Allow me to quickly introduce myself. I am a Christian who believes in the God some believe is 'fictional' and I believe that one day the Bible and science will be in agreement. I believe the Bible is not flawed, but our interpretation of what it says probably is flawed. (I exclude doctrinal issues from this statement; otherwise I could not be a Christian.) In my opinion these errors have resulted in Christian researchers attempting to revise scientific scholarship in order to fit their preconceived notions about the historical accuracy of the Bible. Other Biblical dating theories have been proposed and rejected without proper consideration by a sort of dictatorial culture which claims authority over heretical scholarship. I believe in 'sola scriptura' for the teaching of doctrine but we must be open-minded about scientific discipline. At the same time, the dictatorial mindset is deeply entrenched within the scientific community as well. Look at the in-fighting which occurs among Egyptologists as example. In both the Christian and scientific communities, when one spends decades obsessing over a particular discipline or field of study it is not comfortable when new and valid research breaks down the walls of our intellectual fortresses.
Having said all that, let's get back on topic.
I am curious about several aspects of the list compiled by Marduk.
1. Several known versions exist with some variations on the lengths of rule. How have you established which list is correct?
2. When were the lists actually recorded by the temple priests or whoever recorded them?
3. How have you established the dates of ascendancy which seem to run sequentially? I was under the impression that many overlaps existed (i.e. King B defeated King A in the x year of his reign).
Finally, I am trying to understand how one reconciles the fact the Sumerians utilized a sexigisimal numbering system (yes I believe it IS a scientific fact) and yet it seems more proper to order the ascendancies as if the numbers were expressed as decimals. Perhaps the justification is related to my second question above.
Sumerian King List
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
-
marduk
the kings list that i used as the basis for this work is the one listed on the Weld-Blundell Prism which dates from 2170bce the other sources are merely variants that were used to correct the spelling of certain kings and in some cases to add descriptions to the names
in most cases I have not used these descriptions as they aren't valid
e.g. Meš-ki-aĝ-gašer has the legend attached on some fragmentary king lists that he "entered the sea and disappeared"
All of the numerical values that I have presented are as they were on the WB prism as it was when translated in 1962. this is therefore known as the WB62 list
a full list of all the tablets translated can be found at
http://www.b17.com/family/lwp/things/an ... lists.html
so you see
some guy called NURNINSUBUR wrote these down over 4000 years ago
more than 700 years after the Sumerian civilisation had collapsed and the semitic akkadians had taken over
and the semites had a different numbering system for their kings
they didn't use the same one that the sumerians had used for their list which as I pointed out earlier has long been lost
maybe some day it will be recovered from the silt that now covers their cities
but I wouldn't keep my fingers crossed anytime soon
theres a war going on you know
there is no overlap on any of the kings rules in any of the kings lists
i have heard that mentioned before but usually it is archaeology that discovers a vassal king who isnt mentioned on any of the lists who was ruling at the same time as someone who was
but as i mentioned earlier this is a list of high kings
what any society but a monotheistic one would call Gods
in most cases I have not used these descriptions as they aren't valid
e.g. Meš-ki-aĝ-gašer has the legend attached on some fragmentary king lists that he "entered the sea and disappeared"
All of the numerical values that I have presented are as they were on the WB prism as it was when translated in 1962. this is therefore known as the WB62 list
a full list of all the tablets translated can be found at
http://www.b17.com/family/lwp/things/an ... lists.html
so you see
some guy called NURNINSUBUR wrote these down over 4000 years ago
more than 700 years after the Sumerian civilisation had collapsed and the semitic akkadians had taken over
and the semites had a different numbering system for their kings
they didn't use the same one that the sumerians had used for their list which as I pointed out earlier has long been lost
maybe some day it will be recovered from the silt that now covers their cities
but I wouldn't keep my fingers crossed anytime soon
theres a war going on you know
there is no overlap on any of the kings rules in any of the kings lists
i have heard that mentioned before but usually it is archaeology that discovers a vassal king who isnt mentioned on any of the lists who was ruling at the same time as someone who was
but as i mentioned earlier this is a list of high kings
what any society but a monotheistic one would call Gods
-
Forum Monk
- Posts: 1999
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:37 pm
- Location: USA
With your indulgence I would like to go deeper in order to enhance my understanding and also for any casual readers who may be interested.
