A Quick Summary Of the Sumerian Kings List (Important Dates & Events)

originally posted by: SargonThrall

Where on Earth do you get the idea that Dilmun is Atlantis? Dilmun is "the place where the sun rises"; is Atlantis not generally considered to the west of the pillars of Heracles? That is the opposite. Dilmun is in the Persian Gulf.

I'll "Go there"

Once the dreaded "A" word (Atlantis) is mentioned people seem to just roll their eyes and off they go...

Remove the name Atlantis from the equation and look East from where this all supposedly took place and you find the Persian Gulf. Presently, it's a Gulf. Turn the clock back about Eight to Nine thousand years ago and it didn't exist as we know it currently. It was in fact, a lush river valley, which ran the full length emptying into the Indian ocean just East of the present straits of hormuz. We now know through the archeological records that almost all major KNOWN Cradle Civs arouse along river valleys. Sumer, Indus and China...etc.

Science now tells us that about Six Thousand BCE, the Indian Ocean flooded the valley and would have been a site to see. I'm sure had there been an advanced Culture/Early Civilization located somewhere in that now submerged ancient "Lush river valley" they would have ran for the hills, up rooting and grabbing their belongings and headed up river valleys to higher ground. Possibly settling in two locals, Indus river valley and where we presently find the roots of Sumer.

All speculation on my part of course but. The fact remains that the region looked much different at one time and well within human history. The region was very well traveled and known to our ancient ancestors and wouldn't there possibly have been stories handed down from generation to generation, initially by word of mouth, only to later been placed on tablets, Stories of the Great "Flood Event"?

Seems plausible.

The Persian Gulf flooding would geographically be located to the East from where its referenced. Not saying it was 'Atlantis" but possibly a now forgotten chapter of human history which still awaits discovery

The Lost Cradle of Civilization

In almost every culture and religion of the world lies a story of a lost civilization. The Greeks told the tale of a sophisticated island nation suddenly submerged. However, the Greeks were not the only people group to embrace an Atlantis-type legend; many cultures recounted the lost-city-beneath-the-sea scenario. The ubiquitous nature of these stories, accounts, and legends lends credence to the possibility that in the early days of humanity’s history a relatively advanced civilization was indeed lost.

Now, a research paper published in Current Anthropology provides scientific evidence for such a lost ancient civilization, evidence that confirms much of Genesis 1–11’s historical account of humanity’s early days.1 University of Birmingham archeologist Jeffrey Rose reports on the discovery, conducted over the past six years, of over sixty new archeological sites along the shoreline of the Persian Gulf. All of these sites are dated as older than 7,500 years. Rose states that “these settlements boast well-built permanent stone houses, long-distance trade networks, elaborately decorated pottery, domesticated animals, and even evidence for one of the oldest boats in the world.”2 In 2006, archeologist Hans-Peter Uerpmann of the University of Tubingen in Germany uncovered the remains of three different settlements that date between 25,000 and 125,000 years old at the base of Jebel Faya in the United Arab Emirates.

In his paper, Rose points out that during the late Pleistocene epoch (150,000 to 12,000 years ago) reduced sea levels periodically exposed the “Gulf Oasis.” The Persian Gulf receded to such a degree as to bring above the surface a landmass as large as, or larger than, Great Britain. Rose explains that this landmass was well watered by four large rivers flowing at the time: the Tigris, Euphrates, Karun, and Wadi Batin. Additionally, the region was watered by fresh water springs supplied by subterranean aquifers flowing beneath the Arabian subcontinent. Such an abundant and well-distributed supply of fresh water combined with the region’s warm weather would have supported a lush agricultural enterprise.

a reply to: ancienthistorian

Thank you for the info! I've found the SKL very interesting indeed. My interest has peaked off and on, though.

No one wants to hear my opinion on SKL and how to read it! No sirry bob.. Our board professionals always have a cow when I share my opinions, beliefs, and interpretations on Sumerian/Assyrian/Babylonian history.

*sits quietly in the corner*

Interesting! Will be back to take a better look.

Thanks for making the list.

a reply to: ancienthistorian

Here is another issue of someone claiming Noah was a god or a child of a god.

In the epic of Gilgamesh Noah is identified as Utnapishtim and that character was just a man Source

And in Sumerian tablets he is only mentioned once as Ziusudra where he is also identified as a man. Most likely a priest of Marduk.

If I am mistaken and you believe this character to be a god or half god please source where you have read this.

a reply to: raymundoko

Hi yes , When you look at the Greek version of the flood story, Prometheus who created Humans out of clay (just like Enki) slept with a mortal woman and gave birth to a son called Deucalion , eventually Zeus (Enlil) wanted to create a flood , so Prometheus (just like Enki) warned his son to build a boat , I believe the Greeks knew just as much about the anunnaki than any other culture in Mesopotamia , The Book of Enoch describes Noah's birth as follows:

And after some days my son, Methuselah, took a wife for his son Lamech, and she became pregnant by him and bore him a son (Noah). And his body was white as snow and red as a rose; the hair of his head as white as wool and his demdema (‘long curly hair’) beautiful; and as for his eyes, when he opened them the whole house glowed like the sun ...
 
