Archaeologica.org

This topic is as the title states. A comprehensive, but unchecked, list has been compiled by one of our members.

While I do believe that a great deal of research has gone into this, I do not endorse it, as it has not been verified. BUT that does not mean by any definition that it is wrong.

The list is open for debate and discussion.

I WILL REMIND ALL OF THE RULES AND RE-ITERATE, RE-STATE AND UPDATE THEM HERE AGAIN AS THEY APPLY TO THIS SUBJECT:

TOPICAL RESTRAINTS

1) The topic is Sumerian King List.

2) Discussion of relations between the Sumerian King List and esoteric or extraterrestrial regions are off topic, as are a-historical, quasi-historical and pseudo-historical matters in general. So please avoid "New Age" musings, ufology, occultism, so called "secret societies", visionary experiences, dubious "revisionistic" theories, ethnocentric theories, Atlantis related theories, etc.

3) The imposition of modern political, religious, anti-religious, racial, or social agendas on the list is outside the defined topic.

4) Personal worldviews and philosophies shall be kept a private matter.

5) Personal matters (grievances, emotional reactions, accounts of daily routines, gossiping, chatting, etc.) shall be kept off the list an delt with in private messages.

These rules can be considered as standard for all topics. An updated Forum rules will be published.

Thanks and debate at will! The list will follow shortly.

MichelleH

BRING ON THE LIST!

This list is compiled from the contemporary accounts of the inhabitants of Mesopotamia themselves. Other attempts to fit certain of these Kings into timeframes has been done by either Radiocarbon dating artifacts or by chronological dating methods. In both cases this has led to very varied dates that usually differ by up to 300 years in either direction. Firstly because Radiocarbon dating is not very accurate to a certain year and secondly because chronological dating is innefective on an archaeological site where artifacts were used again and again by successive generations so that an artifact manufactured around 2500bce can be found in a layer dating to 2000bce. So therefore this list is compiled backwards using the length of stated rule of each ruler from very well established dates, in this case the foundation of the Babylonian Empire in 1894bce.

the reason for so much confusion for the dates on the original list is because it appears like this in its original format:-

40-94. After the flood had swept over, and the kingship had descended from heaven, the kingship was in Kiš. In Kiš, Ĝušur became king; he ruled for 1200 years. Kullassina-bēl ruled for {960} {(ms. P2+L2 has instead:) 900} years. Nanĝišlišma ruled for (ms. P2+L2 has:) {670} (?) years. En-taraḫ-ana ruled for (ms. P2+L2 has:) {420} years

no attempt has ever been made to ratify this messy way of annotating the kings of mesopotamia as for a long time it wasn't understood that the Sumerians used base 60 to annotate numerics which left them having reigns of an impossible amount of years such as "Ĝušur became king; he ruled for 1200 years." whereas when Sumerian power waned and semites became kings they used for them the more traditional base ten system which we still use today.

That the sumerians used 60 in this manner is irrefutable and you need only look at the face of a clock to see the truth of this as the system that we still use today to record time came from this very same ancient source.

This one small fact has changed the face of civilisation as we know it by leading to the fiction perpetrated in the old testament leading the Hebrews to claim that they too had mighty leaders who ruled for hundreds of years, such as Methuselah who reportedly reached an age of 969 years. In base 60 this means that he was in fact just over 16 years old at the time of his death.
This error was then in turn overlooked by Bishop James Usher when he compiled his biblical chronology to work out the total age of the earth believing it to be created in 4004bce in 6 days by a guy called simply God.
In addition it is probably worth mentioning here that there are 23 kings of Kish (Kiš) and 23 Biblical patriarchs. this is not a coincedence. It is in fact a very early form of plaguiarism.

