Monday, June 23, 2014

Did Sumerian Kings Live Thousands of Years?

Apparently, according to this stone they did.

This stone causes a lot of problems for archaeologists because they can correlate so much that is written on it with the approximate times and dates already known.

Gilgamesh himself was said to be a demigod whose father was a Lamu (night spirit) and his mother Ninsun a human beauty. Since good old Gil appears in the Sumerian King List, you really have to wonder just how recently that Humbaba the Terrible placed that awful, eerie inexplicable curse on Enkidu and "all his kind."

The Sumerian King Stone says that conventional history is pure bunkum. There is a lot more there than we are allowed to know by the orthodoxy. The Sumerian and Akkadian ruling classes and their exile seem much more recent in significance than previously thought.

See here that the Sumerian dynasties were followed by the Kings of Babylon and the exiled Babylonians may have constituted the Hyksos who then went into Egypt and completely seized it out of the hands of the largely European population who ruled over it at that time. The Hyksos vanished and appeared under new names just as the Kings of Babylon seemed fond of aliases in their exile. It appears enormously difficult to ever get any specifics on the Hyksos despite their ruling for thousands of years. They are like shadows in history, only visible by looking at the wall behind them with a strong light in your hand. In the Epic of Gilgamesh in the Akkadian translation they are described as "them who wish not to be named" interchangeable with "those in the shadows who go unchallenged."

The best parts of Wikipedia are the parts that the editors are too stupid to know they should carefully censor like they do everything else that is on there. You can learn a lot by seeing the associations where they cannot. Would a genuinely bright person be obsessed with editing Wikipedia entries for most of his adult life? I don't think so. A pseudo-intellectual would love that job, though.


njartist said...

Archeologists have refused to deal with biblical ages of hundreds of years some of which over nine hundred; why should they be troubled by a stone? Let's first see them acknowledge the years given in the bible.

Ryan David G said...


KW Jackson said...

When you're in the god-king racket you need to make it look believable. A god-king who comes out maybe four times a year and at a long distance (can't get too close to the hoipoloi) the people really don't know who they're looking at. So you can replace the king over and over again. Add make up, lots of ceremonial gold to reflect light back at the observer masking any details, and make him look like an angel - done. Simple stagecraft and an "official record" to back it up. Priesthood is the traditional melonhead career so be dubious of anything around it.

cbenediccengi said...

thought you'd enjoy this

Texas Arcane said...

@KW Jackson

That's what I think it was. Inheritable royalty, no coronation ceremony, your son takes the crown from you on your deathbed and your name, the common people don't even know the king passed away. Creates great continuity in government no hassles with upstarts vying for the throne.

styrac1 said...

In the lower divisions of the animal kingdom individual organisms exist only to produce posterity and then die, with many not even surviving the act of propagation and dying on the spot. If the bond between the preservation of the species and the perishing of the individual is the law of nature, on the other hand the higher we move up the evolutionary ladder, nature itself in its progressive development is even more limiting and relaxing on its own law. So although the necessity for the individual to serve as a means for the preservation of the species and to die when it has fulfilled this service remains, the action of this necessity is manifested ever less and less often and directly and exclusively in proportion to the perfection of the organic forms. So It makes sense that they had much longer life-spans if they were top of the food chain and perfect compared to all the lower forms of life and this also explains why they had low fertility rates and at one point lost the ability to reproduce and sought to preserve their kind through intermarriage.

styrac1 said...


Having reached internal freedom from the demands of the species, the appearance of such a being would mark the end of the tyranny of the species over the individual. If in the biological process nature is striving ever more and more to limit the law of death, then must not humans in the historical process completely abrogate this law? (This confirms that the creation of the fast-reproducing, short-lived saps aimed at reaching certain limited objectives but went beyond damage control). As long as the human being propagates like an animal, he will die like an animal. Perhaps the melonheads even thought that simple abstinence from the act of generation would deliver them from death.

JeffreyJerpp said...

Have you read this stuff about Basque mythologies?? Seems to relate to your last name (and nephilim ancestors) as well as archaic 'thals in Iberia:

"Mairu means "moor" in Basque.[1] This term is used with the sense of 'non-Christian' to refer to former civilizations or megalithic monuments."

"They also were said to have invented metallurgy and the saw and first grew wheat, teaching humans to farm. However, they were unwilling to move to the valleys from the mountains, with a certain unwillingness to progress. They disappeared into the earth under a dolmen in the Arratzaren valley in Navarra when a portentous luminous cloud – perhaps a star – appeared"