Fictional Sumerian Historical Account

[ummia-inim-gina]

The following is meant as a fictional interpretation of Sumerian History. I created this fictional document taking the account of the dynasties from the Sumerian King list and attempting to match the reigns of its kings with the periods assigned to the archeological sites of Mesopotamia.
I feel a need to emphasize this document was not created scientifically and accordingly is not intended for any scholarly purposes. There was a lot of guess work done where information is unavailable and I had to "fit square into the circle" at times when information sometimes did not match up perfectly.
The document is meant to represent an early precursor of the Sumerian King list with a historical narrative dating to the nineteenth year of the reign of Lugalzagesi (-2340). Note that I included Lagash on the list who was probably not omitted from the Sumerian King list until much later during the reign of Ur-Nammu (see Rowton's comments in the thread Sumerian King List: Secondary Sources here: enenuru.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=research&action=display&thread=102) I also decided that the pre-flood section of list had already been added by this time.
The purpose of this account is to create a historical back drop for my next story which is to take place during the reign of Lugalzagesi. Being a work of fiction, it does not have to be provably accurate. However it is extremely important to me that it is possibly accurate and not provable erroneous. So criticisms and feedback on this document would be greatly appreciated. As always thank you for reading.

[ummia-inim-gina]

The First Empire of Kiengir (-3509 to -3106) 402 years total
[Corresponds with the late Uruk phase]
[In -5460] a man called Adapa, the Abgallu of Eridug was selected by the gods to lead colonists from the island of Dilmun to build a great temple to their god Enki in the land they would call Kiengir. They called the temple they built there the Eabzu. They made peace with the fishermen who lived in the marshlands and taught them how to farm and showed them the ways of civilized men. They built a city around their temple and they called it Eridug and built a vast kingdom that built cities throughout Kiengir spreading their influence throughout the near east.


Eridug (-3509 to -3106) 108 years total
(-3508 to -3460) Alulim 48 years
(-3460 to -3400) Alalngar 60 years

Bad-tibira [-3400 to -3328] 72 years total
[-3400 to -3328] Enmenluana 72 years
[-3328 to -3280] Enmengalana 48 years
[-3280 to -3220] Dumuzid, the Shepherd 60 years

Larsam (Larag, Larak} [-3220 to -3172] 48 years total
[-3220 to -3172] Ensipad-zidana 48 years

Zimbir [Sippar] [-3172 to -3137] 35 years total
[-3172 to -3137] Enmendurana 35 years

Shuruppag [Shurappak] [-3137 to -3106] 31 years total
[-3137 to -3106] Ubara-Tutu 31 years





First Intermediate Period: Dark Age After the Deluge [-3106 to -2879] 227 years total
[Corresponds with the the Jemet-Nasr period.]
Throughout the dark age after the Deluge we see independent city-states that are politically weak and constantly in conflict with each other. Population and economic activity of Kiengir reached their lowest point during this period. After the great deluge Semites from northern Mesopotamia descended down the river to immigrate into the now scarcely populated Sumerian city-states to settle there and take on their way of life. The northern half of Kiengir became inhabited by these Semites and would now be called Wair. One of the city states in Wair named Kish rose to power over the others.






The Second Empire of Kiengir [-2725 to -2516] 234 years total
[Corrisponds with the Early Dynastic period]
Etana, the twelfth king in the first dynasty of Kish, conquered all of the lands of Wair and most of Kiengir proper in the south during the first year of his rule [in -2725]. This briefly unified the lands under one kingdom and began the Second Empire of Kiengir. Kish ruled all of the lands alone until [in -2656] Meshkianggasher ruler of Uruk rebelled against him and established independence for his city-state. Meshkianggasher seized control of the southern half of the Kiengir and built an empire to rival Kish in the north. Kish retained control of the northern cities in Wair.

