Annexure Sumerian Mythology gods - · PDF fileAnnexure – Sumerian Mythology gods 1 Guide...

Annexure – Sumerian Mythology gods

1

Guide to the Mesopotamian Pantheon of Gods

© Ian Lawton 2000

The gods played a crucial role in the Sumerians' lives, both as a nation and as individuals

- most Sumerians appear to have had a personal god or gods with whom they forged a

special relationship. Their texts and stelae indicate that they looked to them for

protection and assistance in all things, while also blaming them or looking upon it as a

punishment - just or otherwise - when things went wrong. As with the endurance of their

literature these gods, with some amendments, continued to be worshipped right through

to the late Assyro-Babylonian period. Since they play a crucial role in the literary texts

which we will consider in subsequent papers, it is appropriate that we take time out to consider the key figures.

The collective name most often given to the Sumerian pantheon is the Anunnaki,

although another name, the Igigi, is also encountered. These two names appear to be

interchangeable in some texts, although in others there are inconsistent and conflicting

roles accorded to each as greater or lesser gods. For example, in Atra-Hasis the

Anunnaki are the 'great gods' while the Igigi 'do the work'. By contrast, in the Epic of

Creation, Erra and Ishum and in the Epic of Anzu the Igigi are made out to be superior,

the first two referring to 'the Igigi of heaven and the Anunnaki of the Abzu' (the latter term referring to 'the deep', sometimes regarded as the 'watery underworld').

The numbers of gods in the (or each) pantheon also differ from text to text, sometimes

referring to 'fifty great gods' and sometimes to as many as three hundred. It is likely

that this confusion arises because of changing roles allocated to various pantheons over

time as part of a 'creative editing' process underpinned by political and religious motives,

a subject to which we will return in the next paper; for example, it appears that the Igigi

tend to be the younger gods who appear primarily in the later Akkadian works, while the Anunnaki are the older great gods of the Sumerians.

This confusion about different pantheons and a potentially hierarchical structure

permeates most of the Assyriologists' work. In his book The Chaldean Account of

Genesis, published in 1876, George Smith - who succeeded Henry Rawlinson as the head

of the Department of Oriental Antiquities at the British Museum - describes a pantheon

of 'twelve great gods' who despite having been given somewhat different names in his

day are broadly the same figures, with similar associations, that we currently regard as

having been pre-eminent.1 He suggests the hierarchy then proceeded through a further fifty gods before the level of the Igigi, and then finally the Anunnaki.

Meanwhile Samuel Kramer describes the 'seven gods who decree the fates'.2 He

suggests these are probably made up of four 'creative gods': An who rules heaven, Enlil

the air or atmosphere, Enki water, and Ninhursag earth; and of three 'astral deities':

Nanna associated with the Moon, Utu with the Sun, and Inanna usually with Venus. As

with Smith they are followed by 'fifty great gods', but Kramer identifies these with the Anunnaki (as 'children of An'), while relegating the Igigi to a 'relatively minor role'.

What is clear is that there are a number of key players in this pluralistic pantheon of

anthropomorphic gods who appear time and again in Ancient Mesopotamian literature

and sculpture. In the diagram below I have attempted to piece together a 'family tree'

from the texts, not because this is a strictly correct or appropriate way of looking at

them but because this approach makes them come to life and puts them into some sort

of context.3 Of course assembling the 'apparent relationships' is hugely complicated by a

number of factors: the gods' apparently protracted lifespans which lead to significant

overlap; the multiple liaisons between them to produce children, including incestuous

relationships involving brothers, sisters, children and grandchildren - which is in fact a

common behaviour pattern adopted by the pantheons of most polytheistic philosophies

around the world; and the repeated editing of texts over the millennia. As a result what


2

follows should not be regarded as anything more than a guide to introduce the major

deities to those new to the subject. It should also be pointed out that the most likely

interpretation of the texts is that as groups the Anunnaki and the latecoming Igigi were regarded as subservient to the major deities listed below.

For consistency and ease of understanding I have tried to use the original Sumerian

names of gods, people and places - and also the most up-to-date renderings thereof -

not only here but also throughout subsequent papers, including when commenting on

the later Akkadian texts. The family tree does however indicate the most commonly

found alternative names (in brackets), especially the Akkadian versions used through to

the end of the Assyro-Babylonian epoch. It also attempts to show the relationships

between long-term consorts, and the main associations of gods with the elements and so

forth; and the notes which accompany it contain various points of detail, especially indicating the areas of greatest uncertainty.

The Sumerian Pantheon

Notes accompanying the family tree:

1. These two are sometimes recorded as direct offspring of An (Ishkur in the Epic of Anzu, Inanna

in the Epic of Gilgamesh); however Ereshkigal is consistently recorded as Inanna's sister, similarly Utu as her brother - therefore if she were to shift up the generations, arguably they should do likewise. Note also that gods are often misleadingly described as the 'son or daughter of An' as a poetic metaphor, perhaps to indicate that they are part of the main pantheon. The determination of his main offspring as shown is based on more substantial statements.

2. Nergal and Ninurta are sometimes assimilated with each other; I suspect this is because, in Enlil

and Ninlil, Nergal is reported as their second son whereas Ninurta is not mentioned. Furthermore, in Erra (Nergal) And Ishum, Nergal is again reported as Enlil's son. Occasionally Nergal is also assimilated with Gibil - this may be due to nothing more than the similarity in their Akkadian names of Erra and Gerra respectively.

3. Marduk is only recorded as Enki's son in the Epic of Creation; he only came to prominence in the late Assyro-Babylonian period, so the importance attached to him by some must be viewed with

some scepticism. Note also that he is so well known by this, his Akkadian name, that I have made an exception and used this throughout; his original Sumerian name was Asalluhe.

4. The fact that Ninhursag appears to be Enlil's consort in that they are Ninurta's parents does not detract from the fact that in Enki and Ninhursag she is clearly Enki's consort. The continual editing of texts, the assimilation of one god with another at various times, and the polygamous and incestuous nature of most relationships, mean that we should not get too hung up on such details. Although, of course, such changes in pairings may have a deeper esoteric significance.

Despite the controversies over elements of detail, it is clear that certain gods in the

Sumerian pantheon stood head and shoulders above the others, especially in earlier


3

times: namely An, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursag. It is also clear that the relative importance

of various gods changed over time. Kramer suggests that as the father of the gods An

was originally the head of the pantheon (as portrayed in pictographic texts found at Uruk

dating to c. 3000 BC), but this position was subsequently transferred to Enlil. The latter

has built a widespread reputation for bringing devastation (such as the Deluge) to

mankind, but Kramer suggests that this reputation is misplaced and due only to the

order in which the texts were discovered - the ones found later, such as Hymn to Enlil,

tending to show him in a softer light. However he and his offspring do tend to be

associated with storms and war, and he is often represented as a bull. By contrast Enki,

often represented as a serpent and who was in charge of the Abzu, is associated with

kindness and compassion, and also the transfer of civilisation and scientific knowledge to

mankind (via a set of 'divine rules' known as me's). Although there is some consensus

that this 'cosmic triad' were probably the most important of all, both Kramer and

Thorkild Jacobsen suggest that Ninhursag - possibly as An's incestuous consort - may

have been regarded as superior to Enki prior to the Isin-Larsa dynasty c. 2000 BC.

Certainly her accepted role as the original prototypical earth-mother and birth goddess is

a crucial one. Then, moving on down the generations, Marduk eventually usurped Enlil

as the head of the pantheon by the middle Assyro-Babylonian period c. 1000 BC.

This pantheon clearly forms, at least in part, the basis for the subsequent more-

celebrated western pantheons of the Greeks and Romans. For example there is little

doubt that Inanna, as the goddess of love, was the role model for Aphrodite and Venus.

However any prolonged and detailed attempt to match the pantheons up exactly is, in

my view, a misguided and fruitless exercise.

It is also worth noting that, as with other religions and philosophies, genuine human

figures could become at least partly deified in the Mesopotamian world. The most

concrete example is that of Dumuzi, one of Inanna's many lovers, who appears in the

King List under the sobriquet 'the shepherd', as the 5th antediluvian patriarch who ruled

from Bad-Tibira (uniquely the same name appears a second time in the list, under the

sobriquet 'the fisherman', this time for the 4th ruler of the 1st Dynasty of Uruk - but this

is less likely to be the figure who was deified); since the subjects of the King List were

not normally regarded as members of the pantheon, this entry gives him a definite

human flavour. However in the many literary texts in which he appears he is quite

clearly positioned as a god, and undoubtedly merits his place in the pantheon of 'great

gods' shown above. Indeed to his disgust Ezekiel (Ezekiel 8:14) finds the women of

Jerusalem still worshipping him under his later name of Tammuz in the 6th century BC.