Firstly, I am a little confused about the numbering system. I have seen many sites which explain it quite well and seems it was not a true base 60 but a variant which included (perhaps) intermediate values such as 10. Obviously the Weld-Blundell team based their translation on some preconceived idea as to what numeric values were being represented by the various stylus impressions in the clay. Some 2400 years after the first post-diluvian king, Gashur you have this scribe recording the kings list using a Semitic base 10 system. So now the question becomes, was he translating at the time? Perhaps we can assume not, since Semitic dominance had been in place already, for nearly a millenium. So now I must ask...why did the discoverer (Weld-Blundell) translate the numbers using an assumed Sumerian notation when the text was scribed by a Semite presumably writing in base 10? Are we today, to assume Weld-Blundell was in error in assuming the markings for Sumerian kings were to be interpreted differently than the markings for Semite kings (hence he ascribed 1200 years to Gashur rather than 20)? Perhaps you can not answer these questions but I hope you begin to understand some of my confusion.
Firstly, I am a little confused about the numbering system. I have seen many sites which explain it quite well and seems it was not a true base 60 but a variant which included (perhaps) intermediate values such as 10. Obviously the Weld-Blundell team based their translation on some preconceived idea as to what numeric values were being represented by the various stylus impressions in the clay. Some 2400 years after the first post-diluvian king, Gashur you have this scribe recording the kings list using a Semitic base 10 system. So now the question becomes, was he translating at the time? Perhaps we can assume not, since Semitic dominance had been in place already, for nearly a millenium. So now I must ask...why did the discoverer (Weld-Blundell) translate the numbers using an assumed Sumerian notation when the text was scribed by a Semite presumably writing in base 10? Are we today, to assume Weld-Blundell was in error in assuming the markings for Sumerian kings were to be interpreted differently than the markings for Semite kings (hence he ascribed 1200 years to Gashur rather than 20)? Perhaps you can not answer these questions but I hope you begin to understand some of my confusion.
-
marduk
the translators of the weld blundell prism just translated the dates using the known numbering system of the day
this does not of course take into account that when the scribe wrote them down he was undoubtedly using older sources
"the early history of sumer
The main written sources for the history of the early periods are the lists of kings, certain legends, references to events in omen texts, and later, royal inscriptions and the year names ot the kings. the results of excavations at Kish, Fara, Ur, Al- Ubaid, Tello, Warka, Nippur and Asshur to mention the most important sites, have done much to illustrate the written records and to add to the scanty information they contain.
About 200Bce, after the fall of the third dynasty of Ur, Sumerian scribes took it in hand to record the glories of the great days that had passed away. They must have had at their disposal a mass of documentary evidence, and from this they compiled on the one hand the political history and on the other the religious traditions of the land. Their histories have perished, or survive only in excerpts embodied in Babylonian chronicles of much later date, but there do remian contemporary copies of the scematic lists of kings which they drew up as the framework of their narrativeand, for the earliest part a version made by the priest Berossus in the greek period. The list gives the names of kings arranged in their dynasties, the number of years of the reign of each and the total for the dynasty; it starts with ten kings who reigned before the flood and details nineteen dynasties which bridged the long period between the flood and the close of the thrid dynasty of Ur."- Sir Charles Leoanard Woolley (1928)
Only the ante diluvian kings numbers are reckoned in multiples of Sars and ners. the first 8 kings in sars only and the last two kings in sars and ners/
the next 23 kings reigns namely the kings of Kish are reckoned and recorded in plain figures and not multiples of anything
Ĝušur 1200
Kullassina-bēl 960
Nanĝišlišma 670
En-tara-ana 420
etc
these dates and the dates of most of the true Sumerian kings were as Sir Leonard says taken from "a mass of documentary evidence" now lost to us. So the scribes who wrote these early post diluvian kings dates took them directly from the records left by the kings themselves.
now imagine what error they would make if they had not realised that these records holdovers from an earlier age and using a slightly different numbering system were needed to be divided by a factor of 60 to bring them in line with the Babylonian scribes who were writing it down
the claim that they wanted to record their glorious past and therefore may have exaggerated it falls flat because the Akkadians the group who followed from the Sumerians and the Babylonians who followed them were not sumerians themselves but were in fact semiotes who had not been granted positions of power under Sumerian rule and there was no love lost. It would be like the present day English wanting to glorify the Norman Invasion of 1066
they were semitic and of the same stock as the Hebrews who also later copied down the idea of ancient long lived kings.
Now there are two reasons that support this theory and which support no other conclusion
1) the list of ante diluvian kings is clearly listed from an ancient and not babylonian source because the name of the God Dumuzid is mentioned rather than his at that time present name Tammuz (you may have heard of him the god of Freemasons)
2) the lengths of the kings of kish when divided by a factor of 60 suddenly become very credible and matches what is known from the admittedly limited archaeological record
so you have
ante diluvians king - sars and ners
early sumerian dyanstic kings - factor of 60
semitic kings - base ten
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_king_list
this does not of course take into account that when the scribe wrote them down he was undoubtedly using older sources
"the early history of sumer
The main written sources for the history of the early periods are the lists of kings, certain legends, references to events in omen texts, and later, royal inscriptions and the year names ot the kings. the results of excavations at Kish, Fara, Ur, Al- Ubaid, Tello, Warka, Nippur and Asshur to mention the most important sites, have done much to illustrate the written records and to add to the scanty information they contain.
