还非洲特徵崇拜仪式？有意思吗？没想到多年后，本人仍要旧事重提。《地球编年史》信众们，真心不好意思，本人对这种老骗子没有任何好感，不会有一句好话。“书籍内容有趣”，不代表你能厚颜无耻的误导人！文物的时期背景，你不考虑，OK，算你。老骗子标榜自己懂楔形文字？罗浮宫博物馆文物上写了什么？噢，你不懂埃兰语，ok。其他学者就不懂了？罗浮宫博物馆学者们翻译及见结，都不如你这种骗子？

古代苏美人对行星贫瘠的认知水平图1机翻一下，照顾某些人引源文章《UNDERSTANDING PLANETS INANCIENT MESOPOTAMIA》 Writing was invented by Sumerians ca 3200 BC. Cuneiform1 tabletsof Sumerian period give us very interesting material but unfortu-nately no astronomical or astrological texts. Though some textshave been thought to originate from former periods, they have beenonly found in later copies, making dating extremely difficult. Theoldest existing texts about stars, one astrological and one astro-nomical, both come from the Old Babylonian period. Analysis ofreligious texts has led some scientists to suppose Semitic or evenWest-Semitic origin for the concept connecting stars and earthlyphenomena, because Akkadians (the term is hereby used to denotelinguistically close Semitic peoples – Babylonians, Assyrians andtheir predecessors) take a much more personal approach to godsthan Sumerians. On the other hand, the Akkadian use of Sumeriannames of constellations, stars, and planets weighs against this theory;however, such names could issue from the period when Semiteshad not yet accustomed enough to using the Sumerian-inventedcuneiform script for their own language, so Sumerian was used forwriting. It is possible that some sumerograms concerning stars havenever been pronounced in Sumerian, but only in Akkadian. Lateron, the symbols remained in use because of their shortness: e.g.the Sumerian name for the Scales is RIN2, which corresponds toAkkadian Zi-ba-nh-tu(m), so it can be written as a Sumerogramwith one sign instead of four signs for Akkadian. As another mat-ter, the interpretation of such different names can be difficult, butin this case it seems that in both languages, in the first place scaleswere meant, as Sumerian GIŠRIN2 and Akkadian girinnu both meanprimarily the most ordinary scales. An epithet of the Scales con-stellation, “Star of justice of Šama” (Reiner 1995: 4) can be consid-ered indirect proof – scales are a symbol of justice. Also in Greece,Virgo – which lies besides Scales – was connected to Dike, goddessof justice.2 In any case, to talk about planet names, we have to startfrom the Babylonians, not Sumerians, though we have to considerthe influence of Sumerian language and writing.The term Akkadian is used as a common name for the relatedSemitic languages Babylonian and Assyrian which can also be con-sidered dialects of the Akkadian language. As most contemporaryscientists consider the cuneiform script to have originally been usedfor Sumerian language, and the Sumerian language has no typo-logical relatives whatsoever (despite several claims by pseudo-sci-

[安利]：精灵守护者系列第三作：《レナリスサーガ》特推更新图，游戏仍在开发中

大佬们，BOSS怎么打？好容易将这第一形态打倒，还有两个形态…… 萌新是不是得难度换到 NO-MARU才能过阿。。

脑子有洞才会将：Nibiru扯成星体老生常谈的话题 Nibiru这个词，跟星体毛线关系都没有。老骗子吹了七本书，一块毛线泥板证据都拿不出来，全靠嘴巴在那里吹：”我认为“。 ”我认为“不能拿来当饭吃，你再怎么瞎认为，拿出一条记录来也好，这不是更有说服力吗? 结果七本书？洋洋洒洒一堆文字，断章取义节选其他学者的翻译，自己连独立解读任何一块楔形文字都做不到。拿着一些文物雕刻图案，意淫般脑补。话又说回来，骗子能欺骗这么多人，我个人也是服气的。该说是脑子不好使，还是被骗者根本不乐意去查阅亚述学资料？

巴比伦吧吧主竞选：NO.0001号候选人

地球编年史吧吧主竞选：NO.0001号候选人

《苏美王表》乌尔第三王朝手稿版，乌尔纳姆没有神化！《An Ur III Manuscript of the Sumerian King List》撇开残缺内容，整个手稿内容就只有两位国王名前拥有象征神名的限定符号-D（既an）。 [d]Samas-ka-bar-e，拙译：沙玛什-伽巴拉。按手稿版这里，这是库提人的王，WB版本则没有编入这号人物。 [d]Sul-gi，舒尔吉，乌尔第三王朝国王，诸位耳熟能详。按判断，该手稿版成文时间，正是舒尔吉统治时期。正因如此，乌尔纳姆的名前居然没有限定符号d。而舒尔吉却有限定符号，是有些费解。如果考虑时序，乌尔纳姆死后，仍没有大书特书神化。待到舒尔吉上台后，先宣传自己的神化，还没来得及神化亲爹，该手稿版成文于此时，因此没有限定符号。另，看过该手稿版与WB版，音译原文后，阿卡德的纳拉姆-辛，名前皆没有限定符号。这表示两个版本王表作者，都不认为或不愿意给他名前加上限定符号？手稿版与WB版经过对比，我们可以发现时期靠后的WB版，加了很多“戏份”，甚至虚增（虚假添加）年份，把数字年份越往大了说，若再参考贝罗索斯(Berossus，公元前350--前270年）的王表版本内容……本人暂且不清楚这种故意拉长年份的写作习惯意义何在。

