Talk:Tiamat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ancient Near East Portal
This article falls within the scope of the ancient Near East WikiProject. Please participate by editing this article, and help us improve articles to good article standards, or visit the project page.

Does the trivia stuff about the game belong in this article? It does not look encyclopedic to me. Leibniz 14:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, by "Apsu (or Abzu) fathered upon Tiamat the heavens and the earth" does that mean Apsu and Tiamat procreated? I have trouble construing its meaning - it sounds like a euphanism, almost. --220.237.205.227 05:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Ancient astronomy

Tiamat is more than just a Sumerian goddess, someone who has studied into this subject will agree that the Sumerians also referred to Tiamat as the celestial object that used to be located where the asteroid belt is beyond Mars. The article just doesn't have that information.

http://www.ancientx.com/nm/anmviewer.asp?a=21&z=1 - one of the clay tablets
http://www.darkstar1.co.uk/ds2.htm - A study of sumerian mythology/cosmology.

I'm not saying that Tiamat and Nibiru are actual realities, but this is all based on clay tablets left by Sumerians which is why Tiamat should be categorized in Ancient astronomy.AI 02:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Until such time as someone puts info in this article about astronomy (factual, verifiable and sourced, please) the category is completely inappropriate. DreamGuy 16:43, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Can you please state the Wikipedia policy you are operating with or is it your pov?--AI 20:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please read the policy on Categories. It very clearly says that unless a category is obvious and uncontroversial, it should not be listed. If the info is not in the article, it's not obvious and definitely is controversial, so the category obviously cannot be there. Further from your later statements it looks now that your claims for it being in astronomy are highly controversial (and outright wrong, because you solely quote someone with no academic standing on the topic) so once again the category clearly does not belong. DreamGuy 16:58, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
The history of the article shows that I have an interest in this debate. The problem I have here is this: you need a reference emanating from orthodox Sumeriologists/Assyriologists that Tiamat was conceived by the ancient Sumerians (at least in some of their myth-cycles) as an astronomical body. If only Sitchin and others of his ilk hold this view, it's not good enough. It would constitute a fringe theory, and the category would have to go. My memory is hazy on this particular Tiamat-as-a-celestial-body topic, so supply solid references. Decius 22:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Decius, you ought to look at the tablet where the Sumerians illustrate their idea of the solar system. Either I can revert your changes now, or wait until I get a copy of that tablet uploaded. Sitchin's wild ideas are not necessary to understand what the Sumerians meant in that tablet.--AI 02:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The theory that the asteroid belt represents the remnants of a single broken-up planet is not in any way an accepted theory in astronomy. The conventional (and perhaps correct) view is that the asteroid belt represents material that never formed into a planet in the first place. Decius 00:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
IMHO, this entry by you indicates POV. This article is not about the asteroid belt. Nor is ancient astronomy considered "science." Ancient astronomy is merely a documentation of astronomical beliefs by ancient cultures.--AI 02:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You seem to be basing way too much of this on Zecharia Sitchin's unorthodox interpretations. Decius 00:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That is your POV.--AI 02:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
On the basis of this website: [1] (he gives references) and based on what I remember, I'm removing the category and will further rephrase the text. Decius 01:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Who is Chris Siren?--AI 02:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The point of that is not what Chris Siren believes. He has references, and he is just credible enough that I'm sure he is not lying about his references, which are good references. Decius 03:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know zip about Ancient astronomy, but I couldn't find anything in JSTOR about Tiamat as a planet. I did, however, find that during the late 19th and early 20th century there was extensive discussion by theologians about the ways in which the Tiamat cosmology influenced the creation of Genesis. If anybody is interested in those articles, please send me an e-mail and I'll forward them to you. --Fastfission 02:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will dig up references (clay tablets) regarding the Planet Tiamat. Don't hold your breath as this subject of ancient astronomy is of minor interest to me.--AI 02:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If Sumeriologists affirm that the Sumerians referred at least one time to Tiamat as a celestial body, then I will support the category: Ancient astronomy on this article. An image of the tablet is not enough---we need to know what the majority of experts say about the tablet. Decius 02:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sumeriologists do not dictate the content of Wikipedia. A Sumerian clay tablet has more authority than any "Sumeriologist."--AI 02:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the consensus views of Sumeriologists do dictate how we present article relating to ancient Sumer in Wikipedia. So the image of a clay tablet is not enough. Decius 02:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's Sumerologist, not Sumeriologist. Anyway, are you going to provide at least one reference about the consensus views of your "Sumeriologists"? A clay tablet is a much more credible reference than any interpretation' by any "Sumerologist."--AI 02:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And does any Sumeriologist (besides Sitchin, since he may be a Sumeriologist) affirm that the Sumerians believed that Tiamat was a planet between Mars and Jupiter, where the asteroid belt is now? If not, that sentence will be changed back to how it was. That entry by me does indicate my POV: my point of view is that I will not accept the claim that Sumerians believed that Tiamat was a planet between Mars and Jupiter unless I read the tablets myself and convince myself. Step two would then be to see what Sumeriologists say about the tablet. Decius 02:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Until I dig up a copy of the clay tablets I am thinking of, you can look at this site: http://ephemeris.com/ I'm sure they know a lot more than Chris Siren (whoever that is). Take a look at the History section.--AI 03:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, that didn't really explain it very well. I'll try to find you another reference. BTW, the Sumerians had clay tablet diagrams explaining Tiamat's moons.--AI 03:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I didn't say that the consensus view of Sumerologists (or Sumeriologists, as I spelled it) are against your view. It's just that no references indicate that most Sumerologists agree that Tiamat was a planet between Mars and Jupiter. That's why I'm asking you for references in the first place. Sumerian cosmology is not my field, either, so don't expect me to even spell the term right. From orthodox books I've read on Sumerian cosmology, I don't remember a planet Tiamat. Decius 03:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I will have to search more, but for now here's an image which doesn't really prove anything in itself. [2] However, I remember that pose of Tiamat in the illustration is based on the moons of tiamat as explained in a clay tablet. It has been many years since I considered all this Sumerian "astronomy", give me some time and I will dig up images of the clay tablets for you.--AI 03:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
By the way, Sumeriologist comes up a lot on google, though I don't know if those are misspellings also, and I don't care. Decius 03:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Stop wasting my time, this discussion is not about Sumeriologists or Sumerologists or which one is the right usage. I already said what I have to say for now until I get references for you.--AI 03:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You wasted everybody's time by not having references in the first place, besides Sitchin. Decius 03:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sitchin is a reference regardless of your POV.--AI 03:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here is an analysis of Sitchin's claims by Sasha Lessin, Ph. D. [3]. I have not read it, I only use it here because it was the first google listed page I could find with any trace (poor copy even) of one of the clay tablets I am referring to.--AI 03:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here is a site discussing Sitchin's claims. If this site is right, it once again shows that Tiamat as a celestial body (complete with moons) depends on Sitchin's interpretation: [4]. Decius 03:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're reference is irrelevant. Please see mine, and I will dig up more.--AI 02:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Using Sitchin as a basis for factual information is pretty much the equivalent of using Aesops Fables as a biology text. The man is not accepted as credible by pretty much anyone but fringe lunatics. He is contradicted by all the experts trained in archeology and astronomy. DreamGuy 16:50, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