Peace then lasted for twenty seven years until king Meshkianggasher disappeared into the sea and never returned during a diplomatic voyage to Meluhha [in -2629]. Enmerkar "the king of Unuk, who built Uruk" took the throne of Uruk. This started a war between him and Iltasadum, the ruler of Kish that went back and forth between the two powerful kingdoms for the next eighteen years. Then [in -2611], the new ruler of Kish Enmebaragesi conquered all the cities of Kiengir. He turned the Ekur, Enlil's temple in Nippur, located exactly between Wair and Kiengir, into a national cult center and thus unified the two culturally distinct provinces under one king deriving his power from Enlil and the national assembly of gods. He built a strong kingdom that had influence throughout the near east. He reigned for thirty years and went on to conquer Mari and Elam and even made far away city-states such as Qatna and Dilmun bring him tribute.

His reign lasted until [in -2581] Dumuzid an extremely powerful ruler from Uruk captured and executed Enmebaragesi. Dumuzid took control of several cities in the south of Kiengir and a year later passed the kingship along to a fierce tyrant named Gilgamesh [in -2580]. Gilgamesh fought a series wars against Aga of Kish for twenty one years over control of Kiengir. Then [in -2651] Gilgamesh passed kingship on to his successor Ur-Nungal.

Meshanepada, an ambitious ruler of Urim, seized the opportunity and attacked Ur-Nungal and conquered Uruk. Meshanepada then went on to defeat Aga of Kish and thus conquered all of Kiengir. Upon conquering Kiengir he took on the title of "King of Kish." During the supremacy of Kish over the other city-states of Kiengir it became seen as a symbolic capital of the cities in Wari. From then on kings from the south took the symbolic title "King of Kish" to legitimize their rule over all of the lands.

Meshanepada reigned over Kiengir for thirty five years until his death [in -2525]. He passed kingship Meshkiangnanna who upon taking the throne fought a war for the next seven years with Melemanna the ruler of Uruk. This war was the largest and most costly war the world had ever seen both in expenditures of wealth and human lives. Every city in Kiengir was pulled into in conflict and entire cities were destroyed. After seven years of the lands being devastated by a consuming battle of attrition, Kiengir was ripe for conquering by armies of the East. The Second Empire of Kiengir lasted a total of 234 years until [in -2518] Elamites in Awan conquered Kiengir.


First Dynasty of Kish (-2879 to -2550) 329 years total
[-2879 to -2859] Jushur 20 years
[-2859 to -2843] Kullassinabel "All of them were lord" 16 years
[-2843 to -2832] Nangishlishma 11 years
[-2832 to -2825] Entarahana 7 years
[-2825 to -2820] Babum 5 years
[-2820 to -2806] Puannum 14 years
[-2806 to -2790] Kalibum 16 years
[-2790 to -2776] Kalumum 14 years
[-2776 to -2761] Zuqaqip 15 years
[-2761 to -2751] Atab 10 years
[-2751 to -2737] Mashda 14 years
[-2737 to -2725] Arwium 12 years

[-2725 to -2700] Etana "the shepherd, who ascended to heaven and consolidated all the foreign countries" 25 years
[-2700 to -2693] Balih 7 years
[-2693 to -2682] Enmenuna 11 years
[-2682 to -2667] Melem-Kish 15 years
[-2667 to -2647] Barsalnuna 20 years
[-2647 to -2644] Zamug 3 years
[-2644 to 2639] Tizqar 5 years
[-2639 to -2631] Ilku 8 years
[-2631 to -2611] Iltasadum 20years
[-2611 to -2581] Enmebaragesi "who made the land of Elam submit" 30 years
[-2581 to -2550] Aga of Kish 31 ( years contemporary with Gilgamesh of Uruk)