分享贴子分享贴子

提前预祝C96小伙伴满载而归也就这样了至于新作几时，还是看E社HP吧

闇取引の港是怎么达成3星呢？没死人，也没放跑一个啊。是要等最后某个胖子，走到十字路中间范围，再锤死他？还是全程不被侦查兵发觉？

萌新见解：历代牧场海外版，全以中秋之月（收获之月？）为名！贴吧大佬多，信息量的掌握，以及日文、外文水平毫无疑问在我这菜鸟之上。聊聊一直以来的疑惑。首先，PS版牧场，有其他译名，叫作：《收获之月（或中秋之月、中秋满月、收获满月）—回归自然》。这个译名，对本人来说，满头问号。日文原版：《牧場物語ハーベストムーン》，其中，副标题是：ハーベストムーン，取自外文：Harvest Moon（收获之月、中秋之月、中秋满月、收获满月）于是一搜，问题就出来了。个人惊奇的发现，海外版全以“Harvest Moon”作主标题！于是，PS牧场的海外名称：《Harvest Moon: Back to Nature》（收获之月：回归自然）！！或许按照西方老外习惯，名在前，姓在后，因此两者置换位置？然而，从这时候开始，Harvest Moon貌似作为主题被固定了？！？！例如海外版的闪耀太阳……（这里先不理符文。至少符文没被列入牧场HP上……）牧場物語，其实按外文翻，可以直译：Farm Story或pasture Story。不懂是不是被注册或占用，被迫以“Harvest Moon“之名，作为海外版。 PS版，牧场副标题-中秋满月（日版），是很点题的。游戏中，在山上的大月亮（好像有个什么节来着）很衬托该标题，甚至结局剧情时，都是山上落幕（当然游戏仍能继续）。所以问题来了，其他版的牧场……Harvest Moon？跟Harvest Moon关联的意义是啥？好吧，这种采用润译，而非直译的方式，个人的确不理解。总体而言，给本人感觉，是当初，海外版的代理公司：Natsume，将错就错给润译了一个《Harvest Moon: Back to Nature》名称，然后历代海外版皆用？！但老实说，这么多牧场作品，点题的也就Harvest（丰收），跟moon（月亮、满月）

细节向：萨尔贡与阿卡德诸王的“基什之王”…… 阿卡德国王萨尔贡及其后继者等人所使用的“卢伽尔-基什”（基什之王）这一头衔，并没有限定符号[ki]。从某种意义上来说，阿卡德诸王可能从未宣称自己是“基什城的国王”。然后属于阿卡德时期的原始铭文中，基什城守护神兼战神-扎巴巴，并没有在阿卡德诸王铭文中出现，最被推崇的是阿卡德军神兼国神-Ilaba（伊拉巴，注：其他学者认为伊拉巴是扎巴巴写法上的变体。），以及Ištar Annunitum。 For this understanding of the title, see in essence already Jacobsen 1939a, cited above in n. 43. Since some Assyriologists still think that, as used by Sargon, Rimuš, and Maništušu, LUGAL KIŠ means “king of Kiš,” I offer an additional clarification. That the title meant šar kiššatim already in Sargonic times is shown by the fact that, in the same inscriptions, LUGAL KIŠ invariably lacks the indicator KI, whereas the toponym Kiški is always written with it (Steinkeller 1993: 120 n. 35). Here it is also significant that Sargon and his followers never claimed to be the kings of the city of Kiš, their own particular kingship being localized in the city of Akkade. Until the time of the Great Revolt during the reign of Naram-Suen, Kiš was governed by a semi-independent ruler, apparently holding the title of ensik, who was a vassal of the king of Akkade. Here notice also that Zababa, the titulary god of Kiš, is never mentioned in the original Sargonic royal inscriptions. In that period, the martial deities par excellence were Ilaba, the god of Akkade, and Ištar Annunitum of Ulmaš (part of Akkade). 《An archaic “prisoner plaque” from kis》节选内容，引文。作者：Piotr Steinkeller，哈佛大学-近东研究学院，2013年发表于《亚述学和东方考古学杂志》(《Revue d'assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale)。这细节实在过于……如若深究，可以引出各路讨论。单纯看文本内容，没有更多描述情况下，萨尔贡原籍极有可能就是基什城。（新亚述时期那个描述萨尔贡出身的故事，与《乌尔扎巴巴与萨尔贡》内容矛盾重重。能不能取信，这是个严肃且值得思考的问题。）然而Steinkeller教授，文中给出另外看法，虽然《王表》WB版，说萨尔贡是乌尔扎巴巴的持杯官，但极有可能根本是一个"基什的局外人"。有关萨尔贡的铭文其实不多（不排除本人孤陋寡闻），若考虑那些铭文的时期，更是存疑。印象里，好像真没有“萨尔贡宣称基什王”的铭文内容，采用“基什王”的，是他的后继者（Rimuš, and Maništušu），萨尔贡是否宣称过这一头衔，个人真没留意过哪块铭文有说。另外，《乌尔扎巴巴与萨尔贡》故事中似乎讲解（暗示？但结尾残缺，结局的确不明）萨尔贡如何登上基什权力顶峰。可这些内容与《王表》WB版、《王表》乌尔第三王朝时期手稿版内容，存在矛盾。《王表》显示，乌尔扎巴巴之后，仍有其他国王统治基什。除非另有资料显示说，这个时期的基什王全是萨尔贡附庸，否则很难取信。贴张梗图，转换一下台词，搞笑一下：“亚述学的事情，你们不用搞这么清楚，知道没”。

[資訊]新發現的4000年古城：Kunara（可能是Lullubi人的首都） National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) journal. 法國的国家科学研究中心期刊上，對這失落古城：Kunara，有所描述。該城遺位於伊拉克苏莱曼尼亚附近（伊拉克与伊朗邊境），城遺的時間可追溯至公元前2200年。雖然發現楔形文字泥板，但城市原來的名字仍是未知。初步推斷：是Lullubi人的城市，甚至是首都。 Lullubi人，《納拉姆-辛勝利石碑》中提到：納拉姆-辛宣稱自己戰勝了山區的Lullubi人。以現有資料來判斷，“Lullubi人”似乎一直是被以“野蠻人”來看待。可如果該城市真被落實屬於Lullubi人，那毫無疑問，所謂“山區野蠻人”之類的描述，全是不實描述。 Kunara城遺里，發現商業与農業的痕跡，灌溉區域顯示種植大麥方面的成就。在第一批發現的泥板中，記錄了麵粉進出情況，學者判斷這是麵粉工作坊的存在。第二批發現的泥板則不單單是麵粉，而是更多的穀物。泥板内容显示，该城遗居民掌握阿卡德语与苏美语。Kunara城遺发现的第一块楔形泥板，记录着面粉的出入情况。Kunara城遺挖掘现场黑曜石箭头原文：《Une riche cité découverte aux portes de la Mésopotamie》

[資訊]古代米坦尼王國宮殿出現在遭受旱災的伊拉克水庫 (CNN) — A 3,400-year-old palace has emerged from a reservoir in the Kurdistan region of Iraq after water levels dropped because of drought. The discovery of the ruins in the Mosul Dam reservoir on the banks of the Tigris River inspired a spontaneous archeological dig that will improve understanding of the Mittani Empire, one of the least-researched empires of the Ancient Near East, the Kurdish-German team of researchers said in a press release. "The find is one of the most important archaeological discoveries in the region in recent decades," Kurdish archeologist Hasan Ahmed Qasim said in a press release.

