File talk:Marduks strid med Tiamat.jpg
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Xinstalker
 | This file was nominated for deletion on 1 March 2009 but was kept. If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first. |
This is NOT Tiamat, by any stretch of the imagination. This is probably the Zu bird. Some early sources and some sloppy modern ones see a god fighting a monster and assumed it had to be the most famous monster, Tiamat, but the image bears no resemblance to descriptions of Tiamat. In fact, the original version of this relief very clearly shows a penis... Tiamat was female. This image either needs to be deleted or renamed. DreamGuy (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have a source? Maybe you are right, maybe not - but you have to back up your argument before we do anything. /Hedning (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have looked around a bit, and it seems like DreamGuy is the only one that keeps on trying to get this picture erased - and without any sources. I think it would be nice if we had a discussion about this issue before DreamGuy's theory is accepted throughout the wikipedia projects. /Hedning (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's not "a theory" -- it's what modern books on the topic say. You know, if you're fiercely determined to mislead readers of every Wikipedia project in the world except the English language one, where this was discussed thoroughly. It was also discussed on the deletion debate, but unfortunately some rather clueless people responded there. All I am hoping to do is dispel some rather widespread ignorance on the topic and would hope you'd use some common sense. So you think Tiamat had a penis? The world's earliest mother of all monsters was really male? You think some source from an obscure author in 1900 about archaeology -- a rapidly changing field -- is reliable? Have you looked at any modern sources on Sumerian mythology and archeology? Like Black, Jeremy and Green, Anthony: Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary? They show an image of this creature and call it the Anzu bird, just like I said. I can certainly understand wanting some evidence, but the evidence is in multiple locations and all you seem to have is an obscure nobody of an author and a stubborn insistence of not looking into it beyond that. DreamGuy (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- What modern books on the topic say is still theories. All I am hoping is that we can have a civilized non aggressive discussion about this issue. I am not "fiercely determined to mislead readers of every Wikipedia project in the world", I am trying to have sources and a discussion before action is done. I fully understand your frustration if you are right about this, but you have to have a discussion about this on wikimedia commons which provides the picture (I am active here and on the swedish wikipedia - and therefore I did not see the discussion on english wikipedia until yesterday). The last discussion here on Commons was that the picture should be kept as it is. You can't just keep on telling everyone that you are right without showing evidence. My sources may be old, but they are not obscure - if you point out Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary it is fantastic; and you did. Why did'nt you do that before? But still many sources by professionals seems to point out this picture as Marduk and Tiamat. I think that the "penis" (yes, i have seen whatever the small thingie is on other pictures, like this one, where "Tiamat" is called "Bel-Merodach" which is intresting, and here as a "Draconic figure") can be interpreted in different ways, so can the whole picture. Maybe the truth is that we don't know what gods or creatures that are depicted on this wall? Maybe you have found one theory and other ones another theory? I think that this "Tiamat"/"Bel-Merodach"/"Draconic figure" may be Tiamat, but can also be the "Anzu bird". So what to do? I will check out some modern books on the topic, I promise. We both want the same thing: correct information. Let's see what we can find out. And by the way, don't call a book you don't know anything about "obscure" - I don't think you understand swedish, and therefore I bet you haven't read the book. Beside the source provided, the same picture is printed in Nordisk familjebok, the biggest encyclopedia in swedish to this day - old but not that bad. But, as I said: I'll do some more research - and I hope you'll help me with more sources. This is really intresting. /Hedning (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- The penis is not some unknown small thingie -- old references have ommitted and/or minimized it to try to avoid the risk of offending people. It's very clearly a penis in modern more accurate representations, and especially on the original, which is on public display at the British Museum. If you ever get the chance to go, I recommend it, as their collection and sholarship there is extensive. I've also pasted below a comment left on the English Wikipedia article which gives further info on yet another source explicitly labeling it as not Tiamat and not Marduk. DreamGuy (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- What modern books on the topic say is still theories. All I am hoping is that we can have a civilized non aggressive discussion about this issue. I am not "fiercely determined to mislead readers of every Wikipedia project in the world", I am trying to have sources and a discussion before action is done. I fully understand your frustration if you are right about this, but you have to have a discussion about this on wikimedia commons which provides the picture (I am active here and on the swedish wikipedia - and therefore I did not see the discussion on english wikipedia until yesterday). The last discussion here on Commons was that the picture should be kept as it is. You can't just keep on telling everyone that you are right without showing evidence. My sources may be old, but they are not obscure - if you point out Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary it is fantastic; and you did. Why did'nt you do that before? But still many sources by professionals seems to point out this picture as Marduk and Tiamat. I think that the "penis" (yes, i have seen whatever the small thingie is on other pictures, like this one, where "Tiamat" is called "Bel-Merodach" which is intresting, and here as a "Draconic figure") can be interpreted in different ways, so can the whole picture. Maybe the truth is that we don't know what gods or creatures that are depicted on this wall? Maybe you have found one theory and other ones another theory? I think that this "Tiamat"/"Bel-Merodach"/"Draconic figure" may be Tiamat, but can also be the "Anzu bird". So what to do? I will check out some modern books on the topic, I promise. We both want the same thing: correct information. Let's see what we can find out. And by the way, don't call a book you don't know anything about "obscure" - I don't think you understand swedish, and therefore I bet you haven't read the book. Beside the source provided, the same picture is printed in Nordisk familjebok, the biggest encyclopedia in swedish to this day - old but not that bad. But, as I said: I'll do some more research - and I hope you'll help me with more sources. This is really intresting. /Hedning (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's not "a theory" -- it's what modern books on the topic say. You know, if you're fiercely determined to mislead readers of every Wikipedia project in the world except the English language one, where this was discussed thoroughly. It was also discussed on the deletion debate, but unfortunately some rather clueless people responded there. All I am hoping to do is dispel some rather widespread ignorance on the topic and would hope you'd use some common sense. So you think Tiamat had a penis? The world's earliest mother of all monsters was really male? You think some source from an obscure author in 1900 about archaeology -- a rapidly changing field -- is reliable? Have you looked at any modern sources on Sumerian mythology and archeology? Like Black, Jeremy and Green, Anthony: Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary? They show an image of this creature and call it the Anzu bird, just like I said. I can certainly understand wanting some evidence, but the evidence is in multiple locations and all you seem to have is an obscure nobody of an author and a stubborn insistence of not looking into it beyond that. DreamGuy (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have looked around a bit, and it seems like DreamGuy is the only one that keeps on trying to get this picture erased - and without any sources. I think it would be nice if we had a discussion about this issue before DreamGuy's theory is accepted throughout the wikipedia projects. /Hedning (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't get my account to work on commons at the moment, so I'll respond here. This image is a drawing of a relief of Ninurta fighting Zu. See [1]. The relief was part of the temple of Ninurta at Nimrud. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Sì è Anzu (Zu)/Ninurta. E non potrebbe essere altrimenti.... :) Un'occhiatina alle fonti? --Xinstalker (talk) 09:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nessuno studia e Wikipedia è il circo dei pasticciamenti--Xinstalker (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Attribution of depiction edit
There are sources for the claim that this is Marduk and Tiamat given at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chaos_Monster_and_Sun_God.png
If there are reliable sources for the attriubtion of Anzu please add thank you.5.198.10.236
- [edit] found one in Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary
- More than a single source would be better.5.198.10.236