That is your POV. You are biased because of criticism of Sitchin's theories. I am only claiming what is being established by a researcher which has been verified bymself by studying photos of the clay tablets:
  • Tiamat was the name of one of the celestial bodies in Sumerian cosmology
You're associating my claim with everything Sitchin is claiming. I am not supporive of all Sitchin's claims.--AI 02:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What you claim is that there is a Babylonian/Sumerian clay tablet, which, according to you (and you in turn base this on Zecharia Sitchin, since you saw the tablet through the medium of Sitchin and read his interpretation of it), is self-evident proof that Tiamat was conceived as a planet between Mars and Jupiter in Sumerian cosmology. I'm wondering whether the tablet is as self-evident as you claim. I wouldn't bet a large sum on that. Decius 06:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am going to add this to the article:
According to Zecharia Sitchin, the Sumerians also referred to Tiamat as the celestial body that once existed where the asteroid belt now is.
--AI 02:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That at least was more accurate, but by it's lack of mention that all serious scholars disagreed with Sitchin it violated POV. Per POV policies, fringe and anti-scientific beliefs need to be labeled as such. I moved this part to the new disambiguation page and made a note that the claim is not believed by anyone other than Sitchin. DreamGuy 20:19, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

I have provided references about the Tiamat (Planet) theory asserted by Sitchin. However, even small a mention of this is constantly being censored on this main Tiamat article by DreamGuy and Decius. --AI 19:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I to added the story of tiamat as a planet and it was removed. The fact of the matter is there is plenty of hard evidence to support Sitchin's theory unlike other ideas. I myself accept the concept as it makes perfect sence, sadly we live in a world full of delusional minds that would rather accept biblical nonsence that has no hard evidence. If the theory had no impact and no one else believed the theory, then maybe you can explain to me why NASA has been searching for nibiru (marduk) since the 70's and why Zecharia Sitchin has managed to sell over a million copy's of the 12th planet, not to include all his other books that have sold mass amounts. (unsigned, but by User:Khaosinfire)

NASA has not been searching for Nibiru, and a book's capacity to sell lots of copies has no relationship (except arguably an inversely proportional one) to its scholarly worth. "Delusional minds" I think would be a more apt description of people who believe Sitchin. DreamGuy 21:16, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disambig page

I added a disambiguation page, as the two lines at the top were kind of crowded, and it made a good place to mention the alleged ancient astronomy claim. Since the alleged reference isn't what this article is about, listing it on the disambig page was more appropriate and should satify anyone who claims to be worried about POV. DreamGuy 20:19, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I have read the story, and didn't some other gods beg her to help them fight the other gods? They brought up the death of her husband and son, and said that she was powerful enough to help them overcome the ruling gods. And so she made an army of monsters but lost anyways. The article just simply stated that she was angry.

And this is completely random and my POV, but does anyone else feel sorry for Tiamat? I mean, She seemed more reasonable than her husband and son, and the younger gods were being bothersome, and the new rule seemed harsh. The rebellion was just, and they almost made it but then the powerful son of that whatever just creamed ther armies with his magic. I feel sorry for Tiamat. :( Blueaster 18:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Babylon vs. Sumer

I'm not comfortable with the assertion that Tiamat is a "Sumerian" goddess as all the references I've seen to her (eg: Dalley - Myths from Mesopotamia, Black & Green - Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia) have been from the Babylonian Epic of Creation, and no Sumerian source (such as those from Samuel Noah Kramer) include her as Sumerian.

Similarly, the Enki reference should be changed to Ea only. Enki was a Sumerian deity, Ea is the form that shows up in the Enuma Elish. This would be like calling Mars "Ares" - they're similar, but distinctly different.

Finally, I have found no reference for Anu as being the original hero in the Tiamat slaying myth. Where does that come from?

