Sumerian King List

Langdon1923 WB444 study, printedpage 7

w-B. 1923, 444, THE SUMERO-ACCADIAN SYSTEM OF LEGENDARY AND HISTORICAL CHRONOLOGY 7 It is, therefore, probable, when these kings call themselves kings of Kish(ki) or Kish, they nean that they had obtained possession of this ancient city. That would have been especially rus of the northern cities Awan, Maer and AkSak. Lugal-tar-si is probably identical with the iecond king of Maer whose name ends in 2? on L. No. 1 V-13. The defaced name on the spear-head ' is probably identical with the fourth king of Maer and to be read Lugal-?-lu-gal. Mesilim may be in reality one of the three lost names of the dynasty of Awan, and Ur-zag-ed nay possibly be one of the lost names of a longer kingdom of Hamasi. When Eannatum says that he waged war with Zu-zu king of AkSak', and in the contemporary ringdom of Akiak Zu-zu does not appear, the scholar must suppose that patesis at AkSak in ihe preceding dynasty of Maer called themselves kings; hence Ur-Nin&é and Eannatum clearly velong to a period before Unzi of AkSak and Kug-Bau of Kish. And again what is to be said of [-lu(?)- Sama$ who calls himself king of Maer on a seated statue* of the archaic period ? He has 10 place in the list of the kings of Maer in Col. V 22-31. He was in fact only a patesi who lived yerhaps in the age of the kings of Adab or earlier. ; It is obvious that in the inscriptions before the time of Sargon no confidence can be placed ao records of local scribes unless they are confirmed by the dynastic lists. Ur-Nin4& calls himself xing of Lagash, but there was no recognized kingdom at Lagash; Ennatum does the same, and these two rulers of Lagash were apparently contemporaries of the kings of Maer. We cannot be sertain that even Engagku’anna, Lugalkigubnilag and Lugalkisalsi actually belonged to recognized lynasties at Erech or Ur as the two latter claim. The lists all give 3 kingdoms at Ur, 13 kings whose total on W-B. 444 is 177 + 108 (?) ++ 108 == 393 years. P. No. 2 XI 13 has the total 396 made up of 171-+-[108]+-117.? _ The most useful information obtainable from these lists is the fact that the chronology 3 definitely fixed back to the .period of the Ak’ak dynasty. The hundred years assigned ‘0 Kug-Bau at Kish is only a subterfuge to account for the contemporary kingdom of AkSak. [t is probable that her 100 years may be entirely disregarded. This would afford fairly sertain reckoning to the beginning of the second Ur dynasty. The only problem is that of the, reretofore, supposed certain dates for the dynasties of Isin and the third dynasty of Ur. If we rccept the current figures for the beginning of the Isin dynasty, 2357 B. C.*, Ur-Nammu began ais reign in 2465 B. C. Accepting this as a fixed point of departure the chronology will be as ollows. 4 1. First dynasty of Kish, circa 5500. — 2. First dynasty of Erech, circa 4600. oe 3. First lynasty of Ur, circa 4100. — 4. Awan, circa 3900. — 5. Second dynasty of Kish, circa 3750. — 5. Hamasi, circa 3560. — 7. Second dynasty of Erech, circa 3450. — 8. Second dynasty of Ur, 3357-3250. — 9. Adab, 3249-3160. — 10. Maer, 3159-3024. — Ll. Third dynasty of Kish Kug-Bau). — 12. AkSak (contemporary with Kug-Bau), 3023-2931. — 13. Fourth dynasty of Kish, 2930-2834. — 14. Third dynasty of Erech, 2833-2809. — 15. Agade, 2808-2628. — 1 SAK. 20 V 4. 2 CT. V 2, BM. 12146 and Kine, History of Sumer and Akkad, Plate opp. p. 102. ~ .* It is possible that the length of the 3¢ dynasty on P. No. 2 was 10% not 117 as on P. No. 5. In that ase 115 years was given for the second dynasty of Ur. . ; ‘ This date is regarded by those who depend upon Assyrian chronological data, as against the Babylonian lata, as about 170 years too high. See Wetpner, Die Kénige von Assyrien, pp. 40 ff. A discussion of this acoblem would fill an entire brochure and I must be satisfied with remaining non-committal at the time: of wmiing. Werpner’s thesis seems to me uuproved, but Kugler has also joined in the movement to lower the dates of the First Babylonian Dynasty and consequently the beginning of the dynasty of Isin. [See now the Preface].