First Dynasty of Uruk [-2656 to -2518] 138 years total
[-2656 to -2629] Meshkianggasher "the son of Utu" 27 years
[-2629 to -2614] Enmerkar 15 years
[-2614 to -2594] Lugalbanda "the shepherd" 20 years
[-2594 to -2580] Dumuzid 14 years
[-2580 to -2559] Gilgamesh 21 years
[-2559 to -2553] Ur-Nungal 6 years
[-2553 to -2548] Udul-kalama 5 years
[-2548 to -2539] La-ba'shum 9 years
[-2539 to -2531] En-nun-tarah-ana 8 years
[-2531 to - 2525] Mesh-he "the smith" 6 years
[-2525 to -2524] Melemanna 1 years
[-2524 to -2518] Lugal-kitun 6 years


First dynasty of Urim [-2560 to -2428] 132 years total
[-2560 to-2525] Meshanepada 35 years
[-2525 to -2489] Meshkiangnanna 36 years
[-2489 to -2464] Elulu 25 years
[-2464 to -2428] Balulu 36 years






The second intermediate period: The warring states period after Elam divided the lands [-2518 to -2460] 58 years total.
[In -2518] Elamites from Awan defeated Meshkiangnanna, the second king of the first dynasty of Ur, and carried the kingship of Kiengir back to Elam. Two years later [in -2516] a coalition of city-states lead by a fuller from Kish named Susuda rebelled against Awan. Kish gained it's independence and Susuda the fuller was made king of the second dynasty of Kish. In the south independent dynasties were also created founded in Lagash and Umma. This left Kiengir with no clear controlling city-state and plummeted the lands into a warring states period. Then [in -2490] the ruler of a powerful foreign city Hamazi, King Hadanish, attacked and conquered several of the key cities in central Mesopotamia creating the dynasty of Hamazi which for 30 years was the most powerful force in Kiengir. Awan still controlled several key cities and continued to wage wars against Hamazi and meddled in Mesopotamian affairs for another thirty years until Kiengir regained its former strength [in -2460] when King Enshagkushana of Uruk conquered all of the lands and built the Third Empire of Kiengir.


Dynasty of Awan [-2518 to -2460] 58 years total
[-2518 to -2460] Three kings of Awan 58 years


Second Dynasty of Kish [-2516 to -2420] 96 years total
[-2516 to -2505] Susuda "the fuller" 11 years
[-2505 to -2502] Dadasig 3 years
[-2502 to -2482] Mamagal "the boatman" 20 years
[-2482 to -2474] Kalbum 8 years
[-2474 to -2458] Tuge 16 years
[-2458 to -2450] Men-nuna 8 years
[-2450 to -2440] Enbi-Ishtar 10 years
[-2440 to -2420] Lugalngu 20 years


Dynasty of Hamazi [-2490 to -2460] 30 years total
[-2490 to -2460] Hadanish 30 years








The Third Empire of Kiengir [-2460 to -2334] 126 years total
[corresponds with the late Early Dynastic period]
[In -2460] Enshagkushana founded the second dynasty of Uruk. He then fought a war with Hamazi and defeated King Hadanish in battle and conquered all of his lands. He then in that same year went on to defeat both Tuge the ruler of Kish and an army of barbarian mercenaries from the Zagros mountains that were hired by the king of Awan. Having reduced most of Kiengir to vassals of Uruk, including Kish, Enshagkushana took on the title "King of Kish" thus establishing The Third Empire of Kiengir. Although he took on the title "King of Kish" Enshagkushana never successfully conquered all of Kiengir nor did he completely drive out Elamite control of the western cities of Kiengir.

[In -2454], Enakale, the ruler of Umma, one the largest and most wealthy cities in Kiengir, violated the border demarcation set by the King of Kish long ago. He attacked the lands of Eannatum King of the neighboring Lagash, an independent city-state founded by Eannatum's grand father Ur-Nanshe sixty years earlier [in -2514] After Eannatum defeated Umma he signed a treaty with Enakale, demarcating the border ground. Eannatum built large daises and set up set up new steles on the border to show that the treaty had the blessing of the gods and to demonstrate his permanent ownership of the land.