Another example is Ziusudra, the hero of the Flood and equivalent of the biblical Noah:

although he doesn't appear to merit inclusion as a 'great god', the texts clearly state that

he was deified - perhaps within the more subordinate levels. This has echoes of the

biblical patriarch Enoch, who was 'taken' by God (Genesis 5:24) supposedly without,

according to some commentators, actually dying in the normal sense - and this whole subject is one of enormous esoteric importance which must be left for a separate work.

As to the philosophical role that these Mesopotamian deities played, and how it can be

compared to that of the deities in other polytheistic pantheons, this difficult but vital

subject again must be left for a separate work. But one thing should be made

abundantly clear... orthodox attempts to dismiss these deities en masse as primitive

philosophical constructs are as misguided as those of certain 'alternative' writers who insist that they were anthropomorphic 'flesh and blood' beings.

Source References

1. George Smith, The Chaldean Account of Genesis (London, 1876), Chapter 4.

2. Samuel Noah Kramer, The Sumerians (University of Chicago Press, 1963), Chapter 4, pp. 122-3.

3. An invaluable source in this exercise was Stephanie Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia (Oxford University Press, 1989), Glossary, pp. 317-331.


4

The antediluvian patriarchs and the

Sumerian King List

First published:

TJ (now Journal of Creation) 12(3):347–357

December 1998

by Raúl Erlando López

First published in:

CEN Tech. J. 12(3):347-357

1998

The Sumerian King List records the lengths of reigns of the kings of Sumer. The initial

section deals with kings before the Flood and is significantly different from the rest. When

the kingdom durations of the antediluvian section are expressed in an early sexagesimal

numerical system, all durations except two are expressed as multiples of 602. A simple tally

of the ciphers used yields six 10x602 signs, six 60

2 signs and six 60 signs.

The lives of the biblical patriarchs, however, have a precision of one year. If Adam and Noah

are not included (as in the King List), and the lives of the patriarchs are similarly rounded to

two digits, the sum of the lives has six 103 signs, six 10

2 signs and six 10 signs. In addition, if

the number representing the sum of the ages was wrongly assumed as having been written in

the sexagesimal system, the two totals become numerically equivalent.

It is suggested that the Sumerian scribe that composed the original antediluvian list had

available a document (possibly a clay tablet) containing numerical information on the ages of

eight of the patriarchs similar to that of the Genesis record and that he mistakenly interpreted

it as being written in the sexagesimal system.

That the two documents are numerically related is strong evidence for the historicity of the

book of Genesis. The fact that the Sumerian account shows up as a numerically rounded,

incomplete version of the Genesis description, lacking the latter’s moral and spiritual depth,

is a strong argument for the accuracy, superiority, and primacy of the biblical record. In

addition, the parallels between the Sumerian and biblical antediluvian data open up the

possibility of establishing chronological correlations between the rest of the Kings List and

the book of Genesis.

Introduction

The early chapters of the book of Genesis contain numerical information about the ages of

the biblical patriarchs and their chronological relationships during the antediluvian world.

They also contain a description of the moral and spiritual condition as well as the history of

that period. Although there are other, non-biblical, references to the antediluvian era, there is

no other document in all of the extant records of the ancient world that provides the detailed

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i3/sumerian.asp#author

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/technical.asp


5

and coherent information found in the book of Genesis. The Genesis account gives us a

glimpse into that obscure portion of the history of mankind, and provides information for a

chronology of that period. It has, nevertheless, been criticized by non-Christians as well as

liberal theologians as being mythological, or at best symbolic and incomplete.

The Sumerian King List, on the other hand, contains an initial section that makes reference to

the Flood and to Sumerian kings of extremely long reigns before the Flood.1 The antediluvian

portion of the King List is very different from the biblical account. It only contains eight

kings, while Genesis has ten patriarchs. The Sumerian list assigns an average reign duration

of 30,150 years, with a total duration for the period of 241,200 years, compared to an average

age of the biblical patriarchs of 858 years and a sum of 8575 years for their full lives. It also

lacks the detailed information of Genesis and its moral and spiritual emphases.

Nevertheless, Walton2 has pointed out that the antediluvian portion of the King List does not

include the Sumerian first man nor the Flood hero. If Adam and Noah are dropped from the

biblical list, the number of people in the two lists is then the same—eight. Walton has also

noticed that the total of the durations of the kingdoms and the total of the ages of the

patriarchs are numerically related and are equivalent if the number base of the Sumerian list

is changed from sexagesimal to decimal.

This is an important result and would imply that the two records relate to the same events in

the early history of mankind. If so, then finding numerically related elements of the biblical

account in the Sumerian King List would open up important avenues of research into the

relationship of biblical and Mesopotamian chronologies. This paper carefully and thoroughly

examines the numerical relationships between the two documents. In Section 2, the Sumerian

King List is surveyed in the light of its chronological context. In Section 3, a study is made of

the Sumero/Babylonian numerical systems to ascertain the development of the different

methods used to represent numbers and the peculiarities and limitations of the different

systems that could have possibly been used to represent the original antediluvian Kings List.

In Section 4, the two lists are expressed in one of the early numerical systems and compared.

Attention is paid to the internal characteristics of the two sets of numerical values and their

formal similarity. Section 5 summarizes the results, presents a hypothesis for the similarities

of both records, and comments on the importance of these findings.

The Sumerian King List

The Sumerian King List records in succession the names of most of the kings of Sumer and

the lengths of their reigns.1 The document begins at the beginning of history, the time when

‘kingship (first) descended from heaven,’ and goes up to the reign of Sin-magir (1827– 1817

BC3) towards the end of the Isin dynasty. The list is characterized by extremely long

durations for the different reigns, especially the earlier ones. One quarter of a million years is

assigned to the first eight kings before the Flood and more than 25,000 years for the first two

dynasties after the Flood. By comparison with other historical documents, inscriptions and

archaeological dating, it appears that the list does not correspond to a strict succession but

that there is considerable overlap and contemporaneity between several of the dynasties that

are presented in the list as having existed one after the other.

The documents


6

The first considerable fragment of the Sumerian King List was published in 1906.4 It was

found in the temple library of Nippur at the turn of the century. Since that date, more than 15

different fragments and at least one fairly complete list have been found and published. Most

of these manuscripts have been dated to the 1st dynasty of Babylon. All the documents show

extensive and detailed agreement among themselves. Thus it appears that the extant texts

ultimately descend from a common original, i.e., that they are copies, or copies of copies, of a

single original document.4 In a now classical example of textual criticism, Jacobsen

4

developed the genealogy of all the different variants and reconstructed the most likely

original text of the King List in 1939. That reconstruction has been accepted and used by

most scholars. The following discussion of the King List is based to a large extent on his

original work.

The antediluvian section

A few of the manuscripts seem to have had an initial section dealing with kings before the

Flood. That section, however, is significantly different from the rest of the list which deals

with kings reigning after the Flood. First of all, it has a large degree of independence. The

postdiluvian sections do not appear in other Mesopotamian manuscripts that are not

fragments of the King List, and their contents have only been found in the King List.

In contrast, the antediluvian section has been found as a separate entity in a tablet dated to the

end of the 3rd millennium without reference to lists of other rulers. This tablet also has

particular linguistic features that show that it is not an isolated part of the King List (such as

the total absence of the grammatical formulas so characteristic of the latter).

In addition, some of the phrases and information in the antediluvian section have been found

in a Sumerian epic dealing with the beginning of the world.4 There is a close correspondence

between the common phrases of these two documents, and the identical order of the primeval

cities, which tends to indicate that they are

literarily interdependent.

Figure 1. Relation between the sources of


7

Furthermore, the antediluvian section has a

particular set of formulas different from those

used in the postdiluvian section. The formulas

for the change of dynasty and the mention of their totals are very consistent in the

postdiluvian part and are very different from those used in the antediluvian one. Jacobsen4

believes that the antediluvian section is a later addition to a King List that did not originally

contain kings before the Flood. He stated that the new part was copied and adapted from

information that

‘was current in various settings in Sumerian literature at the time when most of our copies of

the King List were written ... (and) that it was written later by a person different from the one

who originally composed the postdiluvian section of the list ... by a scribe who was bringing

his copy of an older original up to date ... ’ (See Figure 1).