Chris.s 21:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Chris S, eh? Wouldn't happen to be from the line of FAQs in question, would it? If so, welcome, it's nice to have someone whose reputation for knowledge precedes him here editing Wikipedia. If not, well, the comment you made were astute enough to make you think you may have been him, which is nearly good enough I suppose.
I've mostly been running cleanup on the article (along with lots of others) so often don't get a chance to read the whole thing. Sounds like you have a good point there. Where things comes from here? Well anybody can put anything they want here, so who knows where it came from. I'll try to double check my sources just to make sure later, but if you're who I think you are I'm sure you have your sources down.
DreamGuy 23:32, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah.. I'm the guy who wrote the Near Eastern Mythology FAQs (and one of the Sitchin debunking articles) More complete bibliographies are on those pages, which I won't bother to type the URL for here -- googling Sumerian Mythology or Babylonian mythology takes you there on the first hit. Chris.s 22:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The epic of creation was written by the Sumerians first, khaosinfire 10:55pm, August 23,2005

for my objection to this assertion, see below. Chris.s 20:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

then the Mesopotamians copied it khaosinfire 10:55pm, August 23,2005

Quibble here - Mesopotamians refers to all those civilizations who lived between (meso) the rivers (potamia) Tigris & Euphrates. They include the Sumerians as well as the Akkadian speaking Babylonians and Assyrians. Chris.s 20:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

and changed the supreme deity Anu to Marduk. khaosinfire 10:55pm, August 23,2005

It is widely hypothesized (see S. N Kramer's The Sumerians for an example) that An (the Sumerian version of Anu) was indeed the chief deity of the Sumerians ~6000 years ago or so. By the time that most surviving Sumerian literature appears, Enlil is the primary deity "who decreed the fates". Enlil or his Babylonian variant Ellil also takes a lead role in many early Akkadian language myths. Still, later, as Babylon gained ascendance, its chief cult deity Marduk, became the pantheon head, though further north in Assyria, their chief god Assur, played the role that Marduk plays in their version of the Enuma Elish. (Dalley p. 228, among others) Chris.s 20:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

When the nefilim and anunnaki first came to earth roughly 450,000 years ago khaosinfire 10:55pm, August 23,2005

The above assertion is strictly a Sitchin interpretation. I have yet to find a source not based on Sitchin that agrees with this. Chris.s 20:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Anu was the sepreme deity, then after Anu retired Marduk took his place. Ea and Enki are both the same deity, there are 5 of 12 sumerian deitys that have 2 names Ea/Enki, Nanna/Sin, Utu/Shamash, Ishkur/Adad & Inanna/Ishtar. khaosinfire 10:55pm, August 23,2005

While in many cases, the Akkadian forms of those names were used in the same documents as the Sumerian names, in general, Shamash, Ishtar, et al. were the forms found in Akkadian documents, with Enki, Utu, and Inanna found in the purely Sumerian documents. Just as there are differences between the Greek Apollo and the Roman Apollo, the Greek Zeus and the Roman Jupiter, and especially the Greek Ares and the Roman Mars, so to are there differences between the Sumerian and Assyro-Babylonian deities. If you like, you could make connections between Ea, Enki, Ptah, Heyan, Kothar-u-khothas, Haephestos, Vulcan, Agni, Semyaz, Prometheos, and sundry other deities or between Inanna, Ishtar, Astarte, Ast/Isis, Aphrodite, Venus, Freya, and Frigga, and certainly there are thematic similarities and were cultural borrowings. But each cultural varient remains distinct. Incidentally, while the Akkadians did have a deity named Adad, that storm god is a cultural borrowing from the Canaanites, who worshiped him as Baal-Haddad. If we're going to hit Jungian archetypes here, Adad most closely corresponds to Marduk, and in fact is one of the 40+ names of other deities that Marduk assumes after his conquest of Tiamat. Chris.s 20:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Here is a link to the sumerian epic of creation (Enuma Elish) http://www.halexandria.org/dward179.htm

khaosinfire 10:55pm, August 23,2005

Hey Khaos, it looks like you are confusing a pseudoscientific ancient astronaut aliens visited the earth theory with actual mythology and history. DreamGuy 18:56, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, claiming that the Enuma Elish is Sumerian or that it was originally written by the Sumerians is like claiming that The Lord of the Rings was orginally written by 11th century Icelanders and not by Mr. Tolkien. The later work draws on several characters and themes of the older, but much new material is added and the older is changed significantly. Existing tablets of the epic date to the 900's BCE, and while some speculate that the story may have been composed as early as the 1900's BCE, even these early dates are well into the decline of Sumerian civilization.
Re: the Epic of Creation "The general theme of a god triumphing over the Sea [Tiamat]... Sumerian temple hymns and poems refer to the heroic exploits of gods, but never to a triumph over the Sea; the Sea, whether a god or goddess, is not important in the Sumerian pantheon." - (Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia p. 230)
Also, the Sitchin/Raelian business of Annunaki (in Sumer they were "Anunna") as von Danikenite, alien astronauts is at the very least, not a "verifiable" theory, nor is it "neutral". The link cited for the "Sumerian" Enuma Elish relies only on Sitchin for that version, and while I'd be quite pleased to find that such a version had been located in recent years, I have not found such an account outside of Sitchin in over a decade of searching. Chris.s 22:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is anyone willing to stand up against Dreamguy?