Four years later [in -2450], King Eannatum attacked Uruk and defeated Enshagkushana, who along with of all of his lands became a vassal to Lagash. King Eannatum then took on the title "King of Kish" and in that same year he went on to conquer Mari in the west and to take control of the cities of eastern Kiengir, driving all of the Elamite armies back to Awan. King Eannatum claimed the title of kingship over the entire world "King of the four quarters on the Universe" and spent the next twenty eight years of his rule expanding the border of his empire making far away cities bring him tribute.

This lasted until his death [in -2425] when his brother Enannatum, a high priest, inherited the empire. In the seven years he ruled as "King of Kish" he gradually lost control of most of the empire his brother had conquered to a series of rebellions. The first rebellion was [in -2424] Nanni, the ruler of Urim successfully rebelled from Lagash and took control of several cities creating a new independent kingdom, the second dynasty of Urim.

Two years later, [in -2422], Lagash was attacked by Ur-luma, ruler of Umma at the battle of the Hill of the Black Dog. Enannatum came out victorious and chased the armies of Ur-luma back to Umma where he was killed for disgracing his city on the battlefield. During Lagash's war with Umma, Enshagkushana, now an old man thirty eight years into his reign as ruler of Uruk, seized advantage of the Lagash's vulnerable state and attacked Enannatum's garrisons gaining independence again. The next year both Lugalanemundu, the ruler of Adab and Anbu, ruler of Mari rebelled successfully against Enannatum and created independent dynasties. Anbu spent the next twelve years conquering all of the Martu cities in the west creating a powerful kingdom there.

[In -2420] a very influential and respected female tavern owner in Kish named Kug-Bau started a rebellion over the new taxes that were being imposed on Kish. First the rebels stormed the palace of Lugalngu the lord of Kish and took him captive. They declared Lugalngu a dog of foreign kings and marched him through the streets. The rebels then went on to slaughter his entire palace and declare the independence of Kish. Kug-Bau then lead the armies of Kish against the armies of Enshagkushana of Uruk, Enannatum of Lagash and Puzur-Nirah of Akshak. The armies of Kish prevailed against them one after the other. After the war was over Kug-Bau was made "King of Kish".

Two years later, [in -2418], Enannatum of Lagash died and passed kingship down to his son Enmetena. Enmetena used diplomacy to make peace with Il, the ruler of Umma. He also signed peace treaties with Kug-Bua of Kish, Lugalkinishedudu of Uruk and Nanni of Urim. Peace last three years until [in -2415], during the sixth year of his rule over Adab, King Lugalannemundu conquered all of the cities of Kiengir including Kish, Uruk, Urim, Larsam, Nippur, Umma, Lagash and Eridug. For the first time since the fall of the Second Empire of Kiengir all of the lands were ruled under one king.

After consolidating all of Kiengir Lugalannemundu brought peace to the peoples of all of the lands and built great temples to all of the gods. He built an extremely lavish temple in Adab he called the Enamzu and dedicated it to the patron deity of the city Ninzu. Lugalannemundu then turned his attention to foreign lands and conquered from the seas beyond cedar mountains in the north west to the sea south east of Kiengir. He conquered the lands of Elam, Marhashi, Gutium, Subir, Martu, Sutium, Dilmun and made all of the foreign lands pay tribute to him. He built the largest and most powerful empire the world had ever seen. King Lugalannemundu then took the title of kingship over the entire world "King of the four quarters on the Universe." No king dared oppose the supremacy of King Lugalannemundu however after a thirty year reign he left no clear successor to the throne of his empire upon his death [in -2391].

Without any leadership the empire of Lugalannemundu dissolved into independent city-states. This left the cities of Kiengir in a constant state of warfare fighting each other for supremacy over one another. Il the ruler of Umma was the first to take action and attacked Enanatum II upon his taking of the throne of Lagash from Enmetena that same year as the death of Lugalannemundu. Il was victorious and after several failed attempts Umma finally took control of the bordering agricultural lands between the two cities. Kug-Bua was still ruler of Kish and she regained the independence of Kish and conquered the adjacent cities in Wair. Also in that same year Bazi, ruler of Mari established Mari's independence and regained control of the Martu cities in the west.