对埃兰有多少误解或无知？

重发：Eshnunna世界最古老厕所テル・アスマルはイラク東部、バグダードの北東約60kmの位置にあるシュメールの都市( )の遺跡である。ここで発掘されたアッカド王朝時代の宮殿から、いま我々が知ることのできる世界最古のトイレが発見されている。紀元前2200年頃のテル・アスマル（古代シュメール人の都市・現在のイラク）の宮殿跡からは、世界最古のものといわれる水洗便所が見つかっています。テル・アスマル遺跡シュメール国（イラク東部）のテル・アスマルの宮殿遺跡から、発掘されたトイレが一番古いとされています。世界最古の水洗便器は紀元前2200年のメソポタミアのテル・アスマル遺跡。ここで出土した便器はU型だったそうです。宮殿の100年後、前2100年頃の一般住宅からもトイレが発見されている。こちらも煉瓦製便器で、下を水が流れ、排泄物は焼き物でつくられた配水管を通って、下水道からチグリス川の支流ディヤラ川へと流れるテル・アスマルは下水道に直結した水洗トイレであるが、ウル検出のものは毛細管現象を利用した「非直結型トイレ」であった。紀元前2200年頃のテル・アスマル（古代シュメール人の都市・現在のイラク）の宮殿跡からは、世界最古のものといわれる水洗便所が見つかっています。それから100年後のものと思われる遺跡の一般住宅にも水洗便所が見つかっており、汚水は排水管によって川に流されています。更にそれより100年後の遺跡からは、砂地に吸い込ませる方式の汚水処理の跡が見つかっています。世界最古のトイレが発見投稿者：児島宮考古学研究室投稿日：2014年 7月 7日(月)16時20分27秒简单来说就是，Eshnunna，埃什努纳城发现了世界上最古老的厕所。

4000年前的巴比伦炖菜——“放卷”，要试试吗？ the few thousand written clay tablets that survived from the ancient Babylonian kingdom to today, only four are known to contain recipes. Those four — which are about 4000 years old — reside at the Yale Babylonian Collection in Sterling Memorial Library. Recently, two Yale researchers and colleagues from other universities teamed up to cook three of these ancient recipes at "An Appetite for the Past," an event at New York University that featured historical recipes from across the world. The team consisted of: From Yale: Agnete Lassen, Associate Curator at the Yale Babylonian Collection and Chelsea Graham, Digital Imaging Specialist at the Institute for the Preservation of Cultural Heritage From Harvard: Gojko Barjamovic, Senior Lecturer on Assyriology; Patricia Jurado Gonzalez, Visiting scholar from the Basque Culinary Center in San Sebastián, Spain; and Pia Sörensen, Senior Preceptor in Chemical Engineering and Applied Materials and Nawal Nasrallah, culinary historian, author, and chef名字为何叫：unwinding，这个得问当时的巴比伦厨师。现代复原出来肯定不指望百分百一样。你们会以为是暗黑料理吗？那可就错了。味道还出奇的好。

历史上第一位歌手（阉人？）：马瑞的乌尔-南什很久以前就讨论过。刚好瞧见背部照，再发过。 Ur-Nansh，男性化名字。却留着一头长发，于是，“阉人说”由此而生。

追赶贝因都骆驼兵的亚述人

乔治的讲座…… 应该是我不清楚定位。长达1小时28分，可能纯粹是在浪费时间……要么实在太深奥，听译的那位表达没到位。犀利的一处地方，用阿卡德语直接念。然后……没什么冲击力。可能看其论文或文章，也好过看这个讲座。

新亚述时期的180具遗骸（头骨？）噢嚯？如果乌尔王陵里的头骨跟这些遗骸的检验结果…… 某些思想偏激的疯子是否会跳脚？

别再把这象牙雕塑说是什么吉尔伽美什，真是够了！[2P] 这东西出土地Nimrud，属于新亚述时期，腓尼基风格，甚至是努比亚人。给亚述人上贡。哎……

[電影]世界上第一部巴比倫電影：可憐的尼普爾人（？）不知道算不算……本人過去尋找過一些古代兩河流域有關的電影，說有個電影名：“亞述王子的夢”。可能搜索方式不對…… 另一個是出自大師之手，耗資盛大的無聲電影。但這電影四個故事段組成（記不住），其中一個是說巴比倫啥啥的…… 嗨，記不住，當自言自語的吹牛皮吧，但這《可憐的尼普爾人》，諸位感興趣可以看一下。

[资讯]Naqshe-Rustam发现新铭文！[3P] A trilingual inscription has been discovered on the hillside around the tomb of the Achaemenid Emperor, Darius the Great in Naqshe-Rustam. Source: IRNA The discovery of an Achaemenid inscription, which had remained hidden under dirt deposits and lichen for over two millennia, is of great importance in the field of ancient Iranian studies and ancient linguistics, said French archaeologist Wouter F. M. Henkelman. The inscription is written in Old Persian, Elamite and Babylonian languages, and is of particular importance to linguists as it adds new verbs to all three ancient languages in which it is inscribed. "It is still hoped that in the area of Naqshe-Rustam, which has been explored continuously for decades, other such valuable inscriptions will be discovered", added Henkelman. It is hoped that the discovery of this detailed inscription will add valuable information about the archives of Persepolis and enhance our previous knowledge of the genealogy and names of the aristocratic families of the Achaemenid dynastic period. "The discovery of this inscription offers great information to archaeologists about the circle of the Achaemenid [King of] King's associates and advisers", Henkelman said. 转自CAIS（伊朗古代研究圈）