I have recently filed a complaint against Dreamguy for reverting anything I try to do, I was the 10th person to file a complaint against him today. We need to gather consensus to put this guy in his place, it seems to me that people are afraid to stand up against him. Why is this? (unsigned, but by User:Khaosinfire)

Um, problem here is that your edits are not just bad, they violate policy here. A number of editors now have reverted your edits as inappropriate, here and on other articles, including a VfD for an article you created, and instead of following the helpful suggestions we give you, you just keep doing the same violations. And I have no clue what you mean about 10th person to file complaint today, I checked your edits, you didn't file a complaint anywhere. It sounds like you're just making things up now. DreamGuy 18:52, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Whatever Dreamguy keep your nose out of my buisness and leave me and my edits alone, I did file a complaint against you. You really need to stop tracking me and everything I do or else your gonna get it for stalking me. (unsigned, but by User:Khaosinfire)

Again, I'm not stalking you, and I, along with every other editor here, have all the rights in the world to modify or remove your edits if they do not meet the standards of quality or if they violate the policies here. Your edits have been removed as unacceptable by several editors, so I do not know why you choose to focus solely upon me. DreamGuy 21:00, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I am also growing a little tired of DreamGuy's revert-happy tendencies, and I for one do not have a history of having my edits reverted as inapproriate. Although I understand that he means well, Dreamguy seems to prefer a simple, unilateral revert as opposed to a real discussion. (Specifically in the case of labeling Tiamat a monster and refusing to even let her archtype as a mother goddess be expressed in the article, even though she is referanced in that article.) Mrwuggs 21:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You people should all be ashamed of yourselves. 24.239.35.204 09:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tiamat's appearance

According to the disambiguation page for Tiamat, the five-headed dragon in D&D is "based loosely upon the mythological figure (which did not have five heads)".

But on the Tiamat page, there seems to be no info about her appearance. Was she a dragon with one head, or what was she? If this information is known at all, then someone please add it to the article. (And if nothing is known about her appearance, maybe the article ought to state so.)

I have no clue myself (as I know little of the mythology in question), but I am sure that there are people here who know far more than I. Please help. SpectrumDT 21:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

In my Assyro-Babylonian mythology FAQ entry on Tiamat ( http://home.comcast.net/~chris.s/assyrbabyl-faq.html#Tiamat ) I report:
"Traditionally conceived of as a serpent or dragon of some sort, this idea does not have any basis in the Enuma Elish itself. Within that work her physical description includes, a tail, a thigh, "lower parts" (which shake together), a belly, an udder, ribs, a neck, a head, a skull, eyes, nostrils, a mouth, and lips. She has insides, a heart, arteries, and blood." There are pictures of long, narrow-bodied, four-legged serpents with crocodile-like heads that are usually associated with Tiamat, though from what I can gather, her name is not explicitly associated with them. I think one can also find cylinder seal depections of a multi-headed serpent creature (7 heads if I'm remembering right), but again the attribution is not certain. Chris.s 14:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Please add this info to the article. (I would do so myself, but I am unsure about quoting you and your website...) SpectrumDT 13:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I believe the cylinder seal depictions of multiheaded serpent creature was actually from a later culture and a different character. Lotan being the most obvious one, but of course there were others. One of the prblems was that early scholars were rather sloppy and tried to link any monstrous depiction with Tiamat even when there was no logical connection. That Zu bird (or whatever it was, I forget, but I know Chris knows what I am talking about) with a male sexual organ that was falsely labeled as Timamat was listed everywhere and was clearly wrong. I'm not sure on the crocodile headed creatures because I can't picture offhand what that was. DreamGuy 18:53, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Chris.s or anyone else shouldn't expect Assyro-Babylonian representations of Tiamat to follow the Enuma Elish description to the letter, especially since the Enuma Elish description is rather vague. In actuality, numerous instances from other cultures show that a mythological figure may be described in a certain way in literature, but depicted in art in various ways. Depictions of Tiamat in Assyro-Babylonian culture, as far as I can tell, varied. Some are in this manner:[5]. This other link shows a large-bodied serpentine creature with arm-like appendages and goat-like horns which has been identified as Tiamat by a number of sources:[6] (see the image titled "A Babylonian cylinder seal showing a battle with Tiamat". My reference indicates that that is a cylinder seal in the British Museum, to quote: "The cylinder seal probably shows the slaying of Tiamat by Marduk. Tiamat is originally the salt-water ocean; in the myth she embodies primeval chaos, represented as a female dragon-like monster..." --Alexander 007 23:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
It's worth noting that a number of images that quite a while back were "identified" with Tiamat were simply in error. All too often their criteria seemed to be "Tiamat was a monster, this is some sort of monster, so it must be Tiamat." More recent studies often confirmed that they were actuall completely different characters. So when you talk about your reference, it's helpful to know if it's a modern scholarly reference or not. A lot of low quality works -- especially in fiction -- use old, extremely outdated books as reference because they are wildly available as sources. When I try to go to your first link I am not allowed to see the image and it ridirects me to the home page, where it's fairly self-evident that the site is not scholarly in the slightest. The second page you provide a link to is just some college student's website, with no listing of where he got the information. Encyclopedias need to use scholarly, verifiable sources. If you can find something like that to support your view, great. What you have shown so far, though, doesn't even come close. Later cultures undeniably had characters represented as dragons that filled roles similar to Tiamat, but I know of no reputable references that say Tiamat was a dragon. In fact that's one of my easy criteria to see at a glance if a source knows what it's talking about: if it calls Tiamat a dragon or prints an image of the storm bird or a male figure (obvious from the penis it has) and tries to tell me that it's Tiamat, I don't bother trusting it for reliability (of course if it had a good, rational scholarly explanation to support it then fine, but none ever has that I've seen). And it's amazing how many low-quality books there are on the topic. DreamGuy 03:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Of course, dubious sources should never be relied on. But my source at hand is not quite dubious, although I would prefer something more specialized. Though I remember other reliable sources describing Tiamat as a dragon-like figure also. But to my present reference: World Mythology, Roy Willis, general editor, Foreword by Robert Walter, Director of the Joseph Campbell Foundation, A Henry Holt Reference Book, 1996. In the Middle East section, which is written entirely by one Professor Reverend Canon J. R. Porter, we find that same Cylinder Seal (shown in the second link, "A Babylonian cylinder seal showing a Battle with Tiamat") from the British Museum on pg. 62, with this caption:
"This cylinder seal probably shows the slaying of Tiamat by Marduk. Tiamat is originally the salt-water ocean; in the myth she embodies primeval chaos, represented as a female dragon-like monster which must be overcome before the ordered universe can be created. One text mentions Marduk's weapons, shown here-- the mace with which he crushes Tiamat's head, lightning to attack her, and possibly, a net to ensnare her and her companions."
--Now, the fact that the cylinder seal shows Marduk with what may be a mace in one hand and lightning bolts in the other---standing on a large, serpentine monster---makes a compelling argument that the serpentine, dragon-like monster depicted is Tiamat. Alexander 007 03:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
How is that a convincing argument? Marduk fought lots of monster. Tiamat herself gave birth to them. Dragons/serpents/etc. are specifically mentioned amongst many, many others, none of which imply that any of the children look like the mother (scorpion men, fish things, everything). Why should anyone assume that this particular monster is supposed to be Tiamat?
I'm not familiar with the bok in question or Porter's credentials. I suspect he's making an unsupported conclusion here following really old sources. Based upon being a reverend he's probably going by Biblical archeology instead of real archeology. But whatever.
If you want to put in a line somewhere saying that Professor Reverend Canon J. R. Porter claims in that book that Tiamat looked like a dragon, hey, fine by me, that's accurate. That's different from the article saying that Tiamat DID look like a dragon. 20:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I doubt that J. R. Porter, a Professor Emeritus at the University of Exeter, was engaging in original, revolutionary conclusions in a caption for a cylinder seal in a chapter that, like the entire book itself, otherwise presents consensus scholarly views, as a rule. I have no desire to add to the Tiamat article yet, however, because I prefer having more than one reference. Alexander 007 23:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I am not accusing him of engaging in original, revolutionary conclusions -- I am suspecting he is engaging in old, outdated and incorrect conclusions. It's also a general mythology book, and those typically do not have "consensus scholarly views" at all. It's a sad fact that most mythology book aimed at the general public and intending to cover all cultures at once have a superficial and often erroneous understanding of the material. If you are looking for a more reliable source, try one specifically on the topic. DreamGuy 06:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, to say it is "old, outdated, and incorrect", you would need to find another reference that throws doubt on that interpretation of that cylinder seal, or others extremely similar to it. Tiamat was most likely depicted in art in some way. If one is so sure she was never depicted in serpentine or dragon-like form, it would bolster the case to find out how she was in fact depicted, and whether it varied. Not much credibility when stating that the Porter caption is "incorrect", since there is no strong indication that it is "incorrect". Alexander 007 06:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