Unzi, the King of Akshak created a powerful independent dynasty that would spend the next twenty six years defeating many of the cities of Kiengir on the battlefield until [in -2365], Puzur-Nirah the fourth King of the dynasty of Akshak, attacked Kish and after fifty five years of fighting on the battle field as the ruler of Kish, Kug-Bau the Tavern-keeper, was slain in battle against Akshak. However Akshak's victory over Kish was a short lived one for in the following year Puzur-Suen, son of Kug-Bau, expelled the armies of Akshak and executed Puzur-Nirah thus founded the fourth dynasty of Kish. Anshak and Kish, as well as all of the the other cities of Kiengir, continued to fight wars against one another for several more years.

[In -2359] Lugalzagesi, a great ruler from Umma, took his throne at Uruk and founded the mighty third dynasty of Uruk. [In -2351] Urukagina ascended the throne of Lagash. He spent the seven years of his reign hiding within the walls in fear, praying to his weak gods to protect him from the mighty Lugalzagesi. A cowardly pacifist of a king, Urukagina offered little resistance [in -2342] when attacked by the great Lugalzaggesi. It was he, Lugalzagesi, the great hero of Kiengir, that the gods showed favor and who was victorious in battle.

The great king Lugalzagesi then went on to conquer all of Kiengir and restored the lands to their former glory taking on the title "the king of all those on thrones in Kiengir and the rulers of foreign lands”


The First Dynasty of Lagash (-2514 to -2342) 172 years total
[-2514 to -2478] Ur-Nanshe 36 years
[-2478 to -2454] Akurgal 24 years
[-2454 to -2425] Eannatum 29 years
[-2425 to -2418] En-anna-tum I 7 years
[-2418 to -2391] Entemena 27 years
[-2391 to -2373] Enanatum II 18 years
[-2373 to -2364] Enentarzid 9 years
[-2364 to -2351] Lugalanda 13 years
[-2351 to-2342] Urukagina 7 years


Second Dynasty of Uruk [-2460 to -2369] 97 years total
[-2460 to -2420] Enshagkushana 40 years
[-2420 to -2360] Lugalkinishedudu 60 years
[-2360 to -2353] Argandea 7 years


Second Dynasty of Urim [-2424 to -2394] 30 years total
[-2424 to -2404] Nanni 20 years
[-2404 to -2396] Meshkiangnanna II 8 years
[-2396 to -2394] (?) 2 years


Dynasty of Adab -[2421 to -2391] 30 years total
[2421 to -2391] Lugalannemundu 30 years


Dynasty of Mari [-2421 to -2361] 80 years total
[-2421 to -2409]Anbu 12 years
[-2409 to -2402]Anba 7 years
[-2402 to -2390] Bazi "the leatherworker" 12 years
[-2390 to -2382] Zizi of Mari "the fuller" 8 years
[-2382 to -2370] Limer "the 'gudug' priest" 12 years
[-2370 to -2361] Sharrum-iter 9 years


Third Dynasty of Kish [-2420 to -2365] 55 years total
[-2420 to -2365] Kug-Bau (Kubaba) "the woman tavern-keeper, who made firm the foundations of Kish" 55 years


Dynasty of Akshak [-2391 to -2338] 53 years total
[-2391 to -2385] Unzi 6 years
[-2385 to -2382] Undalulu 3 years
[-2382 to -2379] Urur 3 years
[-2379 to -2373] Puzur-Nirah 6 years
[-2373 to -2354] shu-Il 19 years
[-2354 to -2338] Shu-Suen of Akshak 6 years


Fourth Dynasty of Kish
[-2365 to -2340] Puzur-Suen 25 years
[-2340 to present] Ur-Zababa 6 years


Third Dynasty of Uruk
[-2359 to present] Lugalzagesi

[ninurta2008]

I like what you did. How did you come up with the number of years they reigned?