The following is the translation by Jacobsen4 of his critical edition of the Sumerian text of the

antediluvian section of the King List together with a few selected lines of the postdiluvian

section for comparison (see the text following for explanation of the italics, bold and

underlining):

1 When the kingship was lowered from heaven

the kingship was in Eridu(g).

(In) Eridu(g) A-lulim(ak) (became) king

and reigned 28,800 years;

5 Alalgar reigned 36,000 years.

2 kings

reigned its 64,800 years.

I drop (the topic) Eridu(g); its kingship to Bad-tibira(k)

10 was carried.

(In) Bad-tibira(k) En-men-lu-Anna(k) reigned 43,200 years;

En-men-gal-Anna(k) reigned 28,800 years;

15 divine Dumu-zi(d), a shepherd, reigned 36,000 years.

3 kings


I drop (the topic) Bad-tibira(k); its kingship to Larak was carried.

20 (In) Larak En-sipa(d)-zi(d)-Anna(k)


1 king


I drop (the topic) Larak; 25 its kingship to Sippar was carried.

(In) Sippar En-men-dur-Anna(k) became king and reigned 21,000 years.

1 king


30 I drop (the topic) Sippar;

its kingship to Shuruppak was carried.

the Sumerian King List.


8

(In) Shuruppak Ubar-Tutu(k) became king and reigned 18,600 years.

1 king

35 reigned its 18,600 years.

5 cities were they;

8 kings

reigned their 241,200 years.

The Flood swept thereover. 40 After the Flood had swept thereover,

when the kingship was lowered from heaven

the kingship was in Kish.

[end of the antediluvian section]

In Kish Ga ... ur(?)

became king

45 and reigned 1,200 years;

.

.

.

Aka,

reigned 625 years.

.

.

.

Kish was smitten with weapons;

its kingship to E-Anna(k)

was carried.

In E-Anna(k)

Mes-kiag-gasher,

son of Utu, became high priest

and king and reigned 324 years.

.

.

.

Jacobsen translation is based on his critically edited text of the Wendell-Blundell prism in the

Ashmolean Museum of Oxford University (W-B 1923.444). This fairly complete text is

referred to as WB. The line numeration refers to the lines of the WB prism.

The origin of the antediluvian section

The bold underscored lines are found in essentially the same form in the epic fragment

referred to above. Thus it appears that the two documents are related. The phrases ending

each dynasty (‘I drop Eridu(g)’, ‘I drop Bad-tibira(k)’, etc.), however, are totally out of place

in the epic. They are also very different from the phrases repeatedly used for the ending of the

different dynasties in the postdiluvian sections (e.g., ‘Kish was smitten with weapons’).

For those reasons, Jacobsen4 concludes that the scribe adding the antediluvian section was not

copying directly from the epic but was using a different source (Document A) that was

literarily related to the epic. There are three equally probable explanations for the relationship


9

between the epic and Document A (see Fig. 1): (1) Document A was based on the epic but its

author introduced the particular formulas. (2) The epic used A but dropped the formulas as

they did not fit its style. (3) Both A and the epic were derived from a third document B that

contained the common phrases and the formulas.

The information about the cities, the names of the kings, and their reigns are most probably

also derived from source A, as there are strong indications that it was originally present in the

complete text of the epic. All the text considered to have a high probability of being derived

from source A is indicated above by bold letters. It is difficult to ascertain if the verb ‘he

reigned’ after the various reigns and the city summaries of the number of kings and the total

duration of their reigns were derived from source A or if they were added by the scribe. Since

there are some evidences for both, they are indicated by Roman but not bolded letters in the

transcription shown above.

The italicized lines correspond to phrases that Jacobsen considers were written by the scribe

as he added the material of the antediluvian section to an earlier version of the King List,

which he was also bringing up to date, in the middle of the Isin dynasty. They essentially

represent attempts to bring the added section into conformity with the style of the rest of the

King List. Those phrases are not present in the epic nor in the isolated list of the antediluvian

kings mentioned above. In addition, they contain grammatical peculiarities also present in the

very last section of the King List which he appears to have added. Phrases and words

attributed to the scribe are indicated by italicized letters.

The isolated antediluvian list that has been mentioned above has many similarities but also

marked differences with the antediluvian section of the King List. It is a short and concise list

of the type that probably the original author of WB used for his source (Document A).

However, it gives the impression of being a further condensed version with emendations

(some probably of a political nature) of the material used by WB.

A consideration of that list, and the reconstructed portion of the source used by WB (text in

bold letters), shows that the original information about the antediluvian kings did not claim

that the different kingships were successive. In fact, the language of the change of dynasty

gives the impression that it was trying to avoid saying so. According to Jacobsen, ‘This view,

that the antediluvian dynasties were more or less contemporaneous, is clearly incompatible

with the King List proper, which directly aims at following the route of the “the kingship”

from one city to another.’4

The information contained in source A can then be summarized as follows:

When the kingship was lowered from heaven

(In) Eridu(g) A-lulim(ak) reigned 28,800 years;

Alalgar reigned 36,000 years.

2 kings


I drop (the topic) Eridu(g);

(In) Bad-tibira(k) En-men-lu-Anna(k) reigned 43,200 years;

En-men-gal-Anna(k) reigned 28,800 years;


10

divine Dumu-zi(d), a shepherd, reigned 36,000 years.

3 kings


I drop (the topic) Bad-tibira(k);

(In) Larak En-sipa(d)-zi(d)-Anna(k) reigned its 28,800 years.

1 king


I drop (the topic) Larak;

(In) Sippar En-men-dur-Anna(k) reigned 21,000 years.

1 king


I drop (the topic) Sippar;

(In) Shuruppak Ubar-Tutu(k) reigned 18,600 years.

1 king


5 cities were they;

8 kings

reigned their 241,200 years.

The Flood swept thereover.

Chronological considerations

Most of the existing manuscripts of the King List have been dated to the second half of the

Isin dynasty. An examination of the grammar of the List, however, shows certain usages that

had disappeared by that time. Jacobsen4 has compared these manuscripts with well-dated

documents outside of the King List and has determined the time when these usages

disappeared from the then current language. The postdiluvian portion of the King List shows

that a large part of it has a high degree of stylistic similarity.

The concluding section of WB, however, shows a different style. By noting the date when

these different grammatical usages also had disappeared from the language, and the dynasty

in the List when the different writing style was introduced, Jacobsen4 came to the conclusion

that the first part of the List was composed earlier than the reign of Utu-hegal of Uruk (2119–

2112 BC)1,3

and that the later section of WB was added by a different scribe as he brought an

older copy of the List up to date with information about new kings and dynasties. The style of

the concluding sections is also very similar to that of the antediluvian section which has been

seen above to be an addition to the main body of the King List.

Jacobsen concludes that ‘The man who added the antediluvian section is also responsible for

the last part of the list; his literary peculiarities appear in both places.’ 4

This scribe added the

3rd dynasty of Ur (2112–2004 BC)3 and the dynasty of Isin down to Sin-magir (1827–1817

BC), so the antediluvian section appears to have been also added after that time.

An inscription of Utu-hegal describing this victory over Gutium shows very close similarities

in ideology and language to the earlier portion of the postdiluvian King List.4 The

characteristic phraseology common to the inscription and the King List occurs in no other

document. In both documents the idea is expressed that Babylonia had always been one


11

single kingdom and that the capital had changed from city to city as rulers from different

cities defeated the existing capital. It was considered that at no time was there more than one

king. By defeating Gutium around 2119 BC, Utu-hegal had brought back the kingdom to

Sumer. The Sumerian nationalism must have been stimulated by the newly-won

independence from the barbarous Gutians. This would have been the right environment for

the production of a work such as the King List that seeks to present the history of Babylonia

as a succession of different national kingdoms passing from one city to another.

A detailed analysis of the structure of the King List4 indicates that the author of the first part

took his material from lists that gave the names of local rulers in chronological order and the

length of time that each had reigned. Apparently, the different cities each had their own

separate list of local rulers, irrespective of any overlord the city may have had at the time.

There are evidences that some of these local lists existed in pre-Sargonic times even as far

back as the Fara texts (c. 2500 BC).

The author appears to have merged the independent local lists to a sequential list produced

under the theory that there was only one king at a given time in all of Babylonia. The form of

the final list shows that the author did not reject any material from the local lists. He should

have eliminated some kings because ‘large sections in each of his sources would have been

irrelevant because they dealt with rulers reigning at periods when their city was not in

possession of the kingship.’4

Thus, many of the dynasties listed as consecutive were in reality contemporaneous. He

apparently divided the larger of his source lists into smaller dynastic units and interpolated

them separately to try to ameliorate the large errors that obvious synchronisms between well

known rulers would have exposed by strictly merging all the sources one after another. In

most cases, however, he cut the individual lists for interpolation along dynastic groups.