As it turns out the god of Bishops Ushers faith was based on the Hebrew God YHWH, and now in turn it seem that the Hebrew God YHWH was based in part on the Mesopotamian god Enlil who was in fact based on a number of early ruling Kings who were fully human. In other words the name Enlil was an epithet which meant "high king". Ushers chronology was used to change the face of the world and the belief system of the more civilised members of society at that time. It held back advances in science which contradicted it and was used as a form of established racism to denegrate races who not knowing the word of the one true God were relegated to "conquered peoples" and exploited sometimes in a most horrible fashion.

so this is a list of high kings in the same way that the Egyptian king list only notates those believed to hold the spirit of Horus and in the same way that the ancient Irish used the term "Ard Rí na hÉireann" to seperate the King who was God from the simple feudal type vassal king who was not. This is supported by the fact that there are many Kings of Mesopotamia not mentioned on this list yet who are well established by archaeology to have controlled certain areas. Only in truly ancient times did this type of kingship flourish. No one would argue with a king who was God and this is the glue that held early civilisation together in the first place

the numbers after each Kings name are
Stated Length of rule: the number that appears on the list
Base 60 : the same number in base 60
Base 10 : the same number in base 10
Chronology : the date of the Kings succession
Race : the race of the king Su - Sumerian /Se - Semite


Kiš
Ĝušur 1200 1200 20 3592bce Su
Kullassina-bēl 960 960 16 3572bce Su
Nanĝišlišma 670 670 11 3556bce Su
En-tara-ana 420 420 7 3545bce Su
Babum 300 300 5 3538bce Su
Puannum 840 840 14 3533bce Su
Kalibum 960 960 16 3519bce Su
Kalūmum 900 900 15 3503bce Su
Zuqāqīp 900 900 15 3488bce Su
Atab 600 600 10 3473bce Su
Mašda 840 840 14 3463bce Su
Arwium 720 720 12 3449bce Su
Etana, the shepherd 1500 1500 25 3437bce Su
Bali 410 410 6 1/2 3412bce Su
En-me-nuna 660 660 11 3406bce Su
Melem-Kiš 900 900 15 3395bce Su
Barsal-nuna 1200 1200 20 3380bce Su
Zamug 140 140 2 1/3 3360bce Su
Tizqār 305 305 5 3357bce Su
Ilku 900 900 15 3352bce Su
Iltasadum 1200 1200 20 3327bce Su
En-me-barage-si 900 900 15 3307bce Su
Aga 625 625 10 1/2 3292bce Su

E-Ana
Meš-ki-aĝ-gašer 325 325 5 1/2 3281bce Su
Enmerkar 420 420 7 3275bce Su
Lugalbanda 1200 1200 20 3268bce Su
Dumuzid the fisherman 110 110 2 3248bce Su
Gilgamesh 126 126 2 3246bce Su
Ur-Nungal 30 1800 30 3244bce Se
Udul-kalama 15 900 15 3214bce Su
Lā-ba’šum 9 540 9 3199bce Su
En-nun-tara 8 480 8 3190bce Se
Meš-e 36 2160 36 3182bce Se

Urim
Meš-Ane-pada 80 80 1 1/3 3146bce Su
Meš-ki-aĝ-Nanna 36 36 7 months 3144bce Su
Elulu 25 25 5 months 3143bce Su
Balulu 36 36 7 months 3143bce Su

Awan
King 1 120 120 2 3142bce N/A
King 2 120 120 2 3140bce N/A
King 3 116 116 2 3138bce N/A

Kiš
Susuda, the fuller 201 201 3 1/3 3136bce Su
Dadasig 81 81 1 1/3 3135bce Su
Mamagal, the boatman 360 360 6 3134bce Su
Kalbum 195 195 3 1/3 3128bce Su
Tuge 360 360 6 3125bce Su
Men-nuna 180 180 3 3119bce Su
Lugalĝu 420 420 7 3116bce Su

Amazi
Hadaniš 360 360 6 3109bce Su

Unug
En-šag-kuš-ana 60 60 1 3103bce Su
Lugal-ure/Lugal-kiniše-dudu 120 120 2 3102bce Su
Argandea 7 420 7 3100bce Su

Urim
Nanni 54 3240 54 3093bce Se
Meš-ki-aĝ-Nanna 48 2880 48 3039bce Se
Unknown 2 120 2 2991bce Se