I had done the same thing, though I kept the numbers of years at what the SKL had for them.

[ummia-inim-gina]

Thank you for your feedback I really appreciate it. My goal here was to take the names of the rulers from the Sumerian King List and assign them realistic reigns but utilizing the numbers from the King List as a scale. The concept being whenever the numbers became exaggerated, the scribes exaggerating the numbers did it to scale of the accurate lengths of the reign of the kings. The earlier the reign of a king the more the scribes exaggerated the length of their reign is in the list.
I got the idea to do this thinking about the pre-flood section of the list. I had just reread the Sumerian King List thread here at enenuru and I was thinking about how scholars suggest the pre-flood section of the list was added as an afterthought on the list. I thought about their numeric system and how all the numbers are conveniently divisible by 600. If you divide both units by 600, counting the sars as 6 instead of 3,600 and the ners as 1 instead of 600, you get reigns between 31-72. Those are long, yet believable lengths for the reigns of kings. I also found it interesting that if you add up the length of all eight rulers using that system, it adds up to 402 years total, which coincides perfectly with the four hundred year period that modern archaeologists identify as the late Uruk period (3500-3100).
For the reigns after the deluge I tried my best to come up with an appropriate number to divide the years by that would be a believable length for the reign of a king. The first half of the first dynasty of kish there is still very high numbers but after a short while I was able to just divide everything by 6. I found it interesting how conveniently that the reigns of all of these kings are almost always divisible by 6.
The first half of the first dynasty of Kish scaled down to fit the Jemet-Nasr period which was ended by Etana who consolidated all the lands. Archaeologists will typical assign 200 years to this period. In order to keep the lengths of the reigns to scale I increased the length just slightly to 227. The rest of the list is scaled by 6, then divided in half and finally during the late Early Dynastic Period the number from the Kinglist is used. Whenever possible the lengths of reigns suggested by scholars is used.

[enkur]

I do also appreciate everything you do, Ummia. That's great that you explore the matter in such a creative way. That could prove quite a discovery about counting up the chronology. I have always been interested in comprehending the Sumerian 6-fold system. It could prove the right key to the mysteries of that civilization.

[ninurta2008]

Sept 25, 2013 1:42:33 GMT -5 ummia-inim-gina said:

Thank you for your feedback I really appreciate it. My goal here was to take the names of the rulers from the Sumerian King List and assign them realistic reigns but utilizing the numbers from the King List as a scale. The concept being whenever the numbers became exaggerated, the scribes exaggerating the numbers did it to scale of the accurate lengths of the reign of the kings. The earlier the reign of a king the more the scribes exaggerated the length of their reign is in the list.
I got the idea to do this thinking about the pre-flood section of the list. I had just reread the Sumerian King List thread here at enenuru and I was thinking about how scholars suggest the pre-flood section of the list was added as an afterthought on the list. I thought about their numeric system and how all the numbers are conveniently divisible by 600. If you divide both units by 600, counting the sars as 6 instead of 3,600 and the ners as 1 instead of 600, you get reigns between 31-72. Those are long, yet believable lengths for the reigns of kings. I also found it interesting that if you add up the length of all eight rulers using that system, it adds up to 402 years total, which coincides perfectly with the four hundred year period that modern archaeologists identify as the late Uruk period (3500-3100).
For the reigns after the deluge I tried my best to come up with an appropriate number to divide the years by that would be a believable length for the reign of a king. The first half of the first dynasty of kish there is still very high numbers but after a short while I was able to just divide everything by 6. I found it interesting how conveniently that the reigns of all of these kings are almost always divisible by 6.
The first half of the first dynasty of Kish scaled down to fit the Jemet-Nasr period which was ended by Etana who consolidated all the lands. Archaeologists will typical assign 200 years to this period. In order to keep the lengths of the reigns to scale I increased the length just slightly to 227. The rest of the list is scaled by 6, then divided in half and finally during the late Early Dynastic Period the number from the Kinglist is used. Whenever possible the lengths of reigns suggested by scholars is used.