It has been indicated above how the later scribe who added the concluding sections of the

King List and the antediluvian portion also followed the dogma of only one king at a time for

all of Babylonia and only one capital. It is not likely that the original antediluvian source he

used tried to present the antediluvian kings in such a consecutive way; it seems that the scribe

forced this concept of his own in order to conform his new material to the style of the copy of

the King List he was adding to.

Sumerian and Semitic number systems

Before comparing the Antediluvian portion of the King List to the Genesis record, it is

important to review the characteristics of the number system used in Mesopotamia as

deduced from the earliest archaeological findings. The following survey is based principally

on the descriptions of Friberg,5 Flegg,

6 Nissen,

7 Walker,

8 and the University of Wisconsin

9

among others. Dates correspond to the conventional chronology which is probably quite

accurate in the later periods but tends to give dates that are too old in the earlier ones.

Proto-Sumerian Period (3300–2900 BC)

The first indications of writing and numbers are found in the Late Uruk Period.7 At the

beginning of this period, however, tally stones or tokens made of clay of different shapes

have been found. These appear to represent different counting units and the objects being


12

counted.10

The token method of counting was combined with the use of cylinder seals. The

tokens were enclosed in a ball of clay covered on the outside with impressions of usually only

one seal. In some cases there were also oblong impressions on the outside of the ball that

represented numbers that corresponded to the tokens within the ball. In some instances, flat

clay slabs have been found with the oblong symbols for numbers impressed on their surfaces

together with many impressions of cylinder seals. Some tablets have compartments marked

off with incised lines, each one containing a different number.

Tablets with true writing appear at the end of the Late Uruk Period (Uruk Level VI), where

numbers are accompanied by pictorial and curvilinear symbols made with a pointed stylus.

The texts found appear to relate to both simple and complex economic transactions. Although

they are still not completely legible, they can be seen to correspond to allotments of food,

lists of sacrifices, division of fields, herds of animals and textile and metal manufacture.

Writing is well developed when it first appears in the archaeological records. Nissen7 rejects

the theories that the earliest known writing must have had more primitive predecessors. He

hypothesizes, however, that once the idea of writing arose somewhere in the administration,

its value was immediately recognized and it was very quickly developed into a functional

instrument.

Many tablets have been found with the information divided into three different sections. On

one side of the tablet are many individual entries of numbers accompanied by pictorial

symbols, probably signifying the objects being counted or the names of persons. On a

separate section, are entries that correspond to subtotals of the individual numbers. Usually

on the back side of the tablet, a third section contains a final total that adds up the previous

subtotals. This practice, which Nissen7 calls ‘a strict bookkeeping mentality,’ was prevalent

throughout the Middle East and is also found in the Kings List. Joshua 12:9–24 is an example

of its use in the Bible.

Very early, an oblong impression

was used as the symbol for one.

This oblong numeral was repeated

several times to represent small

numbers and this can be considered

an extension of the method of

tallying where there is a one-to-one

correspondence between the objects

counted and the inscribed marks.

The indentations on clay were made

by pressing a blunt stylus of

circular section at an angle and had

the appearance of a bullet (Fig. 2).

The symbols were grouped by

threes for a quick communication of

the numerical information. For

numbers larger than nine, a

collective symbol that represented

10 units was used. This is the

practice of cipherization found in all numeral systems around the world.

Figure 2. Number symbols used during the Proto-

Sumerian and Early Dynastic Periods (3300–2334

BC).

http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=JOSH%2B12:9-24&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on


13

The existence of a sign for 10 does not prove that the system employed the base ten or that it

had a combination of bases. Ten was essentially an intermediate cipher to avoid the need for

extensive repetition of the sign for 1. An example of the use of intermediate ciphers is found

in the Roman number system, where ciphers for 5 times the powers of 10 were developed

even though the system was fundamentally decimal (V, L, and D for 5, 50, and 500). The

symbol for 10 was made by pressing the stylus vertically into the clay and had the appearance

of a circle. The presence or absence of symbols defined the number unambiguously and the

order of the symbols did not matter. However, it was the convention to write the symbols for

10 together and not mix them with the symbols for 1. Thus, the early numeral system

followed an addition principle and there was no need for a zero.

The early Sumerians used the base 60 for their number system. The reason for the adoption of

such a large base is probably a reflection of the various units of measure used for

commercial, administration and religious purposes. These were mostly sexagesimal because

they afforded many convenient factors of the unit (halves, thirds, quarters, fifths, sixths,

tenths, twelfths, fifteenths, twentieths, and sixtieths) all expressed as whole numbers of the

next lower denomination.6

The next power of the base (601) was expressed as a large version of the units (60

0) symbol.

This was done by pressing the other end of the stylus at an angle. This end was also blunt but

had a larger diameter, so it would produced the shape of a larger bullet. These symbols were

repeated until 600 was reached when the symbol used for ten (a small circle) was impressed

inside the large oblong symbol for 60.

For the next power of the base (602), a large circle was used that was made by vertically

pressing the larger end of the stylus into the clay. As with the symbol for 600, a small circle

was impressed inside the larger circle (3,600) to multiply it by ten and represent 36,000.

Although the Sumerian system had a sexagesimal base, the symbol for ten (the small circle)

was used as an intermediate symbol between powers of sixty. This simplified the tallying

procedure by grouping by ten the ciphers for the different powers. The resulting number was

very easy to understand and used the multiplicative principle.

The system actually contained only two symbols in two sizes. The small number of symbols

made the system very intuitive and available to the masses but needed a fair number of

repetitions. Thus, to write the numbers up to 59, as many as 14 individual symbols were

needed for the individual numbers. The small number of numerical symbols was, to a large

extent, controlled by the method of writing numbers using a blunt stylus with a circular

section to impress marks on wet clay.

The next archaeological phase, represented by the Jamdet Nasr, Proto-Elamite and Uruk

Level III Periods, was marked by a simplification and acceleration of operations in every

sphere.7 The pictographic signs began to lose their pictorial appearance, becoming more

abstract and linear. In this phase, the first use of symbols with determinative value has been

found. The language represented was probably Sumerian but that is not certain. Nevertheless,

the tablets were written in an archaic pictographic script that can be recognized as a precursor

of the Sumerian cuneiform script. The writing system was logographic, where one sign or

sign-group was used for each term or concept without adding grammatical elements. The

numbers as a rule were still made with the round end of a stylus and are easy to identify. A

special bi-sexagesimal notation has also been found5 where two of the same large bullet


14

signs, but with a less elongated impression, were pointed towards each other to signify 120.

The same symbol with a small circular impression represented 10x120=1200 (Fig. 2).

Early Dynastic I–II Periods (2900–2600 BC)

The first identifiable use of purely phonetic elements and grammar appeared during this time.

In this stage some signs were used to represent syllables. The language used is clearly

Sumerian. Most of the material for this period comes from the Archaic Ur tablets. The same

number system as in Jamdet Nasr is used. The script was not yet cuneiform, but the signs are

more linear.

Early Dynastic II–III Periods (2600–2334 BC)

During this interval, writing became much easier and simpler to use, mostly through a change

in writing techniques. The earlier method of incising to make the curvilinear pictorial

symbols was gradually replaced by the technique of making impressions of short, straight

lines by holding a stylus of triangular section at an angle. Writing now became much faster.

The same symbols were used, but many had their form completely changed because the new

method only allowed short straight lines. Superfluous details were omitted, and curved lines

were replaced by short straight segments. The short strokes had a head, which was more

deeply impressed and therefore wider. The lines resembled a wedge, and this became the

reason for the name ‘cuneiform’ given later to this script. Many earlier complicated symbols

disappeared.

Nissen7 speculates that the changes in the technique of writing may have had their basis in the

increased demand for scribes in an expanding economy. The major groups of tablets for this

period come from Fara (Shuruppak), Abu-Salabikh, and Ebla in Syria. From about 2500 BC

onwards, the cuneiform script was also used to write Akkadian and Eblaite, which are

Semitic languages. About eighty percent of the words written on the approximately 10,000

tablets found at Ebla are in Sumerian. Interspersed are the remaining twenty percent in

Eblaite. At that time, the calendar used at Ebla was Semitic and the counting appears to be in

Semitic units which were decimal.11–14

The same is observed in Mari and Abu-Salabikh. The

number system for representing the counting, however, remained the same as in the previous

periods, with the same two different symbols (the bullet and the circle) and the same two

sizes (Fig. 2).