please read the second version of this [ http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm enuma elish] text, control-F to search for Dragon -- "Who was the dragon... ? Tiamat was the dragon....." "Who will go and slay the dragon," And deliver the broad land from... And become king over... ? " Go, Tishu, slav the dragon,.."

" Stir up cloud, and storm and tempest! The seal of thy life shalt thou set before thy face, Thou shalt grasp it, and thou shalt slay the dragon." He stirred up cloud, and storm and tempest, He set the seal of his life before his face, He grasped it, and he slew the dragon. For three years and three months, one day and one night The blood of the dragon flowed. ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaanussilla (talk • contribs) 19:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The cylinder seal

This is not a big deal to me, fella. The most I'm claiming is that a number of current specialists in the field even now consider that the cylinder seal in question may portray Tiamat, probably portrays Tiamat, or does portray Tiamat. I am not claiming that she was most often depicted as a serpentine or dragon-like creature. If my claim is wrong (specified above), big f***ing deal. I am not even claiming myself that that creature is necessarily Tiamat; it might even be Enki for all anyone knows, who was at times a vehicle of Marduk. Or it could just be one of Tiamat's spawn. Different interpretations there may well be, but at least three books:

British Museum, The Babylonian legends of the creation and the fight between Bel and the dragon. With 24 illustrations. Available online, see page 16.
Ernest Ingersoll. Dragons and dragon lore. Detroit: Singing Tree Press, 1968.
Professor Reverend Canon J. R. Porter, The Middle East section in World Mythology, Henry Holt, 1996.

As well as this link:

[http://philo.ucdavis.edu/home/callan/CLA10
[http://philo.ucdavis.edu/home/callan/CLA10/MYTHIMAGES.html
[http://philo.ucdavis.edu/home/callan/CLA10/ancient%20near%20east.htm

indicate that the serpentine monster in the cylinder seal either probably is Tiamat, or is Tiamat. In the meanwhile, no references have been provided for this particular seal (the same cylinder seal in all cases) by the other party. It is a well-known seal. I'm sure that a self-styled eclectic scholar should at least know of it, and better yet have the most up-to-date references on its interpretation. Alexander 007 08:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tiamat and Malayo-Polynesian Dayat Word Correspondence

The Sumerian name Tiamat probably is of Malayo-Polynesian origin. Malayo-Polynesian was the language of an ancient seafaring people who sailed the Pacific and Indian oceans, and even settled the island of Madagascar near Africa. In some Malayo-Polynesian languages spoken in the Philippines, Indonesia, and Madagascar, the words dayat or dagat, which mean the salt-water "sea" or "ocean," appear to have a word correspondence, in both sound and meaning, to the Sumerian name Tiamat, who is known as a goddess of the salt-water sea or ocean. The Sumerian god/goddess Tiamat is probably just the salt-water sea or ocean deified.