Could I use these numbers? I'll change the preflood ones. Those I don't want. I'll even link you here as the source, its going to be for my fictional tribe that spoke an IE mixlang that was among several groups labelled as "Gutians" that invaded Mesopotamia, but that these ones came in and stuck around, whereas the Gutians didn't.

[ninurta2008]

I just ran the numbers, and even added Ziusudra from an alternative kings list. It listed him as seperate from Ubaratutu. I basically turned 1 sar into 3.6 years and 1 ner into .6 years, and this is what I got:
Alulim 28.8 (rounded to 29)
Alalngar 36
Enmenluana 43.2 (rounded to 43)
Enmengalana 28.8 (rounded to 29)
Dumuzid 36
Ensipadzidana 28.8 (rounded to 29)
Enmendurana 11
Ubaratutu 18.6 (rounded to 19)
Ziusudra 18 years.

It only gives you 248.4 (252 if you round it) years, but maybe the beginnings of a dynasty that never wrote down its history would have been forgotten? So you wouldn't necessarily have to make up for it, though I would definitely for myself make the gods and their deeds out to be based on still ancient kings. Though I get carried away normally.

[ummia-inim-gina]

Notes on the chronology of the Sumerian King List from:
"The Struggle for Hegemony in “Early Dynastic II” Sumer"
by Douglas Frayne of the University of Toronto. The paper first appeared in the Journal of The Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies volume 4, printed in 2010. It can be accessed and downloaded through Douglas Frayne's academia.edu profile.



"At this point I would turn to discuss some of the later historical
and literary documents that, if they can be believed, shed
some light on ED history.
The most important and well known of these, of course, is the Sumerian King List (henceforth SKL), known from several much later Old Babylonian copies,12 and now, most importantly, by an Ur III period exemplar published by P. Steinkeller.13 The new Ur III copy shows several differences from the “canonical” OB text, not the least of which is a different sequence for the first two kings of the Sargonic dynasty. We had always thought the sequence was Sargon and then Rimush; we now know (if we can believe the evidence of the Ur III SKL [USKL]) that is was Sargon and
then Manishtusu. What a shock this was to our supposedly
well-established historical constructs! Variations of this kind
between the USKL and the “standard” SKL led Steinkeller
to lament in his publication of the former: 14

If as is demonstrated by the USKL … SKL no longer
knows the correct sequence of the rulers of Sargon’s
line, how can we trust the information it offers on Pre-
Sargonic history?!

Well, Steinkeller is, of course, correct, but what can we do if we are attempting to outline ED history? Despite all its limitations, not the least of which is the fact that it is a much later document and one that is clearly subject to political biases, the SKL is, faute de mieux, the only source of some length and scope for an overview of ED history. We may note, in passing, that the best-preserved exemplar of the king list is still, after all these years, the magnificent Weld Blundell prism, housed in the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford. It almost certainly originally came from the city of Larsa, and dates to OB times. Smaller fragments from copies at Nippur are also known."


"As is well known, the SKL notes in his repertory of rulers the heroic king Gilgamesh, famous as the protagonist of various Sumerian epics likely of Ur III date of composition. In passing, we may note that an interesting recent new insight,15 one that was self evident, but missed by all scholars except for the sharp eyes of N. Veldhuis, is that king who is named as Gilgamesh’s successor in the SKL, Ur-lugal, is further named as his dutiful son in the literary text “The Death of Gilgamesh,” where he is called upon to provide drink offerings for his father. Whether his supports the use of literature to reconstruct history is uncertain; I suspect that the congruence between the two later literary texts may be deemed to be circular reasoning and useless for historical reconstruction by those of skeptical mind. As is well known, the SKL further notes the eminent potentate Enme-barage-si of Kish, as well as his son Akka. The former figure, whom we suspect was a ruler of considerable historical importance has engendered much scholarly discussion. Michalowski has recently commented about him:16

