Damian you're very eloquent despite your confusion and for that i thank you.
Here's the thing though
If bilgames/gilgamesh's family court and retainers had been ritually killed to accompany him to the netherworld then surely it would mention the fact.
Surely saying that they lay down is the sumerian equivalent to saying that they are dead.
Not that they were poisoned. Woolley named the place he made his discoveries the royal graveyard.
If you dug into any graveyard you'd find the same thing. Lots of contempories buried next to each other.
No one's saying that they were ritually killed.
why not it presents the same evidence.
We KNOW that people in the graveyards around us weren't ritually killed
Why do we presume that the sumerians were.
Arguing about the way an old sumerian text is worded isn't evidence because it's been worded by modern translators not the original scribes
Human sacrifice in sumeria was the exception rather than the rule.
you'd have thought they'd have mentioned it.
Actually as you may have guessed i am a poor but enthusiastic student of sumerian culture.
my field of expertise really covers the early babylonian period from
Ammi-ditana 1683-1647 Ammi-saduqa 1646-1626 and Samsu - ditana 1625-1595 bce




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2005 08:50AM by marduk.