Please, stop this nonsense. — Gareth Hughes 09:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Help Desk

In the entry on Tiamat, you link Tiamat (THE Mother of All Living) with the Hebrew Hawa (Eve), citing the Genesis description of Eve as 'mother of all living'. The appelation sounds alike, but I question its accuracy.
The Eve appation clearly means 'mother of all living [humans]', whereas the Tiamat appelation clearly includes all of life as we currently know it, and quite a bit of life that we do not know (she is said to have spawned human-beast hybrid monsters and given birth to all the gods as well as providing the 'stuff' of which 'man' was made. If I am not mistaken, Tiamat was a direct ancestor of Marduk, who is said to have created humans out of her flesh. This implies material (literally) link rather than descent. Eve was created by a God (names vary according to tradition) as a physical, human mother of a particular lineage.
As such, the analogy linking them would, to me, appear to be erroneous and highly misleading. If the Hebrew Hawa concept (which I am not too closely familiar with - yet) is significantly different from the Eve of Genesis, then that reference should be made - not the Genesis appelation which sounds the same, but is demonstrably not.
Put it into current, scientific language, the descriptions of Tiamat and the Eve of Genesis might be: Tiamat would correspond to the prmordial ooze, that first flicker of life, perhaps a single-celled organism, that divided over and over till its far descendants became all the varied species that populate our planet while Eve would represent the prototypical first woman of the Homo Sapiens Sapiens species, multiplying over and over till her human descendants filled the Earth and sent emails picking apart Wikipedia definitions of Tiamat. So, one divides while the other multiplies....
Would you like help clarifying your entry?

Sincerely, Alexandra Belaire —This unsigned comment was added by 70.29.62.127 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Role playing info belongs in one simple section

The disambiguation page this article is linked to is a mess. Red links, tons of referances all to the same concept of the D&D Tiamat appearing in other video games as a dragon; these need to be on the Tiamat page. Clearly all roleplaying referances stem from the D&D version. They are multiheaded, evil dragons. This kind of information genrally appears as an "In popular culture" or in literature" sort of section. Why it is on a disambiguation page is beyond me. Mrwuggs 18:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedic content

To me, this page is a test case for WP: is it possible to have an article on Tiamat, or will it drown in crackpot theories and gamecruft? There is a struggle every few months. Leibniz 21:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the same problem with nearly every other article on Wikipedia. There's no reason why Tiamat should be any more of a problem than any other page, other than, perhaps, the topics in fields with fewer scholarly editors with proven trackrecords watching them. Evolution should do OK, with the dedicated team watching that area, but when people who know what they are doing watch some of the smaller areas it becomes more of a fight to keep things going. Many other articles have apparently already lost the fight, as if I don't check them they don;t seem to ever be fixed until I check again months later. DreamGuy 00:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earlier sources

Can someone explain what "earlier sources" associate Tiamat with Lotan? Obviously this statement needs to be sourced with at least one of them. Mrwuggs 21:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative Etymologies

There is an alternative West Semitic Etymology that may help explain why Tiamat was described as Serpentine. In the fragmentary myth of "Astarte and the Tribute of the Sea" there is mention of "Ta-yam-t", which seems to be a reference to a female (*-t, feminine terminator) serpent (*Ta, *Tan) of the Sea (*Yam). If this etymology is correct, it would explain the connection between Tiamat and Lo-tan (Leviathan?), and the veiled hint at Tiamat, which many Biblical scholars see as a reference to Tehwom (=the Deeps), as a cognate for "Tiamat". Certainly the link between Tiamat and Tehwom/Tehom (See Catherine Keller at [7] needs to be included, as it is often pointed to by conventional Biblical scholars. John D. Croft 16:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Interested in others thoughts.

[edit] Tiamat is not a monster

She flat out is not. She gave birth to monsters, but she is a goddess. Please do not revert the clarification of this fact in the first paragraph. Mrwuggs 18:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break. She sure is. She acts that role, it's her primary archetype, and the description of her in the ancient texts makes it clear that she is a monstrosity without normal god-like form. In fact, if anything, I think the "goddess" claim is less supported than the monster claim. DreamGuy 22:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Your ideas of a "normal godlike form" seem to be skewed to the Judeo-Christian view of "man in god's image." Ganesha has also been viewed as a monster by people with this closeminded viewpoint. Also, her primary archtype is that of the mother, and as the defender of her children and mate. The role of "monster" only arose once she was demonized. People do not worship monsters. Tiamat was considered holy and a goddess, worshiped in temples. She was the co-creator of the world. I don't think one can even argue with the clear fact that she is a legitamate diety. Mrwuggs 15:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I know this is an old conversation, but that's ridiculous. That's not her primary archetype, and it's only a POV that she was ever worshipped and later demonized. All available proof actually shows she started as a onster and always was a monster. Some authors THEORIZE elsewise, but those theories are unsupported and based largely about a bias toward an idea of a primeval "Mother goddess" that was supreme. DreamGuy 13:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It is about time we came to a final decision on this argument. I think it has been made clear that Tiamat is not a monster, and no one has stepped forward to challange the argument above. Unless someone wishes to continue to defend her monsterousness dispite the fact that this is clearly grounded in ignorance of her primary archtype and influanced by Judeo-Christian bias, I think we should make the appropriate edit and consider this arguement closed. If someone wishes to make a reasonable arguement backed by research and actual unbiased anthropological findings, the time is now. If no one can do this, this discussion will be archived and the changes made in two weeks. Mrwuggs 21:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"If no one can do this, this discussion will be archived and changes made in two weeks" = That's not how things are done in Wikipedia... was just one editor acting like he owned things and could overrule other comments. DreamGuy 13:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed this debate, in which no one has cited any specific sources. I note that recent edits to the article indicate this issue is still in dispute. Thing is, it's somewhat silly, because Tiamat is both a monster and a goddess. There's no reason to see these things as mutually exclusive. Let me supply a few quotes.

