The evidence of the list is verified on several sources and extant texts of the time. So, I would say, yes the lists are verified as much as possible within the current context of artifacts. I did not agree with Steve that the kings list should be interpreted in sequential order as I pointed out several places where the dynasties actually ran concurrently or overlapped by a century or so. I do think his assessment of the unusually long regnal years is correct and has been verified by others as well. It was simply a misinterpretation of the sexegismal vs. decimal systems by later transcribers.Ishtar wrote:Has that Sumerian Kings List been verified, Monk? The last one I saw was put together by a certain Stevie (the one you mentioned earlier, I think) and I'm not sure if it stands up.
As for the Nimrod identification. I have looked deeply into the ancient mythologies and their correspondence to the lists as well as the research of very many individuals with a myriad of agendas and nothing seems to hold up which links these kings to Biblical kings of Mesopotamia, such as Nimrod, Amraphel and Chedorlaomer. I do think there are some interesting ideas out there, just nothing conclusive yet.