有意思：现存《苏美王表》最早版本，打败库提人的是阿达布城邦！《An Ur III Manuscript of the Sumerian King List》作者：Piotr steinkeller 现存《苏美王表》最早版本，乌尔第三王朝手稿，见图。本人拙译： 12，库提（被）武装打败 13，王权 14，移至阿达布城 15，在阿达布，某人（残缺）为王 16，王3年 17，puzur-zu-zu 18，王1年 19，Sag-du-KI.6 20，为王6年 21，Ti-ri-ga-a-an 22，王40天 23，阿达布城（被）武装打败 24，王权 25，移至乌鲁克城即便是Piotr steinkeller教授本人，也对该文本中，添加的四位阿达布统治者感到出乎意料。因为人们熟知的《苏美王表》内容里，库提之后是乌鲁克第五王朝，没有阿达布。雅各布森（Thorkild Jacobsen）经典版，郑殿华译四位阿布达统治者中，只有一个是已知的，并且与WB版内容一致。 Ti-ri-ga-a-an，毫无疑问的倒霉蛋，为王40天就没戏了。余下3位，一位名字残缺了，另两位只知其名，是库提人？还是阿布达城邦的人？皆未知。

尝试解读阿卡德（Akkad）词意阿卡德一词，词源不明。国内某书籍说是“祖先之城”，没有作出其他讲解，引源等……如果没记错，书名应是《巴比伦古文化探研》。如若再没记错，书中还言，吉尔伽美什之后的七位乌鲁克王使用基什王名号…… 一没文物，二没铭文，三没行政记录泥板，《苏美王表》乌鲁克第一王朝的国王没一位得到证实的前提下，敢问是怎么得出"用基什王名号"，这一结论的？综上所述，还是看看楔形文字字形吧。通过日文wiki（E文WIKI上不去……），可以得知。苏美语写法为KUR.URI(ki)。至于为什么念得出AGA.DE，这个可能要问阿卡德人…… KUR：山、东风、东部、或火焰（烧伤）、点亮。 URI：船。宾夕法尼亚大学苏美词典，字意如此……有幸找到一篇1906年的文章，作者：J.DYNELEY PRONCE。对阿卡德一词，进行讲解。需要注意的是，文章太老，存在一定的过时性。文中给出的楔形字形，应是…………20世纪初期与21世纪的楔形字形认知，可能略有不同。第一个，URI的变体。第二个KI的变体…… 城市之地……city-land与land of the city？？在该文作者看来，字符URI是“水”、“河”的意思，因此建议为：两河土地。当然，作者自己也不敢下结论，文中自己打了个（？）…… “火焰王冠”，也是另一种可能解释。余下就是西帕尔=阿卡德等，云云。再次强调，这是1906年文章。存在一定的过时性。不管怎么说，目前为止，阿卡德一词，仍存在任何开放性解读。

转贴:现存《苏美王表》最早版本中,王权在基什,并非埃里都!【苏美... 现存《苏美王表》最早版本中,王权在基什,并非埃里都!【苏美尔吧】_百度贴吧来自：http://tieba.baidu.com/p/6166502758?sharefrom=tieba

现存《苏美王表》最早版本中，王权在基什，并非埃里都！说到埃里都，《苏美王表》WB版中，洪水之前的第一座王权城市。这是流传最为广泛的。然而，这WB版形成时期稍后一些。首先，在目前发现的最早的版本（乌尔第三王朝时期）里，没有大洪水什么事，详见CDLI。在《Was Eridu The First City in Sumerian Mythology?》一文中，更是提到一则有趣的内容：demonstrates, the kingship was actually lowered down fi rst to the city of Kiš 现存《苏美王表》最早版本，乌尔第三王朝版，开头直言：天降王权至基什。所以……既没有大洪水的描述，也没有埃里都第一王权什么事……

《对早期苏美文明万神殿的一种可能解释》《ONE POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE EARLY SUMERIAN PANTHEONON》作者：Peeter Espak，塔尔图大学（University of Tartu）研究人员文中涉及Abu Salabikh神表、法拉神表（所谓的《法雷神册》）、马里神表等。文章不长，可以直接看结论。恩里勒与恩基“竞争”，这套说法是：无鸡之谈（没料你说个J……）。因为没有任何追溯性可言。（看图） Several conflicting opinions of Enlil and Enki in – for example in the Flood Stories – seem to be mythological motives of an ancient “action story” and they seem not to represent any rivalry between different theological schools. 洪水故事（另有阿卡德语版《阿特拉哈西斯》）中，恩里勒与恩基的做法纯粹是为了完成故事的动机，并非表达什么竞争。注：文中这段话中，“action story”，本人不是很理解，自然，本人从未说自己水平够。但在《法拉神表》（SF 23版），与Abu Salabikh神表（OIP 99版？），有别于其他神表排列，的确存在一组en-ki序位在恩里勒之前的内容。（这里的en-ki与nin-ki，也有学者异议，指是其他神，并非是我们所知晓的那个恩基）本人心心念念的《马里（马瑞）神表》其中一处内容…… 有意思的是，文中指出引了王献华先生的文章内容。

转贴:第二届国际亚述学协会(IAA)论文奖得主【苏美尔吧】_百度贴... 第二届国际亚述学协会(IAA)论文奖得主【苏美尔吧】_百度贴吧来自：http://tieba.baidu.com/p/6159138947?sharefrom=tieba

现存埃兰语线型文字部分文物一览埃兰语线型文字（Elamite Strichschrift），约公元前2150年左右，埃兰王：Kutik Inshushinak（也称Puzur Inshusinak）时期使用。 CDLI言：现存18个文本。 Online Corpus of Linear Elamite Inscriptions，简称：OCLEI，言：现存38个文本。瑞士伯尔尼大学，言：46个文本与文本碎片。考虑到一些文物是近年更新面世，因此CDLI上埃兰语线型文字讲解资料内容，提到的文本数，已属过去。应取信OCLEI或伯尔尼大学提到的文本数为准。日方资料认为：“推定有80个文字，但目前资料来看，应是50个文字数”。（本人注：这应该是1969年时的看法）OCLEI上则显示超过上百个字数（350个？），并推定99个音节。在现有38个文本（或46个）中，著名的Jiroft碑文，被认为是“伪造物”的呼声很高。埃兰王：Kutik Inshushinak，纳贡铭文。双语。右侧为阿卡德语楔形文字。