The figure of Enmebaragesi (Edzard 1960) a putative third millennium king of Kish, looms large in Assyriology, but even in a field uncommonly enamored of first instances, his burdens are heavy indeed. For many Enmebaragesi signals a momentous documentary leap from legend to history, from fiction to fact. He has been blamed for the fall of proto-Elamite civilization, has been named as the author of the first royal inscriptions….
Much of the motivation for the good press that Enmebaragesi has received over the years must surely lie in the search for the “historical Gilgamesh.” Since the great hero of Uruk is said to have one fought Aka, the son of Enmebaragesi, any proof of the actual existence of this Kishite kng would, presumably move us that much closer to a “real” Gilgamesh. For some this is a serious enterprise, for others it is equivalent to the quest for king Arthur, for Roland, or the abominable snowman…."

"Michalowski takes what some might seem to be a dubious
view of the reliability of ancient literary texts as a source of
history, especially when they are not contemporaneous
sources. Indeed, within the field of Assyriology a vivid
debate has been going on in recent years concerning the socalled
“limits of skepticism,” with respect to the usefulness
of using literary texts and even royal inscriptions as sources
for reconstructing history, with two poles on either side of the
spectrum being represented by the views of M. Civil, on the
one hand,17 and W.W. Hallo,18 on the other. Hallo notes with
respect to Civil’s provocative 1980 essay:19

… important, and thought-provoking … was Civil’s
insistence on the inadequacy of the cuneiform record
for the task of reconstructing ancient Near Eastern history,
institutions, and society.

It is not my intention in this paper to discuss the various
views of these eminent scholars about these important (and
thorny!) issues largely because of time and space constraints
in this overview article. I am not entirely clear where Michalowski’s views fall within this broad spectrum of opinions framed by the positions of Civil and Hallo, but I suspect
it is on the skeptical side of the rainbow. His writings deal
largely with evaluating what worth literary texts have for historical
reconstruction. An even more fundamental issue is
what the evidence of royal inscriptions should play for historical
reconstructions. The role of these has come under some
attack, but is defended by Charpin earlier in this volume:20

More generally, there is a debate about the possibility of
using royal inscriptions such as this one to write the history
of the Ancient Near East. Mario Liverani in 1973
wrote a very important article about the necessity to
decode this kind of text…. His followers have been
even more radical in their positions.

Clearly, Michalowski’s views have been heavily influenced
by the work of the Prague Linguistic Circle of literary critics
and linguists. As is well known, the school’s backers developed
methods of structuralist literary analysis during the
years 1928–1939 and, although disbanded after World War
II, the circle has continued as a major force in linguistic
functionalism, particular in America, long after this period.
Michalowski has recently written on Assyriologists coming
to grips (rather uncomfortably, I suspect) with their work:21

In the early 1970s Assyriology and ancient Near
Eastern studies had a brief flirt with literary theory.
Organizations such as the American Oriental Society
featured sessions on the application of theory to various
“Orientalist” subdisciplines, and some of us belatedly
attempted to examine ideas that were important
to our contemporaries in other parts of our universities.
In the United States, literary departments had for some
time been trying to adjust to new theoretical trends that
were being imported from Europe, most prominently
from France. The various ideas that were collectively described as “structuralist” and “semiotic” found ready
resonance here among scholars and intellectuals alike,
for they provided new ways of looking at human communication,
including the arts, that transcended the
compartmentalized and overspecialized organization
of humanities departments, and provided a language of
discussion for a newly liberated generation of students.

Suffice it to say that I concur wholeheartedly with Edzard’s
assessment that there are sound reasons to believe that
Enme-barage-si, even with the problems involved in the
writing of his name, and the brevity of the scraps we have to
deal with, was a real historical figure. I do no not see how
any of the work of the structuralists, however valid and useful
their observations, can change this basic fact. Of course,
how the figure of Enme-barage-si is portrayed in the later literary
tradition is wholly a different matter, and one worthy
of scholarly debate.