15

Dynasty of Akkad (2334–2154

BC)

During the period of the Semitic

dynasty of Akkad, the Akkadian language replaced Sumerian as the administrative language,

as Sargon I of Agade conquered all of Mesopotamia and extended the empire to the Amanus

Mountains to the West, and to the Zagros and Taurus mountains to the East and North.15

The

Sumerian signs were used to write the Old Akkadian language which was Semitic. The

wedges of the cuneiform symbols now appear only at the top or the left of the sign. This is a

culmination of the tendency started in the Early Dynastic II Period of restricting the

impressions of the triangular stylus ‘within a narrow segment of the possible directions the

stylus could theoretically take.’ This meant that few changes in the direction of writing were

necessary and the speed of writing could be increased. 7

The number symbols, however, could be written in two ways: either as cuneiform signs,

inscribed with a stylus of triangular section, or as circular signs made with the blunt end of a

circular stylus.5 That means that two different types of stylus were used simultaneously. The

new cuneiform numerals tried to reproduce with wedges the rounded impressions of the

earlier numerals. Thus, an elongated wedge represented the number one and a vertically

impressed triangular shape represented the number ten. These symbols were the equivalent of

the small bullet and circle of the earlier system. The earlier large circle which stood for 602

was now represented by four long wedges making a diamond shape, and the large bullet with

the small circle inside (10x60) was written with an elongated wedge and a triangular

impression superimposed on its right side (Fig. 3). Similarly, the large circle with the small

circle inside (10x602) was substituted by a diamond made with four long wedges with a

triangular impression inside. Sixty was represented by an elongated wedge which sometimes

was larger than the wedge for one, but most of the time had to be differentiated from it by the

context or the arrangement of the other numeral symbols.

Sumerian Period (2112–2004

BC)

This period is marked by the

hegemony of the Sumerians under

the leadership of Ur-Nammu,

founder of the Third Dynasty of Ur,

who conquered other Sumerian and

Akkadian city-states. As a

consequence, there was a revival of

the Sumerian language, but only in

religious and literary areas, as the language remained unimportant for administrative

purposes. The scribal art reached an exceptional stage of precision. The round numerals, that

had to be made with a different circular stylus, disappeared from current use and only the

cuneiform representations, made with the triangular stylus, were employed from now on (Fig.

4).

Old Babylonian Period (2004–1595 BC)

Figure 3. Number symbols used during the Akkadian

Period (2334–2154 BC).

Figure 4. Number symbols used during the Sumerian

Period (2112–2004 BC).


16

Up to this time, a positional

notation for sexagesimal numbers

had not become established and

separate signs were used for 1, 10,

60, 10x60, 602, and 10x60

2. A

special sign for zero was not

necessary. During the Babylonian

Period, however, a quasi-positional

notation was used that depended on

only two signs: the elongated

wedge used for the number one and

the triangular impression used for

10. The wedge now also stood for

the powers of 60 and the triangle for ten times the powers of 60 depending on their position

within the sequence of ciphers representing the number (Fig. 5).

Eventually, a sign for zero was adopted in the Babylonian system, but it was only used to

denote internal empty places, the new numerical symbol was not used to the right of a

number as the last symbol.6 This meant that the numbers were not unambiguous and the

actual value had to be determined very carefully from the context.

Summary of number systems

In conclusion, there were two different but related systems for representing numbers in the

Sumero-Babylonian culture. An earlier one, based on round impressions using a blunt

circular stylus, and a latter one, based on cuneiform impressions made with a stylus of

triangular section. The first system appears during the Proto-Sumerian Period and was in use

until the time of the Akkadian Dynasty. By the Sumerian Period of the Third Dynasty of Ur,

the cuneiform system had totally replaced it. Because both systems were sexagesimal and had

a limited number of signs, frequent repetitions of the same sign were necessary. An

intermediate cipher for 10 was developed to ease the need for repetition and it was used by

itself and to multiply the different powers of 60. The individual signs representing a number

had to be added together to obtain the actual value of the number. The earlier system used

only two different signs in two different sizes to write the numbers. The cuneiform system

also employed only two elements, the wedge and the triangle, but used four wedges to

represent the large circle of the earlier system. In both cases, the largest value represented by

a single symbol was 36,000, although very large numbers could be expressed by the repeated

use of the symbol for 36,000.

During the Babylonian Period, however, a quasi-positional notation was developed that

allowed for the convenient representation of very large numbers. Only two signs, the wedge

and the triangle, were used to represent the different powers of 60 and 10 times the different

powers of 60 depending on the position of the symbol in the number string. A sign for zero

was used to indicate internal empty positions.

No other culture in the ancient world used the base 60 for their number system. The

Egyptians, for example, used a pure decimal notation as well as the Romans and the Greeks.6

The latter adopted the sexagesimal base for astronomical computations but a decimal notation

was employed for other purposes. The Elamites apparently adopted the sexagesimal system

from the Sumerians and only used a decimal notation when counting animals.5 Although the

Figure 5. Number symbols used during the

Babylonian Period (2004 BC–75 AD).


17

Semitic kingdoms of Ebla, Mari, and Abu-Salabikh adopted the cuneiform writing and the

cuneiform numbers, the calendar was Semitic and the counting appears to be in Semitic units

which were decimal.

King List and patriarchs

chronology

The antediluvian portion of the King List appears

to have been originally composed very early in

Sumerian history. Therefore, the early number

system, based on rounded signs, has been used to

represent the numerical part of the list in Fig. 6. A

representation based on the non-positional

cuneiform system, however, would have been very

similar. It can be seen that the majority of the

symbols needed to express the duration of the

reigns of the antediluvian kings are the large circle

(602

= 3,600) and the large circle with the small

circle inside (10x602

= 36,000). Only the last two

numbers would have needed the symbol of the

large bullet with a small circle inside (10x60 =

600). The symbols for one, ten, and sixty would not

have been needed. Thus, in six of the eight

numbers, the durations were given as units of 602,

and in the last two with a precision of 10x60.

Notice that all the numbers taken together yield

three 10x602 signs, thirty-six 60

2 signs, and six 10x60 signs. To obtain the total of the eight

reign durations, the scribe would have used the tallying method. So, for example, he would

have counted ten of the large circle signs and written an additional large circle with a small

circle inside. In case there were less that ten symbols of the same kind left, they were usually

arranged in up to three rows of three symbols each. Thus, the thirty-six 602 signs would have

yielded three more 10x602 signs for a total of six, with six individual 60

2 signs left. The six

large bullets with a small circle inside could have been written as two rows of three signs

each, following the convention of the maximum of three rows of three. However, because of

the peculiarities of the system, six large bullets with the small circle inside also make a large

circle. So, the six 10x60 signs could have been also expressed as an additional 602

sign for a

total of seven (see Fig. 6). The resulting total is equivalent to 214,200 years. This number

also has a precision of 3,600. It is curious that the 10x60 signs of the last two durations add

up exactly to one of the 602 signs, the basic unit of all the other numbers and the overall total,

and that the 10x60 unit was not used until the last two reign durations of the list.

A table with the total ages of the antediluvian biblical patriarchs is shown in Fig. 7. For

comparison with the Sumerian King List, Adam and Noah are not included. The King List

does not include the Sumerian first man nor the Sumerian Flood hero (Ziusudra). The third

column is the representation of the ages as decimal-counting Semites would have written

them using the early rounded stylus. Exactly what the convention would have been is not

known. However, following the same rules for the selection of symbols to represent the

different powers of the base as in the sexagesimal system, it would follow that the small

bullet and the small circle would represent one and ten, the large circle the next power of the

Figure 6. List of the duration of the

Antediluvian Sumerian reigns.

Click here to see larger image.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/tj/images/v12n3_sumerian_fig6.jpg



18

base (102), and the large circle with the small circle inside ten times that power (10

3). There

would have been no use for the large bullet impression because the first power of the base

was already represented by the small circle, and no use for the large bullet with the small

circle inside because ten times the first power of the base was the square of the base which

was represented by the large circle. According to that convention, the total ages of the

antediluvian patriarchs would have been expressed as shown in column three. The precision

of the ages is one year, and the majority of the ages have units.