About 200Bce, after the fall of the third dynasty of Ur, Sumerian scribes took it in hand to record the glories of the great days that had passed away. They must have had at their disposal a mass of documentary evidence, and from this they compiled on the one hand the political history and on the other the religious traditions of the land. Their histories have perished, or survive only in excerpts embodied in Babylonian chronicles of much later date, but there do remian contemporary copies of the scematic lists of kings which they drew up as the framework of their narrativeand, for the earliest part a version made by the priest Berossus in the greek period. The list gives the names of kings arranged in their dynasties, the number of years of the reign of each and the total for the dynasty; it starts with ten kings who reigned before the flood and details nineteen dynasties which bridged the long period between the flood and the close of the thrid dynasty of Ur."- Sir Charles Leoanard Woolley (1928)
Only the ante diluvian kings numbers are reckoned in multiples of Sars and ners. the first 8 kings in sars only and the last two kings in sars and ners/
the next 23 kings reigns namely the kings of Kish are reckoned and recorded in plain figures and not multiples of anything
Ĝušur 1200
Kullassina-bēl 960
Nanĝišlišma 670
En-tara-ana 420
etc
these dates and the dates of most of the true Sumerian kings were as Sir Leonard says taken from "a mass of documentary evidence" now lost to us. So the scribes who wrote these early post diluvian kings dates took them directly from the records left by the kings themselves.
now imagine what error they would make if they had not realised that these records holdovers from an earlier age and using a slightly different numbering system were needed to be divided by a factor of 60 to bring them in line with the Babylonian scribes who were writing it down
the claim that they wanted to record their glorious past and therefore may have exaggerated it falls flat because the Akkadians the group who followed from the Sumerians and the Babylonians who followed them were not sumerians themselves but were in fact semiotes who had not been granted positions of power under Sumerian rule and there was no love lost. It would be like the present day English wanting to glorify the Norman Invasion of 1066
they were semitic and of the same stock as the Hebrews who also later copied down the idea of ancient long lived kings.
Now there are two reasons that support this theory and which support no other conclusion
1) the list of ante diluvian kings is clearly listed from an ancient and not babylonian source because the name of the God Dumuzid is mentioned rather than his at that time present name Tammuz (you may have heard of him the god of Freemasons)
2) the lengths of the kings of kish when divided by a factor of 60 suddenly become very credible and matches what is known from the admittedly limited archaeological record
so you have
ante diluvians king - sars and ners
early sumerian dyanstic kings - factor of 60
semitic kings - base ten
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_king_list
-
Forum Monk
- Posts: 1999
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:37 pm
- Location: USA
Thank-you. What you say is logical and I will assume that it was the scribes failure to properly interpret his evidence is the reason we today see extremely long rules for the Sumerian kings. I would like to exclude the ante-diluvian kings for the time being since that opens up a whole other set of challenges which we may wish to expore later.
Next I would like to address the idea of overlapping rules. This will require some mutual understanding of where history and archaeology overlap and perhaps will look at sychronisms with other kingdoms and astronomic dating in the omen texts. I am assuming this is acceptable within the guidelines established for this thread.
But first I must gather some of my research. I will make a post later this evening, eastern USA time.
Next I would like to address the idea of overlapping rules. This will require some mutual understanding of where history and archaeology overlap and perhaps will look at sychronisms with other kingdoms and astronomic dating in the omen texts. I am assuming this is acceptable within the guidelines established for this thread.
But first I must gather some of my research. I will make a post later this evening, eastern USA time.