Adab
Lugal-Ane-mundu 90 90 1 1/2 2989bce Su

Mari
Anbu 30 90 30 2987bce Se
Anba 17 1020 17 2957bce Se
Bazi the leatherworker 30 1800 30 2940bce Se
Zizi the fuller 20 1200 20 2910bce Se
Limer, gudug priest 30 1800 30 2890bce Se
Šarrum-īter 9 540 9 2860bce Se

Kiš
Kug-Bau (fem) 100 100 1 1/2 2851bce Su

Akšak,
Unzi 30 1800 30 2849bce Se
Undalulu 12 720 12 2819bce Se
Urur 6 360 6 2807bce Se
Puzur-Nira 20 1200 20 2801bce Se
Išu-Il 24 1440 24 2781bce Se
Šu-Suen 24 1440 24 2757bce Se

Kiš,
PuzurSuen son kugbau 25 1500 25 2733bce Se
Ur-Zababa 400 400 6 1/2 2708bce Su

Unug
Lugal-zage-si 34 2040 34 2700bce Se

Agade
Sargon 56 3360 56 2666bce Se
Rimus 15 900 15 2610bce Se
Man-ištiššu 15 900 15 2595bce Se
Narām-Suen 56 3360 56 2580bce Se
Šar-kali-šarrī 25 1500 25 2524bce Se
Irgigi 1 60 1 2499bce Se
Imi 1 60 1 2498bce Se
Nanum 1 60 1 2497bce Se
Illulu 2 120 2 2496bce Se
Dudu 21 1260 21 2495bce Se
Šu-Durul 18 1080 18 2474bce Se

Unug
Ur-niĝin 30 1800 30 2456bce Se
Ur-gigir 15 900 15 2426bce Se
Kuda 6 360 6 2411bce Se
Puzur-ilī 20 1200 20 2405bce Se
Ur-Utu 25 1500 25 2385bce Se
Lugal-melem 7 420 7 2360bce Se

Gutium
No king 5 300 5 2353bce N/A
Inkišuš 7 420 7 2348bce Se
Zarlagab 7 420 7 2341bce Se
Inimabakeš 5 300 5 2334bce Se
Duga 6 360 6 2329bce Se
Igešauš 6 360 6 2323bce Se
Yarlagab 15 900 15 2317bce Se
Ibate 3 180 3 2302bce Se
Apilkin 3 180 3 2299bce Se
Lā-erabum 2 120 2 2296bce Se
Irarum 2 120 2 2294bce Se
Ibranum 1 60 1 2292bce Se
Ablum 2 120 2 2291bce Se
Puzur-Suen 7 420 7 2289bce Se
Yarlaganda 7 420 7 2282bce Se
Tirigan 40 days 10 40 days 2275bce Se

Unug
Utu-eĝal 427 7 7 2275bce Su

Urim
Ur-Namma 18 1080 18 2268bce Se
Šulgi, 58 3480 58 2250bce Se
Amar-Suena 25 1500 25 2192bce Se
Šu-Suen 9 540 9 2167bce Se
Ibbi-Suen 25 1500 25 2159bce Se

Isin
Išbi-Erra 33 1980 33 2134bce Se
Šu-ilīšu 20 1200 20 2101bce Se
Iddin-Dagan 25 1500 25 2081bce Se
Išme-Dagan 20 1200 20 2056bce Se
Lipit-Eštar 11 660 11 2036bce Se
Ur-Ninurta 28 1680 28 2025bce Se
Būr-Suen 21 1260 21 1997bce Se
Lipit-Enlil 5 300 5 1976bce Se
Erra-imitti 8 480 8 1971bce Se
Enlil-bāni 24 1440 24 1963bce Se
Zambiya 3 180 3 1939bce Se
Iter-piša 4 240 4 1936bce Se
Ur-du-kuga 4 240 4 1932bce Se
Suen-magir 11 660 11 1928bce Se
Damiq-ilišu 23 1380 23 1917bce Se


there are two very important characters in this list for those more biblically minded among you.

The first is Abraham and the second his only real son Ishmael.
Neither of them were from "Ur of the Chaldees" which didn't exist until a thousand years after the claimed death of Abraham in the Bible anyway and neither of them ever left their home on a quest instructed by god.