Neil Forsyth, The Old Enemy (Princeton University Press, 1987), pp. 49-50: "Since Tiamat is a female monster...As the primeval waters, Tiamat belongs to an older generation of gods who are to be supplanted by their descendants...It is clear, in any case, that Tiamat is a composite monster."

Joseph Fontenrose, Python: a study of Delphic myth and its origins (U. of California Press, 1959), p. 256: "The close relation of the female chaos spirit, like Tiamat, Tethys, or Eurynome, to the earth goddess and mother goddess has already been indicated...Though conceived as a terrible being...she was also the mother of all the world: gods, men, and lower creatures alike."

Stephanie Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia (Oxford 1989), p. 329 (in a glossary): "Tiamat (also pronounced Tiwawat and Tamtu, probably pronounced Tethys in Ionian Greek; also known as Ayabba chiefly in west Semitic)--'Sea', salt water personified as a primeval goddess. Mother of the first generation of gods in the Epic of Creation. Spouse of Apsu. Epitomizes chaos."

So "monster" and "goddess" are both correct; and "mother goddess" is correct, if properly explained (i.e., doesn't belong in the lead, but in a body section discussing Tiamat as a mother goddess similar to Gaia, etc. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, do please get your quotes into the article, which is already set up for <ref></ref> footnote sourcing. --Wetman 06:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry. "Goddess" is not "correct" - that's a POV. If you want to say that SOME sources THINK that she was a goddess, and then provide a source for who CLAIMS that, fine, that's how things work. But outright SAYING she WAS a goddess is pure bias. Monster, however, is undebatable, as all sides agree she fills that role. If you want a subsection on claims of goddess status, great, just document it and source it and write it following NPOV guidelines and do not take their side. DreamGuy 13:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

To be proven as a fact that she was a goddess there has to be sources actually showing that she was worshipped as a goddess. No one has ever done so. Fontenrose and others just have theories, and ones that are built on nothing more than supposition, oftn with a clear bias built upon earlier neopagan beliefs about a Great Goddess. Monster/deity/supernatural entity are words that might be less objectionable because those things don;t imply active worship. DreamGuy 13:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy, you seem to have some sort of axe to grind here, but all I'm interested in doing is reporting the views of reliable sources, which Fontenrose and Dalley certainly are. In comparison, your claim that goddesses must be worshipped, and that Tiamat was not worshipped, therefore she is not a goddess, looks like original research. I'll go with the academic sources on this one, unless you have some sources of your own. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
No, sorry, it's just the meaning of the word. Goddesses, as compared to supernatural entities, etc. are worshipped. Fontenrose claims that she was but gives no proof. The fact that some say she was a goddess is based upon their POV idea that some early culture worshipped her and that she was later demonized. We can certainly and should mention reliable sources making a claim of opinion, but the idea that Tiamat is a goddess is not a fact. This pretty simple stuff, and pretty core to the concept of the WP:NPOV policy, so don't present the mere speculation of some sources as if it were factual.
This is not an "axe to grind" this is simply staying true to the facts and to Wikipedia policies. Please do not try to present the need to make the article neutral and not shove an agenda onto readers as if it were some wacky crusade, as that's what everyone here is *supposed* to do. DreamGuy 18:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
DreamGuy, you're making an argument based on your notion of what "goddess" means. Why does your opinion carry more weight than the opinions of published academic sources? I'm pretty sure that Joseph Fontenrose and Stephanie Dalley have pretty good ideas of what's meant by "goddess", and for you to deprecate their work as "POV" is rather presumptuous. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, Wiktionary, dictionary.com, and m-w.com all define goddess as a female deity; none of those sources indicate that the female deity must have worshipers to qualify as a goddess. "Goddess" should be no less objectionable than "deity" for female subjects. -- JHunterJ 18:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Alright, so let's look at it this way... If there's potential for readers being confused about what a word means, and we have our choice of terms, why not use one that is accurate and less likely to cause confusion towards a result that would endorse a particular POV? Or, better yet, spell out in the article that there is no evidence that Tiamat was ever worshipped as a goddess? Because it sounds like some people (most notably the mugglewump guy above, but possible with some other comments) are specifically TRYING to endorse the view that she was worshipped. Surely you wouldn't want to do that, now would you? So it can be clarified, yes? So, bottomline is, what possible reason do you have to use confusing language other than to take a side? DreamGuy 01:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
DreamGuy, let's look at it this way. I've provided several academic sources that say that Tiamat was a goddess. You, on the other hand, have brought forward no sources, and seem to be operating from your own notion of what "goddess" means, without providing any sources to support your definition. Our articles are supposed to be based on reliable sources, and those sources say that Tiamat is a goddess. I don't agree with you that this wording will confuse readers, so I see no reason to avoid the word goddess whatsoever. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV "problems"