-
marduk
the only overlap that is relevant in the weld blundell list is the confusion between
Unug
Utu-eĝal 427 7 7 2275bce Su
and
Urim
Ur-Nammu 18 1080 18 2268bce Se
Utu-eĝal who rid the country of the Gutian menace. At the city-state of Ur he appointed a military-governor named Ur-Nammu who soon struck out for himself and overthrew his erstwhile protector
but this was by a statement made in one of his proclamations
so is as reliable as you think that the king himself was.
you either have to take the word of numerous kings lists that say Utu egal succeeded Ur Nammu or a boast from a king
with what was known of the language when this claim was first made its also entirely possible that a mistake in translation was made and that what he actually said was that Utu Egal succeded Ur Nammu
I've looked for clearer records in this but couldn't find any and you don't hear many sumerologists thesedays talking about it anyway
maybe they figured it out and don't like to mention it for the obvious reason that it brings the field into disrepute
but whatever the case
it isn't a great deal of time we're talking about <25 years
and I did state iirc a -/+ discrepancy possibility of 150 years in either direction just to be on the safe side
the main point of this exercise was to dispell the myth that the ancient kings of kish reigned for anything up to 1200 years
when clearly that was never possible
unless Sitchin is right
and if thats the case I'll eat my own hat
and let me tell you
I ride a motorcycle and the only hat i own is a full face helmet so thats no idle boast
Unug
Utu-eĝal 427 7 7 2275bce Su
and
Urim
Ur-Nammu 18 1080 18 2268bce Se
Utu-eĝal who rid the country of the Gutian menace. At the city-state of Ur he appointed a military-governor named Ur-Nammu who soon struck out for himself and overthrew his erstwhile protector
but this was by a statement made in one of his proclamations
so is as reliable as you think that the king himself was.
you either have to take the word of numerous kings lists that say Utu egal succeeded Ur Nammu or a boast from a king
with what was known of the language when this claim was first made its also entirely possible that a mistake in translation was made and that what he actually said was that Utu Egal succeded Ur Nammu
I've looked for clearer records in this but couldn't find any and you don't hear many sumerologists thesedays talking about it anyway
maybe they figured it out and don't like to mention it for the obvious reason that it brings the field into disrepute
but whatever the case
it isn't a great deal of time we're talking about <25 years
and I did state iirc a -/+ discrepancy possibility of 150 years in either direction just to be on the safe side
the main point of this exercise was to dispell the myth that the ancient kings of kish reigned for anything up to 1200 years
when clearly that was never possible
unless Sitchin is right
and if thats the case I'll eat my own hat
and let me tell you
I ride a motorcycle and the only hat i own is a full face helmet so thats no idle boast
-
Forum Monk
- Posts: 1999
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:37 pm
- Location: USA
You will not get any flack from me about 1200 years. Clearly someone made a mistake (our scribe). If you want to drop this thread, having made your point, OK. But nevertheless, I want to look into my old info. perhaps I am mistaken that other overlaps may have occured but if I find something, perhaps you can help me weed out the good from the bad info.marduk wrote:the main point of this exercise was to dispell the myth that the ancient kings of kish reigned for anything up to 1200 years
when clearly that was never possible
unless Sitchin is right
and if thats the case I'll eat my own hat
and let me tell you
I ride a motorcycle and the only hat i own is a full face helmet so thats no idle boast
btw - over here you can 'ride' free. if you ever have to eat your hat, that is.
-
marduk
I think a bigger mistake was made by the Hebrews who copied the idea of very long lived patriarchs from this sourceYou will not get any flack from me about 1200 years. Clearly someone made a mistake (our scribe). If you want to drop this thread, having made your point, OK
and then compounded by the Roamn Catholics when they used the Bible for their own system of control
using the same solution we can conclude that Methuselah claimed to have lived for 969 years was actually just over 16 years old when he died and so is purely a fictional character
when you consider that most of the old testament stories are in some cases very poorly edited versions of older Mesopotamian (mainly akkadian) stories then this becomes very easy to accept.
take the Noah story for instance and compare it to Gilgamesh
Gilgamesh: -
When a seventh day arrived
I sent forth a dove and released it.
The dove went off, but came back to me;
no perch was visible so it circled back to me.
Genesis 7
8 And he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground. 9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him to the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth
Gilgamesh
I sent forth a raven and released it.
The raven went off, and saw the waters slither back.
It eats, it scratches, it bobs, but does not circle back to me.