Basically because they were regarded as Gods in every sense of the word anyway and there are existing sumerian texts that illustrate this which I will post if anyone is interested of indeed if anyone can point out which two names on the list represent them

the list is compiled from three seperate king lists so is accurate in either direction to +/- 300 years.
in future I will be able to bring it down to +/- 50 years but I am very busy working on something else right now and thought some posters might like to see a preliminary rough version of this special chronology

Never had much of a head for numbers I'm afraid, so the base 60 idea kind of gives me a headache. The closest parallel I know of is found in the pre-Conquest records of Central Mexico (mainly for Tollan and Tenochtitlan in this instance). We're working in base 13 here, and the rulers are given similarly improbable lengths of time upon the throne (well in excess of 100 years in some cases). Tellingly, the numbers of years involved, the identities of the rulers, even the common number of nine rulers spanning from the rise of a civilisation to its fall imply either a comical degree of coincidence or the more likely possibility of history being tailored for religious or political reasons. For example, a centre might have had eleven rulers, but recording their succession as being that of only nine tends to reinforce the prevalent symbolism and hence validity of the reigning ideology of the time. Thus it's often difficult to tell where myth ends and history begins, and it's sometimes more useful to treat it as neither in favour of mythic-history, which at least saves a lot of arguments.
My point here (at last!) is I'm wondering aloud whether this might also apply to the above list (having ancestors who lived for over a thousand years might constitute political dynamite for their descendants), or whether it really is all down to the base 60 thing, which I'll freely admit I don't understand.
Without wanting to accuse ancient civilisations of telling porkies, it does seem that history became a little more sober in its claims following the widespread (as opposed to limited to official channels) use of the written word.

Hi WA
yes in this case the early rulers of Sumer used base 60 to record their reigns
this wasn't an attaempt to make themselves look good as in many cases after they were defeated by a different King froma different city the godship was then taken up by a rival and the previous God-King was still recorded as having that reign.
not all kingships were handed down father to son. the rivalry was quite intense
the Sumerians also used base 60 a lot in everything else, such as time keeping and also of course measuring area
the Cuneiform symbol for the "Sar" a numeric that represented 3600 is a circle.

the Cuneiform symbol for the planet Earth is a circle and a water sign, because from their perspective the land was surrounded by water.

This means of course that they were aware of the spherical nature of the planet. This symbol is the main reason that their flood stories which tell of a flood upon the land are mistranslated in later times to tell of a flood upon the earth. the symbol for Mud is the water sign that accompanies the circle in the planet earth sign


and of course they were famous for their measurements of area and distance which also made use of the Sar and this is the reason that a king was known as a ruler in the first place
you can't call someone a king of all he surveys unless he's actually surveyed it and knows how much he owns can you.
think Yurtle the turtle
The list of Sumerian kings names you will see are normally spelled as a long list of sylables whereas semitic kings have more normal sounding names with less sylables in them.

there are of course more names at the start of the king list which at first look seem to have incredibly long lengths of reign even beyond the limits of the base 60 rule such as

Alalĝar ruled 64,800
Dumuzid, the shepherd ruled 36,000

but these numbers are all whats known as precessional measurements and are in fact measurements of area and not as has been speculated before as something to do with the cosmos.
The big clue in this former case is that Dumuzid, the shepherd was a famous God who travelled to the underworld and back. In Sumerian mythology Heaven was in the mountains to the north and Heavne on a mountaintop is a reoccuring theme in ancient world civilisations. this is the main reason why the "Aliens did it" mob get so het up.
In many ancients texts it states that God came down from heaven, without needing to say that heaven was firmly fixed to the earths surface, like today we are happy to say we "went down to the shops" without anyone thinking that we took some stairs to get there. It was a common figure of speech

the list entire list quite simply represents earth measurements followed by a list of those who ruled it from a mesocentric point of view. In other words they knew there were other civilisations who claimed to have God kings such as Egypt but from their perspective the other gods were not the real ones.
a view you may have heard in modern organised religion which is actually derived from the ancient Sumerian model as are the many religious stories that support it.