第二届国际亚述学协会（IAA）论文奖得主 Jana Matuszak，以一篇优秀的博士论文获得此奖，其题名为：《“‘Und du, du bist eine Frau?! ’ – Untersuchungen zu sumerischen literarischen Frauenstreitgesprächen nebst einer editio princeps von Zwei Frauen B”.》。德语…… 该文章着重讨论分析《两个女人的对话（B）》（Dialog zwischen zwei Frauen (B)），这则泥板故事。德语…… 该文本以《Two Women B》为现代英译题名。论文作者在原有诸多泥板基础上，新发现三个版本文本碎块，分别在：Ithaca（不知是否康奈尔大学）、耶拿、伊斯坦布尔。甚至完整的重建文本（这操作，的确犀利）。重建后的故事全貌，大概为：两名女性互相指责，火药味逐步升级，当一个女性指责另一个女性为”女支女“时，争论停止。后果很严重，被诽谤的女性因为这个，导致他丈夫”通女干指控“与她离婚。该女性找到法官，证明自己的清白，澄清声誉。论文作者在文中，以她的分析去解释为何最初的争吵会失控、古巴比伦的法庭诉讼以及各种等等等……好吧，很明显本人水平不够，编不下去了（笑～）论文计划会出现在《Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie undVorderasiatischenArchäologie》，不知几时能看到……

重发：《法雷神册》…… 是这样，17年帖子回炉了。CDLI似乎现在浏览不顺利……用enenuru论坛的截图来将就法雷神册阿布萨拉比赫神册 Weidner神册（古巴比伦时期）尼普尔神册（古巴比伦时期-其实时期与地点均未明，此图发布者说的）

《世界文学探源:苏美尔巴比伦文学述要》仍是存在一些问题《七妖围南纳》，毫无疑问是来自这本书籍中，给本人带来的中译名目。但如果采用的是1903年R.C. Thompson，出版书籍中的英译，直译的话，《THE SEVEN EVIL SPIRITS》：七恶灵，或七邪灵。当然，两河流域泥板中，并非全程邪恶。因此本人采用“七神”或“七精灵”。这些都不打紧。之前有些过时认知：1903年时，该作者觉得存在更古老的苏美语版，但最新发现并非如此（吧主分享过新资料）。严格来说，这仍是一篇阿卡德语神话故事，“推测”、“可能“、存在更古老的苏美语言版。《THE SEVEN EVIL SPIRITS》——《七神颂》：https://tieba.baidu.com/p/5536185916《法雷神册》，纯粹就一份神祇名字列表，没有任何乱七八糟的描述。这些描述内容应该都是其他时期，其他泥板中对乌图的描述内容。恩里勒这段移花接木的神奇内容，理应避免，否则这乌龙实在太大。

[外文]《Labbu神话故事》（Labbu myth）一直想找全貌，但也就找到这些内容。该故事有另一异本，《涅伽尔与蛇》吧主分享过。参考书目： Foster 1993, 488-489 Foster, Benjamin. Before the Muses. Ann Arbor: CDL Press 1993. Heidel 1951, 141-143 Heidel, Alexander. The Babylonian Genesis. The Story of Creation.Chicago: Chicago University Press 1951 (second edition). The cities sighed, the people [moaned], the people decreased in number [ … ]; for their lamentations there was none [to … ], for their cry there was none [to … ]. Who [brought forth] the serpent? The sea [brought forth] the serpent! Enlil drew a picture of [the serpent] in the sky: its length was fifty leagues, [its height] was one league, its mouth was six cubits, [its tongue] twelve cubits, its ear flaps twelve cubits; at (a distance of) sixty cubits he [can snatch] the birds; in the water nine cubits deep he drags; he raises his tail [ … ].” All the gods of heaven [ … ], the gods knelt before [Sin], and hasti[ly seized] the hem of Sin, “Who will go [to kill] the Labbu? [Who] will save the vast land and exercise kingship [in the land]? Go, Tispak, ki[ll the Lion-serpent, sa[ve] the vast land [ … ], and exercise kingship [in the land]!” (Tispak:) You sent me, lord of the offspring of the river, but I do not know [the ways] of the Lion-serpent [ … ]” (gap) … Ea opened his mouth and spoke to [ … ]: “Stir up the clouds (and) [create] a storm; [grasp] the cylinder seal at your throat before his face!” He shot (an arrow) [and killed] the Lion-serpent. For three years, three months, one day and night, the Lion-serpents blood flowed [ … ].

基多拉在剧中来源引用了《Labbu神话》？！小说版或官设资料里，有提到更详细的描述吗？（其实是老帖重发了，当时被吞了）影片进入海底遗迹-哥斯拉老巢，出现了新亚述时期的守护神兽-人首牛身大胡子。接着是海底遗迹壁画里……由于没来得及照片，无法一一对比，但出现“生命树”与“有翼精灵”的类似文字符号。（等以后腾讯视频可以观看后，再复看确认了）接着经过一处大门，两旁均树立着阿淑尔纳西尔帕二世雕像！！！对，没错，就是这个拿权杖的大胡子。影片末尾大量新闻信息资料呈现时，安祖与尼努尔塔赫然上镜！！！！！！！！！！！章博士讲解基多拉的神话来源传说时，屏幕右侧摆放的是……新亚述时期的雕刻与楔形文字。。。（如果没记错，那则雕刻与楔形文字，可能没有描述狮子龙什么什么的……）按照章博士在影片中对基多拉的描述，其神话原型似乎使用了《Labbu神话》当作参考！既，《哥斯拉：怪兽之王》中，基多拉成为了古代西亚人们《Labbu神话》的原型！但应该也用了九头蛇的资料参考，因为提到了“杀之不尽”（好吧，可能记错）。《Labbu神话》（The Slaying of Labbu），这则故事留存两则版本，神王恩里勒在天空中画了一条龙，诸神害怕，月神辛或埃阿神或阿鲁鲁女神，委托Tišpak（名字意为诸神之勇士）或Nergal（名字意为伟大权威），将其讨伐。当然，事实上因泥板残缺，Nergal讨伐的怪物并没有提及名字，所以是否同一故事，同一怪物，很难辨别。WIKI上，两则故事被认为是同一故事。只是杀蛇的角色，与委托杀蛇的角色，不同。《Labbu神话》中，狮子龙是有诸神勇士去躯赶了。那电影里，基多拉最初是被人类与泰坦（哥斯拉）联合起来，赶跑到南极？是这样的吗？