Genesis 7
7 And he sent forth a raven, and it went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth
Gilgamesh predates the Bible by at least 1500 years
but I'd be happy to help with your understanding of Sumerology
its what I do
sometimes its not welcomed but hey what the hell
the truth is out there
all you have to do is find it
Sumerology
Marduk, this is a very important discussion and, as you will recall, eventually led to the statement by Arch that he bellieved Methuselah was actually 969 years old when he died. Your explanation is far more sensible. Question: Have you made a comparison of the original symbols to determine how the scribe miscalculated the years?but I'd be happy to help with your understanding of Sumerology
its what I do
sometimes its not welcomed but hey what the hell
the truth is out there
all you have to do is find it
Natural selection favors the paranoid
-
marduk
there are no original symbols to examine or i would have done that
the list that NURNINSUBUR made that is called the weld blundell prism is written in Akkadian
the source for the earlier dates is now long gone
so they are just written in normal akkadian numerals
you remember how popular akkadian is and how well we understand it from numerous sources across the ancient world
the error i think comes in just the manner in which sumerians recorded their numerals
one obvious example of that is the way in which they recorded everything in double miles
a mile was the distance a man could walk there and back again in an hour
so if a distance to another city was 20 miles they recorded it as 40 miles
they had different ways for measuring different factors
area is another one that isnt well understood
they measured that in multiples of fields
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Me ... easurement
but when you consider that they did actually invent all this stuff it must have made sense to do it this way
after all we still use the way that they measure time
60 seconds and minutes
and multiples of 60 when recording kings reigns
starts to make sense to you as well when you really study it
either that or it drives you bonkers which is why most people can't be bothered
the list that NURNINSUBUR made that is called the weld blundell prism is written in Akkadian
the source for the earlier dates is now long gone
so they are just written in normal akkadian numerals
you remember how popular akkadian is and how well we understand it from numerous sources across the ancient world
the error i think comes in just the manner in which sumerians recorded their numerals
one obvious example of that is the way in which they recorded everything in double miles
a mile was the distance a man could walk there and back again in an hour
so if a distance to another city was 20 miles they recorded it as 40 miles
they had different ways for measuring different factors
area is another one that isnt well understood
they measured that in multiples of fields
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Me ... easurement
but when you consider that they did actually invent all this stuff it must have made sense to do it this way
after all we still use the way that they measure time
60 seconds and minutes
and multiples of 60 when recording kings reigns
starts to make sense to you as well when you really study it
either that or it drives you bonkers which is why most people can't be bothered
Antediluvian List
The antediluvian list is far different, being orders of magnitude longer in years than what follows the flood. Did the scribe miss something else? Do you have any thoughts on what that difference might represent? 
Natural selection favors the paranoid
-
marduk
Response
No ... you have enough info on those stratovolcanoes to make a case. BTW, I suspect one of them has grown over the last 10 eons versus the other.you sure you want me to go into that here
think anyones really that interested in the mountain of heaven engulfed
naaaah
Natural selection favors the paranoid
-
Forum Monk
- Posts: 1999
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:37 pm
- Location: USA
Marduk must keep some odd hours - he's on this forum 24 hours.
It seems there are some individuals that go out of their way to try to upset the fundamental belief system of about 2.5 billion people (Hebrew, Moslem and Christian basically all derive from Abraham's religion). To outright state the Moses copied from the Sumerian tradition is a bold assertion without proof except to say A came before B so therefore B came from A. It doesn't necessarily follow. If you accept that Moses wrote the book of Genesis, its odd that a man who grew up entirely in Egypt did not include a single Egyptian myth and it is odd that Moses' numbers are an order of magnitude more precise when describing the age of a man at his son's birth and the age at his death. The followers of these religions believe Moses had another source since he was a prophet. In any case it is pointless to argue matters of faith. THE SIGNIFICANT THING IS BOTH AGREE, there were 10 kings, a flood and more kings. Now, if Moses did have another source, it reinforces the Sumerian account rather than the Sumerian destroying the Hebrew. Once again the Hebrew scriptures are upheld by archaeology. Further. the Hebrew calendar was a lunar based time system while it seems the Sumerian was solar (but I am not sure). Methuselah's' 969 or Gasur's 1200+, who cares. The fundamental texts agree in a remarkable way.
Have had little time to research - got side tracked by some domestic issues.
It seems there are some individuals that go out of their way to try to upset the fundamental belief system of about 2.5 billion people (Hebrew, Moslem and Christian basically all derive from Abraham's religion). To outright state the Moses copied from the Sumerian tradition is a bold assertion without proof except to say A came before B so therefore B came from A. It doesn't necessarily follow. If you accept that Moses wrote the book of Genesis, its odd that a man who grew up entirely in Egypt did not include a single Egyptian myth and it is odd that Moses' numbers are an order of magnitude more precise when describing the age of a man at his son's birth and the age at his death. The followers of these religions believe Moses had another source since he was a prophet. In any case it is pointless to argue matters of faith. THE SIGNIFICANT THING IS BOTH AGREE, there were 10 kings, a flood and more kings. Now, if Moses did have another source, it reinforces the Sumerian account rather than the Sumerian destroying the Hebrew. Once again the Hebrew scriptures are upheld by archaeology. Further. the Hebrew calendar was a lunar based time system while it seems the Sumerian was solar (but I am not sure). Methuselah's' 969 or Gasur's 1200+, who cares. The fundamental texts agree in a remarkable way.
Have had little time to research - got side tracked by some domestic issues.