Talk:King of the Four Corners/GA1
Return to "King of the Four Corners/GA1" page.
- "King of the Four Corners of the World (Sumerian: lugal-an-ub-da-limmu-ba, Akkadian: šarru kibrat 'arbaim, šar kibrāti arba'i or šar kibrāt erbetti[n 1])" We could perhaps include the alternate English translations in the lead, rather than contained in the note.
- "...and as such, the title should be interpreted as something equivalent to "King of all the known world", a claim to universal rule over the entire world and everything within it." Merism could be linked here
- "The title was first used by Naram-Sin of the Akkadian Empire in the 23rd century BC and was later used by the rulers of the Neo-Sumerian Empire after which it fell into disuse" Comma after the 2nd Empire
- "Meaning of "Four Corners of the World" This section could also introduce the concept of the merism
- "..the Mesopotamians would have equated all of Mesopotamia to the entire world; the region was highly productive, densely populated and was bordered on all sides by seemingly empty and uninhabited lands." I'm interested in whether the Mesopotamians had any cognizance of the lands outside Elam, Sumer, and the rest of the lot. Were they aware and just not prone to exploration, or totally unaware?
- This is really interesting, but I don't think there has been a lot of research into it (this title and the concept as a whole are relatively obscure). They would at least have been aware of Egypt (Egypt-Mesopotamia relations) even by the time of Naram-Sin, which probably is outside of the scope covered by the "four corners". By the time of the last users of the title they would obviously have been aware of quite a lot of outside lands and the title was probably used without regard for the original etymology behind it. There is a Babylonian "world map" from the 6th century BC (Babylonian Map of the World) that might give some idea of their worldview but it is a bit difficult to interpret and excludes lands we know they know existed (notably as mentioned earlier, Egypt). Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- "...(at this time thought to be the lower sea, the Persian gulf, and the upper sea, the Mediterranean)" And to the east and west?
- (nitpick; the "upper" and "lower" seas would have been east and west), the north and south "borders" would probably have been more vaguely defined (e.g. mountains in the north and the arabic desert in the south). If one goes by the map I linked in the reply to the last one they imagined all of it being encircled by ocean. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- "It is possible that Naram-Sin might have been inspired to claim the title following his conquest of the city Ebla, in which quadripartite divisions of the world and the universe were prominent parts of the city's ideology and beliefs" Was Ebla the preceding religious nexus?
- Naram-Sin of Akkad can be linked to within the body of the article as well as the caption
- "The title does appear to have been used by any of Naram-Sin's direct successors of the Akkadian Empire, which began to collapse during the reign of Naram-Sin's son Shar-Kali-Sharri." Doesn't I believe here
- "Except for the Babylonian king Hammurabi who claimed to be "the king who made the four corners of the Earth obedient" in 1776 BC," I could be wrong, but given Hammurabi's historical significance, perhaps more light could be shed on his usage of the term
- All links check out
- Besides the possible expansion of the Hammurabi mention, I think the major aspects of the article are touched upon quite well.
- The images are of fair use and appropriate. My only suggestion would be to possible add a second image in the Assyrian section, and perhaps one for Cyrus' section.