实锤：基什王Enna-il（Ennail）安祖之子名声远至埃勃拉！ KISZ(ki) en-na-il _szu mu-tag4 尚不知这里的“_szu mu-tag4”为何意，但注音部分，清楚的知晓，KISZ(ki)（基什之地），en-na-il人名。 CDLI上搜索en-na-il，会发现关于这个名字，埃勃拉方面出土的泥板文书屡屡提及！甚至多不胜数！但可能因为埃勃拉语泥板整理翻译出来相当困难，所以CDLI上很多泥板仍未翻译。话又说回来，CDLI没有那么多翻译内容，这也是常态。——————————————————————————————————————————————然而，这块CDLI编号：P005984，出土自尼普尔的文物，明确写着“基什王-Ennail”。P005984的复写，是能清楚看到“基什之王”，这组楔形文字的。请留意，这块泥板被推断是法拉时期！早阿卡德时期，同样尼普尔出土，CDLI编号：P020641，写着卢伽尔，以及恩里勒，宁里勒，可能是给大神进贡。这块CDLI编号：P247659，已至乌尔第三王朝时期。字体写法上，与法拉时期存在差异。有两种可能： 1、法拉时期或更早的时期里，此人作为国王，相当有名。以至于阿卡德早前至乌尔第三王朝时期，功绩仍被提及。并且远在埃勃拉，文书中屡屡出现这名字。 2、不同时期，不同地点，存在复数使用Enna-il之名的人。（注：大名鼎鼎的汉莫拉比，同时期也另一人使用这名字）最后仍是P247659的内容，第三行中，dumu-[(x)]，dumu（孩子、儿子、女儿）右边缺少的部分，可能是个简短的人名。但这样语法表达上，有些怪异，第四行的a-anzu2#{muszen}，这里的未知显得港澳，莫名其妙！

没能动画化（剧场版）的戏曲作品：吉尔伽美什宫崎骏先生的大作：《幽灵公主》，相信大家都看过。当然，这对本人来说自是神作了。在百度百科上有这么一条信息，说是梅原猛拿自己的戏曲，让宫崎骏先生弄成剧场版？！（这个酷）最终没能剧场版，实属遗憾。阿日那边是有这个传闻，那姑且就信了吧（笑）。　これは余談だが、「もののけ姫」の準備期間中、哲学者・作家の梅原猛氏が、自作の戯曲「ギルガメシュ」（新潮社）を宮崎監督に送り、アニメーション化の検討を頼んだという経緯があったと言う。しかし、監督は「内的に触発されるものがない」という主旨で丁重に辞退し、自作を創り上げた。その後、「もののけ姫」のパンフレットに寄稿を依頼された梅原氏は、一端断ったテーマを転用するとは何事かと固辞。ちょっとしたイザコザとなった。　この顛末については、一年後に「木野評論」誌上に掲載された両氏を含む特別座談会の席上で無事和解となったようだが、監督自身は以下のように語っている。其实至今为止，对本人来说，读《吉尔伽美什标准版》，还不如苏美语版。创作时间线上，标准版给人感觉是同人再创作，甚至苏美语都不是。（不过好像标准版一部分，是有苏美语版存在的迹象）

智商不够的萌新求大讨伐过法档得了狮子，档不了其他几路

乌尔南修（Ur-nanshe）是个大鼻子喽？乌尔南修（乌尔南社、乌尔南什） Ur-nanshe修复问题？色彩问题？跟某一张细节上有点不一样。某张是绿色的（青铜色）。来源：cdli