Does this mean it's the Sumerians we've to thank for the 'one true god' concept? Just as I was starting to like them, but never mind...
Anyway - fascinating stuff, and thanks for taking the time to post it. Just one question of minor detail here: Any idea where the base 60 comes from? Base 10 and 20 I can understand. The Nahua (Mexico again... groan) fixation on 9 and 13 I've heard fairly convincing arguments for where they might have come from (9 referring to lunar cycles of gestation, which sort of fits to the related symbolism, 13 seems to be more of the same but with bigger sums, headaches, and stiffer drinks once you've figured it all out)... but 60 is a pretty big number. The only way I can see it fitting is as one of six divisions of the solar year, assuming Sumer had one of those five additional useless days periods that seemed popular amongst early civilisations. And providing you ignore leap years etc.
Any ideas or links I should seek out?

Without wanting to accuse ancient civilisations of telling porkies, it does seem that history became a little more sober in its claims following the widespread (as opposed to limited to official channels) use of the written word.

Actually, I have always found that pure native american myths are more accurate than any subsequent history on the same topics. It takes some fuel at the top to decipher oral traditions, but in many cases these are epic oral histories as opposed to moral-based stories.

Cognito wrote: Actually, I have always found that pure native american myths are more accurate than any subsequent history on the same topics. It takes some fuel at the top to decipher oral traditions, but in many cases these are epic oral histories as opposed to moral-based stories.

Yes. I know what you're saying, and its certainly true with regards to building a general picture of what may have happened and why. I suppose I'm referring more to cases like why Tenoch should have been the first Mexica Tlatoani (almost certainly he wasn't, if he even existed), which say more about the recording of indigenous history than the details of said history. Take the Quetzalcoatl returning as Cortez prophecies which, although nonetheless fascinating, aren't a lot more use (in terms of recorded historical events) than for example, Quetzalcoatl returning as Bob Hope. Which I've just made up.

Anyway. (cough. cough.) Sumerian king lists...

Anyway. (cough. cough.) Sumerian king lists...

Base 13, base 60 ... gotta make adjustments. Certainly explains Methuselah's age of 969 years. Personally, I suspect that he was a king who ruled for 16 years instead (don't throw darts at me, Arch). Besides, genetics were essentially the same a few thousand years ago as they are today and if someone was lucky enough to survive disease and war, they likely lived into their 80s ... but not nearly to a thousand.

The closest parallel I know of is found in the pre-Conquest records of Central Mexico (mainly for Tollan and Tenochtitlan in this instance). We're working in base 13 here, and the rulers are given similarly improbable lengths of time upon the throne (well in excess of 100 years in some cases).

What happens to the list when you multiply the pre-Conquest ruling times by (10/13), or 0.77? Do the spans fall within a lifetime?

Any idea where the base 60 comes from

although obviously there is no direct evidence to prove it I think its from the calendar, the counting of the days of the year
when you're already dividing the year in base 60 integers its easy to see how that would then transfer to measurements of time and then distance
didn't you ever wonder why there are 360 degrees in a circle
why not 400 or 100.
the sumerians did in later days have 5 spare days at the end of the year at which time the king got slapped by the high priest to show his humility to the Cthonic Deities in order for them to think "y'know that kings not such a bad guy, lets go back and continue to give him our blessing". They called it the Akitu festival and during this time everyone got drunk and no work was done. Buildings were started on the first day of the new year and the new year itself was on the vernal equinox which was marked by the rising of the Pleaides in the same position each year
doing it that way meant that their claendar was rest every year which makes it more accurate than ours which is reset every leap year

Cognito wrote:What happens to the list when you multiply the pre-Conquest ruling times by (10/13), or 0.77? Do the spans fall within a lifetime?