A comparison of Figs. 6 and 7 shows that the ages

have no relationship between themselves, and

neither do the totals. However, if the ages of the

Patriarchs are rounded to the two highest digits as

in the Sumerian list (that appears to be rounded to

the two highest sexagesimal ciphers), their

representation would be as shown in column 4 of

Fig. 7. A total of the eight ages of the patriarchs can

also be obtained by tallying all the symbols

employed in the individual numbers. The total

would then have six 103 signs, six 10

2 signs, and

six 10 signs for a sum of 6600 years. If we do not

incorporate the six 10x60 signs (large bullet with

small circle inside) of the Sumerian total into an

additional next higher order sign, the Sumerian

total has 6 signs for 10x602, six signs for 60

2, and

six signs for 10x60.

Thus, the totals of both the rounded Genesis and

Sumerian lists obtained by a straight tally have six

of the signs for ten times the square of the base, six

of the signs for the square of the base and six signs

for the next lower symbol. It should be noted that, although the particular form of the

symbols used to represent the decimal numbers has been assumed, the relationship of the

arithmetic structure of the totals is inherently independent of the symbols used. Nevertheless,

the choice of signs employed in Fig. 7 to represent decimal numbers is entirely reasonable as

it follows the same rules of the sexagesimal system. If this was indeed the system used, the

resemblance between the totals would have been not only inherently but formally true as

well.

A Sumerian scribe looking at a document containing the Genesis total would have interpreted

the signs as sexagesimal. Thus, the first 6 signs would have represented 216,000 years (6 x

10x602), and the next six, 21,600 (6 x 60

2) for a total of 237,600 years. This is very close to

the total in the Sumerian antediluvian document. The scribe would have been puzzled at the

last set of six small circle signs. That sign was generally recognized as the cipher for 10. But

why introduce 60 years (6 x 10) when already the first two sets of signs amount to more than

two hundred thousand years? Also, it would have appeared very strange that no intermediate

ciphers between 602

and 10 were used in the total. The scribe would have expected to see the

next smaller cipher of the system, namely the large bullet with the small circle inside

(10x60). It would have seemed very reasonable to assume that the signs were wrong and that

the large bullet had been dropped. Given that assumption, the last three signs would have

Figure 7. List of the Ages of the

Antediluvian biblical Patriarchs.

Click here to see larger image.




19

represented 3,600 (6 x 10x60) for a grand total of 241,200 years, the total appearing in the

Sumerian list.

Our hypothesis for explaining the similarities in numerical structure and magnitude of the

two totals is as follows: The Sumerian scribe that composed the original Antediluvian list had

at his disposal a document (possibly a clay tablet) containing numerical information on the

ages of eight of the patriarchs similar to that of the Genesis record. The numbers denoting the

lifespans of the individual patriarchs were missing or obliterated. However, the document had

a rounded total of the lifetimes of the patriarchs (possibly on the back of the tablet). Although

this number was written using a decimal number base, the scribe assumed it was sexagesimal

and incorporated it into his document after making some slight emendations. He then

proceeded to assign approximate reign durations to the perceived antediluvian kings in an

arbitrary manner but keeping the sum equal to the total he had copied from the decimal

(Semitic) tablet. He only used two high order ciphers to represent the durations (in units of

3,600 years) but used a third smaller cipher in the last two reigns to conform to the structure

of the total he had adopted.

Although this hypothesis cannot be proven at this time, it seem to afford a reasonable

explanation of the similarities and differences between the two documents. The probability

that the resemblance is fortuitous is very small in view of the fact that the two lists:

mention the Flood;

refer to the same (adjusted) number of personages;

have totals that are made up of the same number of symbols for ten times the square

of the base, the square of the base, and the next lower symbol of the two different

numerical systems involved;

and, have their totals correspond to each other numerically.

On the other hand, it is highly unlikely that the biblical account was derived from the

Sumerian because:

the Genesis account has more numerical precision and more detailed information;

the ages of the patriarchs are much more reasonable than the extremely long reigns of

the kings of the Kings List, the account is much more realistic and true to life;

and, the moral and spiritual qualities are immensely superior. For example, in the

Sumerian account of the Flood (as given in the Gilgamesh epic) there is no reason

given for the decision of the gods to destroy mankind. There are no allusions at all to

a fault committed by man. The Flood appears as a capricious act of the gods rather

than a divine punishment. In Genesis, however, God purposes to purge mankind

because the thoughts and designs of men were continually evil, and the Earth was full

of violence.

Another possible explanation is that, instead of a written document, the Sumerians had an

oral tradition referring to the antediluvian account which was used in composing the early

part of the Kings List, but that they had available only the general setting of the story, the

number of personages involved (interpreted as kings), the rough magnitude of their ages

(interpreted as durations of reigns), and the rounded total; originally in a decimal numerical

system, but incorrectly assumed to be in a sexagesimal one at a later date. The main problem

with this explanation is that there is a detailed numerical correspondence between the two

lists that would have been difficult to remember from one generation to the other. On the


20

other hand, the total of the lifetimes (which provides the principal numerical correspondence)

has a structure (three sets of six ciphers each in strict decreasing arithmetical order) that

would have made remembering that number much easier.

Discussion and summary

The Sumerian King List records in a chronological succession the names of most of the kings

of Sumer and the lengths of their reigns. The composition is based on the theory that there

was always only one king at a time for all of Babylonia, and a single capital. A few of the

existing manuscripts of the List have an initial section dealing with kings before the Flood

that is significantly different from the rest of the list. This antediluvian section was a later

addition written by a person different from the one who composed the postdiluvian section of

the list. This scribe appears to have adapted an earlier list of antediluvian kings to conform to

the style and philosophy of the document he was bringing up to date. However, it is evident

that his source for the antediluvian kings did not claim that the different kingships were

successive. The original King List was probably composed during the reign of Utu-hegal of

Uruk (2119–2112 BC) and the antediluvian section added after the reign of Sin-magir (1827–

1817 BC) of the Isin dynasty.

Sumerians and Babylonians employed a sexagesimal number system. There were two non-

positional ways of representing the different ciphers: an earlier one using a round stylus, and

a later cuneiform way using a triangular stylus. In both systems the number of ciphers was

very small requiring many repetitions of the same symbol, although grouping of the

sexagesimal symbols by tens was employed. Later, during Babylonian time, a quasi-

positional system was devised. No other culture of the ancient world developed a sexagesimal

number system, although non-Sumerian groups adopted the Sumerian script to represent their

languages and used their numerical system. This was the case of Semitic groups such as at

Ebla and Mari, but although they used the cuneiform system, they retained a Semitic calendar

and decimal counting.

When the kingdom durations of the antediluvian portion of the King List are represented with

the early Sumerian numerical system, the total and all of the numbers except two need only

two different symbols. These are the two largest units of the system, so that the numbers are

expressed as multiples of 3600. The total (241,200) needs six 10x602 signs, six 60

2 signs, and

six 10x60 signs. The duration of the lives of the biblical patriarchs, however, have the

precision of one year, and the majority of the ages have units. If Adam the first man and

Noah the Flood hero are not included to match the contents of the Kings List, their total ages

would be 6695. If the ages are rounded to the two highest digits as in the Sumerian list, the

final number has six 103 signs, six 10

2 signs, and six 10 signs for a total of 6660. Thus, the

totals of both the adjusted Genesis and Sumerian lists have six of the signs for ten times the

square of the base, six of the signs for the square of the base, and six signs for the next lower

value of their respective system. In addition, when the number representing the sum of the

ages of the biblical patriarchs is interpreted as having been written in the sexagesimal system,

the two totals become numerically equivalent.

The probability that the resemblance between the two documents is fortuitous is very small.

On the other hand, it is highly unlikely that the biblical account was derived from the

Sumerian in view of the differences of the two accounts, and the obvious superiority of the

Genesis record both in numerical precision, realism, completion, and moral and spiritual

qualities. It is much more likely that the Sumerian scribe that composed the original


21

antediluvian list had available a document (possibly a clay tablet) containing numerical

information on the ages of eight of the patriarchs similar to that of the Genesis record and that

he mistakenly interpreted it as being written in the sexagesimal system. Another possibility is

that the Sumerians had an oral tradition of the antediluvian world that only provided the

general setting of the story, the number of personages involved, the rough magnitude of their

ages and the rounded total, and that these numbers were originally decimal but were

incorrectly assumed to be sexagesimal at the time of writing the antediluvian list.