[转]苏美人，阿卡德人，亚述人，大家都是黑头 I wish we could separate the history of the Middle East from race, but it is impossible to do so because of the desire of Eurocentrists to make Semitic speakers members of the “white” race. The controversy surrounding the Kushite/African/Black origins of the Elamites, Sumerians, Akkadians and “Assyrians” is simple and yet complicated. It involves both the racism exhibited toward the African slaves in the Western Hemisphere and Africans generally which led to the idea that Africans had no history ; and the need of Julius Oppert to make Semites white, to accommodate the “white” ancestry of European Jews. To understand this dichotomy we have to look at the history of scholarship surrounding the rise of Sumero-Akkadian studies. The study of the Sumerians, Akkadians. Assyrians and Elamites began with the decipherment of the cuneiform script by Henry Rawlinson. Henry Rawlinson had spent most of his career in the Orient. This appears to have gave him an open mind in regards to history. He recognized the Ancient Model of History, the idea that civilization was founded by the Kushite or Hamitic people of the Bible. As result, Rawlinson was surprised during his research to discover that the founders of the Mesopotamian civilization were of Kushite origin. He made it clear that the Semitic speakers of Akkad and the non-Semitic speakers of Sumer were both Black or Negro people who called themselves sag-gig-ga “Black Heads”. In Rawlinson’s day the Sumerian people were recognized as Akkadian or Chaldean, while the Semitic speaking blacks were called Assyrians. Rawlinson identified these Akkadians as Turanian or Scythic people. But he made it clear that these ancient Scythic or Turanian speaking people were Kushites or Blacks. A major supporter of Rawlinson was Edward Hincks. Hincks continued Rawlinson’s work and identified the ancient group as Chaldeans, and also called them Turanian speakers. Hincks, though, never dicussed their ethnic origin. A late comer to the study of the Sumerians and the Akkadians was Julius Oppert. Oppert was a German born of Jewish parents. He made it clear that the Chaldean and Akkadian people spoke different languages. He noted that the original founders of Mesopotamia civilization called themselves Ki-en-gi “land of the true lords”. It was the Semitic speakers who called themselves Akkadians. Assyrians called the Ki-en-gi people Sumiritu “the sacred language”. Oppert popularized the Assyrian name Sumer, for the original founders of the civilization. Thus we have today the Akkadians and Sumerians of ancient Mesopotamia. Oppert began to popularize the idea that the Sumerians were related to the contemporary Altaic and Turanian speaking people, e.g., Turks and Magyar (Hungarian) speaking people. He made it clear that the Akkadians were Semites like himself . To support this idea Oppert pointed out that typological features between Sumerian and Altaic languages existed. This feature was agglutination. The problem with identifying the Sumerians as descendants from contemporary Turanian speakers resulted from the fact that Sumerian and the Turkish languages are not genetically related. As a result Oppert began to criticize the work of Hincks (who was dead at the time) in relation to the identification of the Sumerian people as Turanian following the research of Rawlinson. It is strange to some observers that Oppert,never criticized Rawlinson who had proposed the Turanian origin of the Ki-en-gi (Sumerians). But this was not strange at all. Oppert did not attack Rawlinson who was still alive at the time because he knew that Rawlinson said the Sumerians were the original Scythic and Turanian people he called Kushites. Moreover, Rawlinson made it clear that both the Akkadians and Sumerians were Blacks. For Oppert to have debated this issue with Rawlinson, who deciphered the cuneiform script, would have meant that he would have had to accept the fact that Semites were Black. There was no way Oppert would have wanted to acknowledge his African heritage, given the Anti-Semitism experienced by Jews living in Europe. Although Oppert successfully hid the recognition that the Akkadians and the Sumerians both refered to themselves as sag-gig-ga “black heads”, some researchers were unable to follow the status quo and ignore this reality. For example, Francois Lenormant, made it clear, following the research of Rawlinson, that the Elamite and Sumerians spoke genetically related languages. This idea was hard to reconcile with the depiction of people on the monuments of Iran, especially the Behistun monument, which depicted Negroes (with curly hair and beards) representing the Assyrians, Jews and Elamites who ruled the area. As a result, Oppert began the myth that the Sumerian languages was isolated from other languages spoken in the world evethough it shared typological features with the Altaic languages. Oppert taught Akkadian-Sumerian in many of the leading Universities in France and Germany. Many of his students soon began to dominate the Academe, or held chairs in Sumerian and Akkadian studies these researchers continued to perpetuate the myth that the Elamite and Sumerian languages were not related. There was no way to keep from researchers who read the original Sumerian, Akkadian and Assyrian text that these people recognized that they were ethnically Blacks. This fact was made clear by Albert Terrien de LaCouperie. Born in France, de LaCouperie was a well known linguist and China expert. Although native of France most of his writings are in English. In the journal he published called the Babylonian and Oriental Record, he outlined many aspects of ancient history. In these pages he made it clear that the Sumerians, Akkadians and even the Assyrians who called themselves şalmat kakkadi ‘black headed people”, were all Blacks of Kushite origin. Eventhough de LaCouperie taught at the University of London, the prestige of Oppert, and the fact that the main centers for Sumero-Akkadian studies in France and Germany were founded by Oppert and or his students led to researchers ignoring the evidence that the Sumerians , Akkadians and Assyrians were Black. In summary, the cuneiform evidence makes it clear that the Sumerians, Akkadians and Assyrians recognized themselves as Negroes: “black heads”. This fact was supported by the statues of Gudea, the Akkadians and Assyrians. Plus the Behistun monument made it clear that the Elamites were also Blacks. The textual evidence also makes it clear that Oppert began the discussion of a typological relationship between Sumerian and Turkic languages. He also manufactured the idea that the Semites of Mesopotamia and Iran, the Assyrians and Akkadians were “whites”, like himself. Due to this brain washing, and whitening out of Blacks in history, many people today can look at depictions of Assyrians, Achamenians, and Akkadians and fail to see the Negro origin of these people. To make the Sumerians “white” textbooks print pictures of artifacts dating to the Gutian rule of Lagash, to pass them off as the true originators of Sumerian civilization. No Gutian rulers of Lagash are recognized in the Sumerian King List. Genetic structure Blacks in ancient Mesoamerica If Africans early colonized the Americas there was be genetic evidence supporting their ancient presence. Evidence which should exist today in Amerindian populations. Lisker et al, noted that “The variation of Indian ancestry among the studied Indians shows in general a higher proportion in the more isolated groups, except for the Cora, who are as isolated as the Huichol and have not only a lower frequency but also a certain degree of black admixture. The black admixture is difficult to explain because the Cora reside in a mountainous region away from the west coast”. Green et al (2000) also found Indians with African genes in North Central Mexico, including the L1 and L2 clusters. Green et al (2000) observed that the discovery of a proportion of African haplotypes roughly equivalent to the proportion of European haplotypes [among North Central Mexican Indians] cannot be explained by recent admixture of African Americans for the United States. This is especially the case for the Ojinaga area, which presently is, and historically has been largely isolated from U.S. African Americans. In the Ojinaga sample set, the frequency of African haplotypes was higher that that of European hyplotypes”. The genetic evidence for Africans among the Mexicans is quite interesting. This evidence supports the skeletal evidence that Africans have lived in Mexico for thousands of years. The foundational mtDNA lineages for Mexican Indians are lineages A, B, C and D.The frequencies of these lineages vary among population groups. For example, whereas lineages A,B and C were present among Maya at Quintana Roo, Maya at Copan lacked lineages A and B (Gonzalez-Oliver, et al, 2001). This supports Carolina Bonilla et al (2005) view that heterogeneity is a major characteristic of Mexican population. Underhill, et al (1996) noted that:" One Mayan male, previously [has been] shown to have an African Y chromosome." This is very interesting because the Maya language illustrates a Mande substratum, in addition to African genetic markers. James l. Gutherie (2000) in a study of the HLAs in indigenous American populations, found that the Vantigen of the Rhesus system, considered to be an indication of African ancestry, among Indians in Belize and Mexico centers of Mayan civilization. Dr. Gutherie also noted that A*28 common among Africans has high frequencies among Eastern Maya. It is interesting to note that the Otomi, a Mexican group identified as being of African origin and six Mayan groups show the B Allele of the ABO system that is considered to be of African origin. Amerindians carry the X hg. Amerindians and Europeans hg X are different (Person, 2004). Haplogroup X has also been found throughout Africa (Shimada et al,2006). Shimada et al (2006) believes that X(hX) is of African origin. Amerindian X is different from European hg X, skeletons from Brazil dating between 400-7000 BP have the transition np 16223 ( Martinez-Cruzado, 2001; Ribeiro-Dos-Santos,1996). Transition np 16223 is characteristic of African haplogroups. This suggest that Africans may have taken the X hg to the Americas in ancient times. Some researchers claim that as many as seventy-five percent of the Mexicans have an African heritage (Green et al, 2000). Although this may be the case Cuevas (2004) says these Africans have been erased from history.

