# Is it the Metropolitan Museum or the Louvre that can not tell up from down?



## JimDuyer (Apr 26, 2021)

I was doing some research on the Hurrian people and their writings when I came across the Goofypedia article on it.
They discuss the earliest example of writing in the Hurrian language, and they point to articles in the Met and Louvre that claim the Lion figure and limestone base as representing the Hurrian language written using cuneiform from Sumeria.

The Louve claims that they translated the writing on the lion and base plate, but show no evidence of that, and it seems very difficult to believe since they claim it was done in the 1940s, and Hurrian was not really understood until very recently.  

But no matter, I took a glance at their work.   Apparently they are translating the metal parts
and not the limestone inscriptions  - they don't tell us this,  but they do date the work to 2300 BC.

The only problem with that, is that the limestone markings are Proto-cuneiform, and not cuneiform, and thus must be at least 3500 BC or earlier, a difference of some 1200 years.

I'm in the process of translating them myself, but in the meantime I happened to visit the Met web page and the Louvre page, and noticed something peculiar.  Both obtained copies of the piece about the same time period, and the exhibited examples are copies that they cast from the original, which is normal for most Museums today.   But look at the images they furnish:

Here's the one from the Louvre first of all:



And here's the one from the Met in New York City:



The Proto-Cuneiform writing on the front of the limestone base has not been translated, which is obvious from the furnished "traditional" translation that they giver, both of which match by the way, and the stone itself is being shown upside down in one of the Museums.     But which one?

Based on my own translation of the left half so far, I would say that the Louver does not know which side is up in regard to cuneiform.   So how are they so confident that they can claim to have translated Hurrian writing, thirty years before it was even adequately understood, and the claim to have "translated" the work, when they left out the base, and the dating of the we work, which both agree on and yet can not possibly be true?

So, stolen history = hidden history as well, right?    

Oh, as an aside - the Louvre just announced that they are now reopen for business during the CV drama, and their website proudly proclaims "In 2019, the Louvre received 9.6 million visitors, making it the most visited museum in the world."

So no problem with social distancing there, right?
EDIT:   Sorry, seems I too got twisted around - the one from the Louvre is in the correct position,
and the one from the Met is upside down.





> Note: This OP was recovered from the Sh.org archive.


----------