How about an opening "Tiamat is a monstrous goddess in Babylonian and Sumerian mythology. I'm not sure how to get to the part about being the sea though, although it may not be needed in the intro. If you still have issue with the word "goddess" there (even though "having worshipers" is not implied), "Tiamat is a monstrous female deity ..." will also do, although it is not as simply straightforward as the first. -- JHunterJ 02:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The sea needs to be mentioned in the intro, because this is Tiamat's essential quality--she's the primeval salt waters. This is important for comparative mythology, because there are other cosmogonies where salt water is one of the original components of the universe, and also because the enemy in the combat myth often has a watery aspect (e.g. Leviathan, Yamm). --Akhilleus (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Then it needs to be worked in there, but what I'm getting at is that the article should lead with Tiamat is a goddess (or deity) and then get to the deity essences, instead of the other way around. -- JHunterJ 03:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Strongly disagree -- her primary purpose is to serve as an enemy monster to be defeated, much like Leviathan, Apep, Hydra and others... any supposed deity qualities are minor and under dispute. Her role as monster is not dispute, so should be in lead and major section, which the speculative deity stuff later.
A claiming a POV position in the lead and adding a footnote in no way excuses the violation of the NPOV policy. When the goddess part comes up it very clearly needs to be labeled as a theory of certain authors/academics and name which ones. To do otherwise, especially after the problems with that have already been discussed, appears to be a bad faith issue to avoid consensus and to push an agenda. If my objections are not take care of I will just rewrite the article later to take them into account, because this is a very important aspect. You can;t just name figures in mythology as goddesses willy nilly, they have to have certain features, and Tiamat does not express those features.DreamGuy 05:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy, you've been around Wikipedia for awhile, so I really shouldn't have to quote the NPOV policy at you, but it seems that I do. Here's a sentence from WP:NPOV#Explanation of the neutral point of view: "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one." I've emphasized the word published, because you don't seem to be taking it into account. You've got a definition of goddess that you've supplied no sources for, you've decided that Tiamat doesn't meet this definition (again, with supplying no sources), and you say that the sources I've provided are "POV" because they don't take your definition into account. But, to be blunt, unless you are a published expert on this topic, or your opinion is the same as someone who's published on this topic, your opinion carries very little weight compared to that of Fontenrose, Dalley, and Forsyth. Basically, DreamGuy, you're saying there's a NPOV problem because you don't like what the article says; but NPOV applies to published viewpoints, not Wikipedians' personal opinions. So please bring forward some sources that support your view, or stop saying there's an NPOV violation. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC) I'll note, though, that the intro should say something about Tiamat's role as the adversary of Marduk, and I've put somthing in. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another source for Tiamat as a goddess

Since User:DreamGuy continues to make the baffling assertion that Tiamat is not a goddess, I thought I'd supply yet another scholarly source that says she is (in addition to Forsyth, Fontenrose, and Dalley above). I quote Bruce Louden, The Iliad: Structure, Myth, and Meaning (Johns Hopkins 2006), p. 211: "Out of many Near Eastern instances of divine rebellion, the Enuma Elish offers the most relevant parallels to the Iliad, Tiamat serving as a close parallel to Hera. Both female deities lead rebellions; much as Hera in the Iliad, Tiamat is thematically depicted as having a fierce wrath..." (emphasis mine). "female deity", obviously, is equivalent to "goddess". --Akhilleus (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No, not obviously at all. A deity implies a whole class of gods and god-like beings, goddess has a specific meaning. I have no problem referencing her as a deity, but goddess is a value-laden word that is misleading. DreamGuy 16:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you can supply a reference for your distinction between god(dess) and deity. As another editor points out above, the standard dictionary definitions say that the words mean the same thing. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's an interesting one: Martin Luther King, Jr., "Light on the Old Testament from the Ancient Near East," The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr., ed. Luker et al. (Univ. of California 1992), pp. 167-168: "The account opens with the birth of the chief gods, Tiamat (goddess of salt water) and Apsu (god of fresh water)." Now, Dr. King wasn't an authority on Near Eastern myth, and this quote is from a paper he wrote during his first semester at seminary, for a class taught by James B. Pritchard (who was an authority on NE myth). So the value of this quote, aside from the novelty value, is that it represents the kind of basic information you'd include in a college or graduate student level paper on the Enuma Elish. Other sources that tell us Tiamat is a goddess may be found on Google Books: [8]. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It represents the kind of info that a student would write but certainly is not a reliable source for anything. DreamGuy 16:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I acknowledged that. However, you still haven't supplied a single source for your assertion that Tiamat isn't a goddess (nor for your assertion that "female deity" is different than "goddess"), so I've reverted your edit. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning house: a bogus citation

User:203.59.173.219, apparently a multiple-user IP, at 09:25, 18 February 2006 inserted an authentic article citation (Jacobsen, Thorkild, (1968) "The Battle between Marduk and Tiamat" Journal of the American Oriental Society, 88.1 (January-March 1968), pp 104-108) in support of a doubtful Sumerian etymology, for which a citation had long been requested. I am now looking at the article (JSTOR), which supports the Burkert Akkadian etymology I inserted a while back, and does not mention any supposed Sumerian etymology at all. I am removing the following text here: Her name seems ultimately to have been a Sumerian one, as in that language ti = Life, and ama = Mother, suggesting her original name may have been "the mother of all life". If the citation is bogus, and an Akkadian etymology is well supported, this is apparently bogus etymology-babble. --Wetman 05:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One more source for "goddess"

Barry Powell, Classical Myth (Prentice Hall 2004), p. 98 (this is from a summary of the Enuma Elish): "The poem opens with the gods of the primordial waters, male Apsu, fresh water, and female Tiamat, salt water, mingled together in an indeterminate mass..." Now, it seems quite obvious to me that when you're speaking of "gods of primordial waters", and one is male, one female, you have a god and a goddess. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)