The fact that numerical elements of the biblical antediluvian account appear so distinctly in

the context of a secular Sumerian historical document such as the Kings List, is strong

evidence for the historicity of the early chapters of the book of Genesis. The biblical

description is not limited to the Hebrews, but it appears that there was an ancient tradition of

the antediluvian world in the early stages of the Mesopotamian culture as well. On the other

hand, the fact that the Sumerian account shows up as a numerically rounded, incomplete

version of the Genesis description, lacking the latter’s precision and wealth of details, as well

as its moral and spiritual depth, is a strong argument for the priority, accuracy and superiority

of the biblical record. And finally, the clear parallels between the Sumerian and biblical

antediluvian data, qualitative as well as numerical, open up the possibility of establishing

some chronological correlations between the rest of the Kings List and the early chapters of

the book of Genesis.

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my gratitude to my wife Evangelina V. López for her patience and

understanding during the research and preparation of this work. Her help in editing and proof

reading is also greatly appreciated.

References and notes

1. Kramer, S.N., The Sumerians, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 355 pp,

1963.

2. Walton, J., The antediluvian section of the Sumerian King List and Genesis 5,

Biblical Archaeologist, 44:207–208, 1981. Also, see his later study on the Sumerian

King List in Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context, Zondervan, pp. 127–

31, 1989.

3. Morby, J.E., Dynasties of the World, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 253 pp, 1989.

4. Jacobsen, T., The Sumerian King List, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 217

pp, 1939.

5. Friberg, J., Numbers and measures in the earliest written records, Scientific American,

250(2):110–118, 1984.

6. Flegg, G., Numbers, Their History and Meaning, Barnes and Noble, NY, 295 pp,

1993.

7. Nissen, Hans J., The early History of the Ancient Near East, 9000–2000 BC, The

University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 215 pp, 1988.

8. Walker, C.B.F., Reading the Past: Cuneiform, Trustees of the British Museum,

British Museum, 64 pp, 1987.

9. University of Wisconsin, Sign, symbol, script: An exhibition on the origins of writing

and the alphabet, Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System,


22

Department of Hebrew and Semitic Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 88 pp,

1984.

10. Schmandt-Besserat, D., The earliest precursor of writing, Scientific American,

238:50–59, 1978.

11. Mattiae, P., Ebla: An Empire Rediscovered, Doubleday, Garden City, NY, 1981.

12. Pettinato, G., Catalogo dei Testi Cuneiformi de Tell Mardikh-Ebla, Instituto

Universitario Orientale di Napoli, Naples, 1979.

13. Pettinato, G., Testi Administrativi della Biblioteca L. 2769, Instituto Universitario

Orientale di Napoli, Naples.

14. Pettinato, G., The Archives of Ebla, Doubleday, Garden City, NY.

15. Fiore, S., Voices From the Clay, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK, 254 pp,

1965.

Raul E. Lopez has an M.S. and a Ph.D. in Atmospheric Science from Colorado State

University.


23

The Sumerian King List

The surviving clay tablet was dated by the scribe who wrote it in the reign of King Utukhegal

of Erech (Uruk), which places it around 2125 B.C.

"After kingship had descended from heaven, Eridu became the seat of kingship. In

Eridu Aululim reigned 28,800 years as king. Alalgar reigned 36,000 years. Two kings,

reigned 64,800 years. Eridu was abandoned and its kingship was carried off to Bad-tabira. . . .

"Total: Five Cities, eight kings, reigned 241,200 years.

"The FLOOD then swept over. After the Flood had swept over, and kingship had

descended from heaven, Kish became the seat of Kingship. In Kish .... Total: twenty-three

kings, reigned 24,510 years, 3 months, 3 1/2 days. Kish was defeated; its kingship was

carried off to Eanna.

"In Eanna, Meskiaggasher, the son of (the sun god) Utu reigned as En (Priest) and Lugal

(King) 324 years--Meskiaggasher entered the sea, ascended the mountains. Enmerkar, the son

of Meskiaggasher, the king of erech who had built Erech, reigned 420 years as king.

Lugalbanda, the shepherd, reigned 1,200 years. Dumuzi the fisherman, whose city was Kua,

reigned 100 years. Gilgamesh, whose father was a nomad (?) reigned 126 years. Urnungal,

the son of Gilgamesh, reigned 30 years. Labasher reigned 9 years. Ennundaranna reigned 8

years. Meshede reigned 36 years. Melamanna reigned 6 years. Lugalkidul reigned 36 years.

Total: twelve kings, reigned 2,130 years. Erech was defeated, its kingship was carried off to

Ur...."


24

Sumerian Mythology & Goddesses

Antu

(Antum, Anatum) A Sumerian goddess of creation, the feminine counterpart and

consort of the sky-god Anu. She was later replaced by the goddess Ishtar.

Aru

(Aruru, Nintu) The goddess who created the seed of mankind with Marduk. With the

advent of patriarchal society, Marduk performed this wonder all by himself. Aru is the

mother of Gilgamesh, and she created the hero Enkidu by forming clay into the

image of the god Anu and casting it onto the earth.

Ashnan

The Sumerian and Chaldean goddess of grain, daughter of Enlil. She was assigned

to the fertile land of Sumer by Enki. She is a powerful deity, supporting the people.

Baba

The Sumerian tutelary goddess of the city of Lagash, some 70 kilometers north of

Ur, and patroness of the king. She is also a mother goddess and a goddess of

healing. Baba is the daughter of the sky god An and consort of the fertility god

Ningirsu. People often called her 'mother Baba', and she was identified with the

goddess Gula.

Belili

An early Sumerian underworld goddess, subordinate to Ereshkigal. She was also

known as the sister and wife of Tammuz, and a goddess of the Moon and of love.

Belet-Ili

The Sumerian goddess of the womb of whom the gods asked to create mankind.

She created men, so they could till the soils and dig canals, and she created women

so that they could continue to bear men. Seven of each she created, so that after

600 years the people were already too numerous. The land became so noisy that

Ellil could not sleep. The people were also sinful, eating their own children, so Ellil

decided to wash them away with a great flood. He meant to keep the plan a secret

from the people but the god Ea (Enki) told his protégé Atrahasis what would happen

and how he could save himself by means of a boat. The flood lasted seven days.

Dimme

An equivalent to the Akkadian demoness Lamastu, she causes puerperal fever and

childhood diseases. She is portrayed with bare breasts, on which a dog and a pig

feed themselves.

Duttur

The sheep Goddess, and Patroness of the flocks. She is the mother of both Dumuzi

and Gestinanna.

Ereskigal

(Irkalla) Queen of the Underworld, a chthonic goddess whose realm was the depths

below the Inner Sea of Abzu. She was recognized as Guardian and Patroness of the

Dark City. Together with her consort Nergal she rules this underworld, also called

'the big land', from which no-one returns.


25

One day Nergal was sent to Ereskigal from the heavens, with an offering of food.

They proceeded to fall in love, and when Nergal had to leave, she threatened Anu

that unless Nergal was send back to her, for ever, as a husband, she would revive

the dead and send them back to earth, so that they would outnumber the living. Her

minister Namtar had to go to heaven as her messenger, for Ereshkigal felt that she

was already pregnant. He successfully relayed the message, for at last Nergal came

storming down the stairs, broke down the seven gates and burst into the goddess'

palace straight into her passionate embrace.

Ereshkigal is dark and violent, as befits her role as goddess of the underworld. As

ruler over the shades, Ereshkigal receives the mortuary offerings made to the dead.

Often praised in hymns, in the Sumerian cosmogony she was carried off to the

underworld after the separation of heaven and earth.

Gestinanna

An oracular goddess, she is associated with the interpretation of dreams, and with

the herding of sheep. She is the loyal sister of Dumuzi, and hides him by various

stratagems when he is sought by demons of the underworld. When he is eventually

captured, it is arranged that she take his place for half the year, and he hers. While

in the Underworld, she functions as Ereskigal's scribe.

Gula

A healer and patroness of medicine; wife of Ninurta and often identified with

Nin'insina, the tutelary Goddess of the city-state of Isin. She is also associated with

the Underworld. Her symbolic animal, a dog, almost always accompanies her.

Inanna

The flowering of Sumeria, its temples, ordered cities, irrigated fields, birthplace of

cuneiform writing and codes of law, and mastery of terra-cotta arts, all offer tribute to

the first Great Goddess named by history. Bejeweled and serene, her chalice-

shaped form was worshipped as early as 7000 BCE.

Sumerian "Queen of Heaven," Inanna is the Great Goddess of Epic Poems. Many

fragments of Her sacred writings still survive. In one poem, Inanna descended into

the underworld, died and after three days She arose and returned to the living.

Worshiped as early as 7000 BCE, Inanna was still widely revered after patriarchal

incursions into the Euphrates plain. She descended from heaven to bring prosperity

to Her people, then descended into the Realm of Death in a quest for wisdom.