阿卡德城遗址究竟在何处？几个被备选的可能性位置 Akkad，一词意义未明，有书籍提到意为：“祖先之地（城）”。该城为萨尔贡所建，时至今日仍未找到。依据wiki给出的线索，大概有以下几处： Sippar（西帕尔）附近，早期也曾是备选之一，基于楔形文字来源。然而矛盾多多，随着Nabonidus铭文一则内容得到确认，该备选已排除。 1975年，《Kish, Akkad and Agade》文章中一波分析，推测是在：Ishan Mizyad。然而挖掘表明，Ishan Mizyad的遗址时间未能追溯至阿卡德时期，并且有其他文章观点说，该遗址不够大。排除。新一轮的可能性落在：Tell Muhammad与Qadisiyah，这两处地方。仍需等候最新的考古挖掘证据。期待阿卡德城重见天日的一天。

[疑虑]《苏美人与超新星》的传说？《The Sumerians and the Supernova》机翻外文 1977或1978年，George 提出的超新星与苏美人巴拉巴拉。距今已41年时间。截止至今这段内容仍摆在某科上，不过可能没人有心情去修改，或也没人当回事。这是位能提出：Dilmum（迪尔蒙）既亚特兰蒂斯假说的“专家”。这是位能跟你说，苏美人水神是EA的‘专家“。这所谓超新星，令学者感到困惑…… 过时判断，咱们出于尊重，也就不猛批了。但不管怎么说，如若误导，带歪了大家对亚述学的认知，提出并纠正，相信都不过分。

[算是新料？]一块未证实的《苏美王表》泥板[2P] 截图来自CDLI 宾夕法尼亚大学 Jeremiah PETERSON先生，分享了一篇短文报道，大意是一块新认识的泥板上，记述了《苏美王表》大概第130行的内容。 1. u?-min lugal?-bi? 2. [m]u-bi DIŠ.U×3 DIŠ×6? x(nimin or ninnu?) min ib2-ak? 3. [...] x aga!?-kar2? ba-sig10? 4. [na]m?-lugal?-bi 5. [ŠE]Š.UNUG?ki- še3! ba-de6? 6. [ŠE]Š.UNUG?ki Mes-an-ne2-pad3-[da] 此为该学者的注音 CDLI版注音如下： 1：($blank space$) 1(u) 2(disz) lugal-bi#? 2： [mu]-bi# 3(gesz'u) 6(gesz2) 5(u)? 2(disz)? ib2-ak? 3：[unu]{ki#} {gesz#?}tukul#? ba-an#-sag3#? 4-5：nam#?-lugal#?-bi#? uri2#{ki}-sze3 ba-de6#? 6.a'：uri2#{ki}-ma 6.b'：mes-an-ne2-pa3-da#? CDLI版的看起来有些花，显得乱杂了。

拥有命运决定权的神祇！恩基，在《恩基与世界秩序》这篇故事中，从恩里勒那里获得了授意。涅伽尔也有，在这里，恩里勒将命运决定权放置在他手中。安祖鸟，则在《卢伽尔班达与安祖鸟》故事中，阐述他父亲恩里勒给予它决定命运的权利（90-110行）。故事中也安排了卢伽尔班达想要的愿望（命运）。事实上，故事开篇就交代卢伽尔班达想要求助安祖鸟，可见卢伽尔班达自身一早就清楚安祖鸟能够安排他的命运。南纳、伊南娜等著名神祇，应该也从恩里勒或安那里得到决定命运的权力。

[分享]简单的苏美语词汇《Elementary Sumerian Glossary》，76页，还行。 CDLI上有分享。链接: 1O1a-ljUnyRr6LBfiITh-cA 提取码: qi8m

又见所谓苏美人DNA证据？右边这本书，的，书名，真犀利。———————————————————————————————— 首先，R1b？点进去后……还说是亚述人祖宗先至于J1。J1-M276？抱歉，2011年那篇《苏美遗传足迹》文章写的原文是J1-M267。笔误可以理解。可我居然花了时间去看了一下，很神奇。为何别的学者文章里的建议性，可能性，到了疯子嘴里，就是定论。太神奇了。

神表《An = Anum》上有意思的内容[1P] In Sumerian, which does not distinguish grammatically between feminine and masculine, there is no difficulty in understanding the role to have been held by a female 不懂本人是否存在理解错误：苏美语的语法中没有女性男性之分？若是如此，还真是解答了本人多年来的困惑。尼努尔塔与宁吉尔苏，从字面来理解，宁吉尔苏是女性形！（宁利尔、宁松等……）本人一直当作例子：就当作是男性安排了一个女性的名字。如今一看，如果理解没有错误，那就得到了解答。另外有意思的地方，《An = Anum》该神表里，Ninnisig被安排给了Erragal（涅伽尔），于是冥界大佬的妻子或情人名单，又莫名其妙多出一位。有关Ninnisig女神，是恩基女儿。此前，另一位Ninšubur女神的婚姻安排（安排给冥界大佬），好像也出自《An = Anum》神表里。然后是…… 《A New Join to the Hurro-Akkadian Version of the Weidner God List from Emar (Msk 74.108a + Msk 74.158k)》这篇论文里，提到有两个神话文本，内容，既Erragal为涅伽尔。 ……………… 暂时如此吧，心境变化了一下，先打住，内容就说不了太多。

《马瑞神表》的一则节选内容[1P] 这是一篇论证库苏女神（KUSU）情况的文章节选，文章作者：Frank SIMONS 由于马里（玛瑞）神表乃本人感兴趣的内容，至今仍不能见其全貌，实属无奈。这里的文章节选，算是补了一部分。并且也存在有意思之处： 37-45序列举出的神名，可以得知，在马瑞城邦的神祇信众情况。 37-39，这三位，是我们耳熟能详的恩里勒三个儿子兼战斗神：尼努尔塔、扎巴巴、宁吉尔苏。这样的排位或许表达了马瑞信众的序位。若以“神祇融合观点”去看待，这三位又是指同一位。尼努尔塔与宁吉尔苏，被当作是同一位，这是大家耳熟能详的内容，《马瑞神表》中间却给安排一位扎巴巴，这显得有些莫名其妙。不过，事实上，尼努尔塔与扎巴巴混一视的泥板内容，也是能找到的。综合来看，就是……一个神，三种称呼，占了三个位置。番茄、西红柿、狼桃。马铃薯、土豆……

“阿卡德游牧民族论”毫无根据，苏美学大师-克雷默甩不了锅[1P]