5 comments

  • animan 8 minutes ago
    This was fun to read! I wish there was a no tech version of hackers news for this type of content only
  • tehnoslow 1 hour ago
    Interesting breakdown. The author clearly put in the work to test this theory. I like that he's not trying to force the data to fit the result but instead explains why even apparent matches could just be coincidental.
  • mjd 1 hour ago
    Short answer: no.

    Interesting nevertheless.

    • alephnerd 32 minutes ago
      Honestly would love to deep dive into Sumerian literature. Sadly much of it is still untranslated or in the annals of UChicago.
      • krzs9 13 minutes ago
        I can certainly recommend :

        1. The Literature of Ancient Sumer - Jeremy Black. It is a quite substantial anthology, has myths, hymns, laments, royal praise poetry, proverbs, literary debates, etc.

        2. Myths from Mesopotamia - Stephanie Dalley. I bought this for Gilgamesh, loved the rest of it too. One of my most treasured books.

        3. Weavers, Scribes, and Kings - Amanda Podany. Not Sumerian literature, but my favorite comprehensive history book covering all of Mesopotamian history. I mention this particularly because all the literature we do have came to us through scribes, and this book gets into whatever we can know about their internal lives really well. Reading about their tutoring and how they learnt to write, what we can deduce about how their lessons were structured - fascinating stuff.

        For such an ancient civilization, it is astounding how much we do have and how closely we can meet them.

        [1] https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-literature-of-an...

        [2] https://global.oup.com/academic/product/myths-from-mesopotam...

        [3] https://global.oup.com/academic/product/weavers-scribes-and-...

        • alephnerd 6 minutes ago
          Thanks mate! Got my weekend reading material!
  • quickthrowman 4 minutes ago
    I wonder why the Sumerians deviated on the last two lengths from the rule they had on the first six. The first six reign lengths (and the total sum of all eight reign lengths) are all n * 60 * 60, where n is an integer. The last two are not, but they could’ve been. If instead you use 18000 years and 21600 years instead of 18600 and 21000, they fit the same formula as the other numbers and the sum remains the same. They used base 60, and apparently got a kick out of multiplying 60 by itself and another integer.

    I noticed the deviation because there are mechanical watch movements that run at 18000 and 21600 beats per hour.