Returning, she condemned her lover and son Dumuzi to replace her there in

punishment for his arrogance; their annual sexual union was viewed as the source of

fecundity and plenty. Here, bejeweled and serene, she offers Her chalice-shaped

body in a supreme gesture of tenderness.


26

Inanna of Power, Goddess of Battle. Just as she images fertility, the Great Goddess

also serves as archetype of natural extremes: monsoon-like storms, great heat,

earthquakes. Ancient clay inscriptions depict her raining down fire, mounted on a

beast, and call her "devastatrix of the lands." Her chthonic powers become

explanatory of earth-scourging catastrophes, and these aspects still live in the forms

of Kali and Durga. For Sumerians, battle was known as the dance of Inanna. She

stands Amazon-like, rooted and erect, garbed as Warrior Queen, gesturing

confidently with her lance of power.

Inanna-Sumerian Queen of the Land. Source of the Earth's life blood. She filled the

wells, rivers and springs with Her blood. 2,000 B.C.E. Juniper is Her tree.

"Lady of the Thousand Offices", She is the primary female Deity of Her people, and

in some ways the focus of the entire pantheon. Her epithet refers to the fact that She

is Patroness and divine Guide to a myriad different functions and powers. One

tradition has Her the daughter of An, but a more persistent one makes Her the child

of Nanna-Suen. All agree that She is the younger sister to Ereskigal. She has many

lovers and consorts, but her strongest attachment seems to be with Dumuzi. She

rules the natural world, and the vitalizing effect of the rain, but beyond that Her

functions seem to revolve around pairs of contending ideas. Thus, She is both the

morning and the evening star. She represents motherhood and the family, but She is

also the harlot and temple prostitute. She governs lightning, but also the dousing of

fire. Her spirit is one of praise and gladness, and also dismay and sorrow. Her

imagery usually portrays Her as a winged female bearing weapons and some

armour, wearing an open robe, nude underneath.

Inanna is regarded as a daughter of the sky-god An, but also of the moon-god

Nanna. A variation of her name is Ninnanna, which means 'queen of the sky'. She is

also called Ninsianna as the personification of the planet Venus. Inanna is portrayed

as a fickle person who first attracts men and then rejects them. She is depicted as

richly dressed goddess or as a naked woman. Her symbol is the eight-pointed star.

Important sanctuaries of Inanna were in Uruk, Zabalam, and Babylon. The

Akkadians called her Ishtar.

Ininna

An early Sumerian name of Ishtar, the Mesopotamian goddess of war and fertility.

Ki

In some traditions, Ki is a primordial being representing Earth. She also known as

the wife of An and the mother of Enlil, symbolizing the marriage of Heaven and Earth

to produce man.

Kisar

A primordial being; daughter of Lahmu, and mother of An.

Kiskill-lilla

A Sumerian night-demon who has nested herself in the Haluppu tree of Inanna. The

Akkadians know her as Lilitu.


27

Lilu, Lilitu, and Ardat-Lili

Not divinities as such, this trio of closely related demons inhabited the desert wastes,

and functioned largely in terms of sexual and fertility aberration. Lilu and Lilitu were

male and female equivalents of each other, and were regarded as dangerous to

pregnancies and newborns, while Ardat-Lili ("Maiden Lilitu") may have been their

offspring, and was seen as a spirit of sexual dysfunction and frustration, malevolent

wives, and degeneracy in general. The general idea was imported into Hebrew

mythology as Lilith, Demoness of desolation, obsession, and madness.

Mama

The Mesopotamian (especially Sumerian and Akkadian) mother goddess. She was

part of the creation of the first humans from blood and clay. She was called Mami by

the Babylonians, the goddess who created mortals.

Nammu

The mother of the universe, a primordial being. In some traditions, she is the the

mother of An and Ki (Heaven and Earth), and a personification or Aspect of Abzu.

She is also known as the Sumerian goddess of the sea who created heaven and

earth.

Nanaja

The Sumerian and Akkadian goddess of sex. She was also worshipped as a

goddess of war. Her cult was widely spread, even to Syria and Iran.

Nanse

The tutelary goddess of the city-state of Lagash, she was an oracular divinity with

the power to interpret dreams and omens. She also held a position as protectress of

the common-folk, who often invoked her as an overseer of fair and accurate weights

and measures.

Nidaba

The Sumerian goddess of learning.

Nin

The Sumerian title for 'mistress' or 'goddess', which forms a component of many

names of goddess, such as Ningal, Ninsun or Ninhursaga.

Ninatta

A goddess of music, serving Ishtar. She and Kulitta accompanied Ishtar's hymns

when she sang passionately of her love for Tammuz.

Ningal

The wife of moon-god Nanna-Suen, and the mother of the sun-god Utu. She was the

'great queen' of ancient Sumer. In Ur, she and Sin were regarded as the parents of

Shamash and Ishtar. The Phoenicians referred to her as Nikkal.

Ninhursaga

(Ninhursag, Ninhursanga, Ninchursag) The Sumerian Lady of the Mountains,

mistress of serpents, she who gives life to the dead. She created the first human

beings out of clay. Associated with the Sacred Cow, she is regarded as the mother

of many divinities by Enlil, who further extends his line by incestuous unions with

their daughters, the plants and vegetation.


28

Ninhursaga is one of the oldest members of the Sumerian pantheon and has

prestigious titles such as 'mother of the gods' and 'mother of all children'. She is also

called Nintu, and Ki, the earth. She was the tutelary deity of the Sumerian rulers,

who styled themselves "children of Ninhursag".

Ninhursag ensures fertile fields, but when she cursed her husband for his incestuous

affairs, the earth became barren. Only when the hastily assembled gods managed to

mollify her, the earth became fertile again and the cycle of the seasons was

instituted.

A temple of Ninhursag was excavated near Tell Harriri (the ancient Mari) in Syria,

near the Iraqi border.

Ninkasi

A Sumerian goddess of intoxicating drink. Every day she prepares beer for the other

gods.

Ninkarrak

The Babylonian and Sumerian goddess of healing who nursed sick humans.

Ninlil

Wife of Enlil, and mother to many of His children. An ancient Sumero-Babylonian

goddess of heaven, earth, and air, and as Ninhursaga, a goddess of the underworld.

She is also a goddess of grain and is called 'queen wind'. She is the consort of Enlil,

the 'lord wind'. She shows compassion to the unfortunate. She and Enlil were

worshipped in Nippur.

Ninmah

A mother-goddess of the Sumerians and Akkadians. Her name means 'greatest

queen' and she is also called Dingirmach ('greatest deity'), or simply Mach. She

helped Nammu with the creation of humankind and was held responsible for the birth

of seven deformed humans. She may have been conflated with Ninhursag.

Ninshar

The Sumerian goddess of birth, and of stony ground.

Ninsun

A minor Sumerian goddess noted for her wisdom whose house was in Erech (Uruk).

She is the wife of the deified king Lugalbanda and mother of the great hero

Gilgamesh. In the Gilgamesh epic she counsels her son, and interprets dreams. Her

name means "queen of the wild cow".

Ninti

Known as the Lady of Life, and the Lady of the Rib. She is the Sumerian birth

goddess who enabled pregnant women to create the bones of their babies from their

own ribs.

Nisaba

The goddess of grain, writing and wisdom. She is the daughter of the sky-god An.

Tiamat

The Serpent Goddess of the Watery Abyss, the Creatress, the goddess mother, from

whose formless body the Universe was born. She is a primordial entity, the

personification of the deep.


29

At the beginning of creation there were but two entities, Abzu and Tiamat,

respectively representing the freshwater underworld sea and the saltwater surface

ocean. Between them, many of the earliest entities were created, including An and Ki

(Heaven and Earth). When Abzu was slain, Tiamat released monstrous creatures in

vengeance, and was in turn slain by, as later version have it, her Marduk. He

cleaved her body in half, and from the upper half he created the sky and from the

lower half he made the earth. From her water came forth the clouds and her tears

became the source of the Tigris and the Euphrates.

Uttu

The Sumerian spider goddess of weaving and of clothing. She is a daughter of Enki

and Nindurra.

Zarpanit

Zarpanit, also known as Beltia, is an ancient Sumero-Babylonian goddess, the

consort of Marduk.

Annexure Sumerian Mythology gods - · PDF fileAnnexure – Sumerian Mythology gods 1 Guide...

Documents

Transcript of Annexure Sumerian Mythology gods - · PDF fileAnnexure – Sumerian Mythology gods 1 Guide...