Whoops. Should have checked my facts, or at least my statements. I was wrong about the reigns being in excess of 100 years, although the rest still seems to stand. Chicontonatiuh ruled Cuauhtitlan from AD 687 to 751 according to Cuauhtitlan Annals (Codex Chimalpopoca). That's 65 years which isn't impossible, but certainly seems improbable, plus it seems more than coincidental as a multiple of 13. His successor, Xiuhneltzin reigned for 52 years (4X13) after which we return to more practical and less obviously symbolic terms in office. Ixtlilxochitl's king list for Tollan (or at least the 'eastern lineage' - I'm prepared to stand corrected on this one, seeing as everybody seemed to think this referred to Teotihuacan up until relatively recent times) kicks off in AD 510 with five rulers who take us up to AD 770 in neat units of 52 years each. Later records (such as those for Tenochtitlan) delineate more practical reigns which nonetheless show signs of after-the-fact tampering in terms of the 9 rulers structure also found in the more obviously mythic Toltec king lists wherein Huemac and/or Topiltzin become endpoint figures with obvious similarities to the later Motecuhzoma Xocoyotzin. See Susan D. Gillespie's The Aztec Kings (University of Arizona Press).

Ugh. I'll get back on topic if it kills me.

Marduk - I think I misread you. You've inspired me to dig out the few (admittedly limited) writings I have on Sumer, and the loose-knit religious system seems in keeping with other premoral models (term nicked from DH Lawrence's Apocalypse) wherein Deities exist more as a means of explaining the world in lieu of any better ideas (such as modern science might supply with regards to, for example, the causes of lightning) as opposed to something prescribing values of good and evil for obvious political ends. Premoral theology seems to place more emphasis on the concepts expressed within various Deities than the personality cult thing we have now, hence Gods may blend and merge (as many did into Bel Marduk at one point, according to what I've just read) for the stated reason that it's more about the tune being played than who's playing, if you see what I mean. Therefore (and sorry if I'm getting this tits up) am I to understand that the logic of monotheistic thinking (if not initially its literal practice) was introduced by the Akkadians?
Does my question even make sense?
For crying out loud, someone please post on topic before I strike again.

as many did into Bel Marduk at one point

My name is Legion, for we are many
http://www.piney.com/EnumaSpeis6a7.html

yes I think by the akkadian period the Semites who took over saw the faults with the Sumerian model and the Royalty took steps to institutionalise a permanent Godhead which wasn't subject to politics and external strife.
that way you couldn't just chop the God king and take over. It would be sinful to even think of doing it
Sargon introduced this in a big way by having himself crowned as a Living god who had been chosen by the cthonic deities to rule. He was just a gardener you know. found in a basket on the river bank. sound familiar ?

the reason that the Sumerians dropped the ball in the first place is because they had rules about producing offspring with what they considered lesser races. In one myth even Enlil is banished to the underworld for copulating with a human woman. They regarded themselves wholly as Gods. thats anyone with Sumerian blood. anyone else was just human. think again what interpretation this may put on the sumerian claim that they created a race of slaves from Clay (local building material) and the blood of a God and the way that belief was misinterpreted in later times. The slaves of the Sumerians were always the local semites. This answers the question nicely of what happened to the resident Ubaidians when the Sumerians moved in and took over their resources
the more I study them the more I hate Sumerian politics
you have to be some kind of masochist to carry on really
but the rewards eventually are huge.

marduk wrote:

Any idea where the base 60 comes from

although obviously there is no direct evidence to prove it I think its from the calendar, the counting of the days of the year
when you're already dividing the year in base 60 integers its easy to see how that would then transfer to measurements of time and then distance
didn't you ever wonder why there are 360 degrees in a circle
why not 400 or 100.
the sumerians did in later days have 5 spare days at the end of the year at which time the king got slapped by the high priest to show his humility to the Cthonic Deities in order for them to think "y'know that kings not such a bad guy, lets go back and continue to give him our blessing". They called it the Akitu festival and during this time everyone got drunk and no work was done. Buildings were started on the first day of the new year and the new year itself was on the vernal equinox which was marked by the rising of the Pleaides in the same position each year
doing it that way meant that their claendar was rest every year which makes it more accurate than ours which is reset every leap year

Looks like our postings have almost collided again. Thanks for this latest one. It's ringing a lot of interesting bells with regards to my own area of stuff I actually know something about - which is interesting particularly for what it says about the parallel evolution of early civilisation in general.

The slaves of the Sumerians were always the local semites. This answers the question nicely of what happened to the resident Ubaidians when the Sumerians moved in and took over their resources.

BTW, local Semites = Ubaidians = yDNA J1. That is an important clue in understanding who the Sumerians were not.