Author of the Month :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
Join us at this forum every month for a discussion with famous popular authors from around the world. 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Atugablish writes “FYI: The oldest attested manuscript of SKL dates to the Ur III period (ca. 2100-2000BC), and begins at line 41 of the Old Babylonian composite text in etcsl:

1. nam-lugal an-ta ed3-da-ba
2. kiš.ki lugal-am3
3. kiš.ki-a giš-ur3-e
4. mu 600x3+60x6 i3-na

1. Kingship, in its coming down from heaven,
2. Kish was king.
3. In Kish Gushur
4. did 2160 years.

No flood and no antediluvians are present. Another manuscript, B(rockmon) T(ablets) 14, also begins this way (I currently have no access to this publication).

All other existing manuscripts of SKL date to the Old Babylonian period, during which time Akkadian speaking scribal students learned how to read and write Sumerian. The first use of the Flood as a cosmological catastrophe appears during the Isin dynasty (ca. 2000-1800BC), and likely occurred as a result of political and social struggles after the collapse of the Ur III state, especially utilizing preexisting chronistic traditions and city laments as templates to create a "tradition" that appeared to be old but in reality was a recent invention.*”

Thank you. I haven’t reproduced all of your references so please forgive me for that. I see that this refers to the possible reason for there being two unrelated King Lists. If I understand correctly, the authors referenced by you are arguing that the presence of the flood in the ‘complete’ Sumerian King List as a deliberate and late manipulation of those texts. I see the word ‘likely’ in there. As there is the reference to the flood and to the city of Shuruppag/Sukurru together in THE STORY OF SUKURRU from ca. 2500 BC, is that to be understood as a pre-existing tradition and an isolated city lament? The problem for me, if I have fully understood your extremely interesting post, is that the text does also make reference to the story of Noah. There can be no doubt of that. It’s situated at the time of that sticking point between antediluvian and post. But it isn’t a timeline and there is no obvious reference in it to a new kingship in Kish.

Should I take it that scribes in the Old Babylonian period were busy on later versions of the King List because they knew of this text and perhaps others, and of a flood happening in Shuruppag? But perhaps I have misunderstood. Anyway, thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Madeleine
[madeleinedaines.com]

PS. I wonder what Mr Chen would make of THE STORY OF SUKURRU. I understand that he was looking primarily at the names but disentangling history through the prism of THE INSTRUCTIONS OF SHURUPPAK, which made no mention at all of the flood story, would necessarily be less helpful.

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
The Sumerian King List, Ubara Dudu, Ziusudra or Noah? 400 MDaines 07-Feb-20 12:36
Re: The Sumerian King List, Ubara Dudu, Ziusudra or Noah? 79 Wheeler 07-Feb-20 13:51
Re: The Sumerian King List, Ubara Dudu, Ziusudra or Noah? 81 MDaines 07-Feb-20 14:22
Re: The Sumerian King List, Ubara Dudu, Ziusudra or Noah? 75 Wheeler 07-Feb-20 14:35
Re: The Sumerian King List, Ubara Dudu, Ziusudra or Noah? 82 MDaines 07-Feb-20 14:58
Re: The Sumerian King List, Ubara Dudu, Ziusudra or Noah? 80 Wheeler 07-Feb-20 16:06
Epithets in the Sumerian King List 79 MDaines 10-Feb-20 10:24
Re: The Sumerian King List, Ubara Dudu, Ziusudra or Noah? 65 atugablish 17-Feb-20 18:43
Re: The Sumerian King List, Ubara Dudu, Ziusudra or Noah? 79 MDaines 18-Feb-20 12:49


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.