And his father, Lamech, was afraid of him and fled and went to Methuselah his father; and he said to him,
“I have begotten a strange son. He is not like an (ordinary) human being, but he looks like the children of the angels of heaven to me, his form is different, and he is not like us ... It does not seem to me that he is of me, but of angels..."

As you can see Noah was clearly born from one of the fallen angels (who I personally believe might be the fallen angel called Azazel) , Azazel was pretty much the Hebrew version of Prometheus , He taught mankind the art of crafts and for punishment was chained to rocks inside a mountain. There is no defnitate indication whether Noah was a demi god , However Iike I said before , I like to believe that the Greeks had it right and that their version of the flood story was accurate. Also I don't think the Annunaki would allow humans to rule as Kings , they had to have some Anunnaki blood before they were given the power to rule.

originally posted by: ancienthistorian
This Is a quick summary of the Sumerian Kings list

I'm afraid you've gotten ahold of some sources that rely more on things found in someone's imagination than things actually found in Sumeria. This will put you at a huge disadvantage with anyone who cares to fact check you. The correct kings list can be found on Wikipedia and on other sources.

We start of with The first kingship/Dynasty that took place In heaven (on another planet) where Anu (Cronus/El)

* Cronus is a Greek god, whose first mention is some 3,000 years after the first Sumerian kings
* "El" is a title meaning "lord."
* Alulim was the first king of Sumeria and according to legend brought civilization.

became king among the Anunnaki ; he ruled for 162,000 years.

The "king" of the Anunnaki was their father, An. Enlil was the one who took rulership of the Earth

Anu (The father of the Anunnaki) devided earth between his sons and daughters , Enki was given his portion of earth where he build the kingdom of Dilmun (Atlantis).

Your source material is scrambling creation myths from several city-states - and from multiple time periods at that.

The deity involved with the Annunaki isEnlil, not Enki (and actually, the material in the Enuma Elish dates to 650 BC or thereabouts, long after the collapse of the Sumerian civilization)
Enki (in the mythology of Eridu) is one of the ones who created men

The next Dynasty In the Sumerian Kings list now takes place In Dilmun a Utopian civilization where mankind was first created.

According to the artifacts found there, Dilmun was in Bahrain and wasn't utopian.

If you'd like a BETTER resource list for your investigation, I recommend Livius.Org It has a nice summary of the Kings List.

En-men-barage-si--------(900)----------------[4393 - 3493 BCE]

...the length of rule is wrong, but he's been confirmed by inscriptions on vases of alabaster from what may have been his palace.

(The last King of Kish "Aga" attacked Uruk & made war with king Gilgamesh , so we know He definitely lived somewhere around 3000BCE)

As far as can be told, these are "legendary kings" and not real people though they may be based on real people.

After Kish was "defeated" a new kingdom was establish called Uruk (Sumeria)

...and at this point, the web pages you're using have confused you terribly. The Sumerian Kings list gives the names of the kings of four city-states - Uruk, Kish, Ur, and Awan - and a number of the rulers that your source led you to think succeeded each other were actually ruling at the same time in different city-states.

The Kings List was written during the reign of Isin, and is documenting his claim to be king. As it says in Wikipedia (and elsewhere... Wikipedia's just more readable)

Kingship was seen as handed down by the gods, and could be transferred from one city to another, reflecting perceived hegemony in the region. Throughout its Bronze Age existence, the document evolved into a political tool. Its final and single attested version, dating to the Middle Bronze Age, aimed to legitimize Isin's claims to hegemony when Isin was vying for dominance with Larsa and other neighboring city-states in southern Mesopotamia.

For those of you who want to read more, here's some interesting resources
Ur (with mention of Abraham)
Eridu and mention of a Flood story
The Enuma Elish (with some fascinating notes!)
And a PDF of the Enuma Elish

originally posted by: SLAYER69
Science now tells us that about Six Thousand BCE, the Indian Ocean flooded the valley

...you might want to recheck with those scientists. Here's what geologists (scientists) say

Also here (about outburst floods)

I haven't seen any reliable sources saying that 6,000 BCE (4000 BC) was a flood event by the Indian Ocean. Do you have a source?

a reply to: Byrd

Hi Byrd..

As I stated earlier, Speculation on my part, It's an hypothesis by an archeologist.

One that I agree with.

Live Science

"I think Jeff's theory is bold and imaginative, and hopefully will shake things up," Robert Carter of Oxford Brookes University in the U.K. told LiveScience. "It would completely rewrite our understanding of the out-of-Africa migration. It is far from proven, but Jeff and others will be developing research programs to test the theory."

Viktor Cerny of the Archaeogenetics Laboratory, the Institute of Archaeology, in Prague, called Rose's finding an "excellent theory," in an e-mail to LiveScience, though he also points out the need for more research to confirm it.

Science Daily

Jeffrey Rose, an archaeologist and researcher with the University of Birmingham in the U.K., says that the area in and around this "Persian Gulf Oasis" may have been host to humans for over 100,000 years before it was swallowed up by the Indian Ocean around 8,000 years ago. Rose's hypothesis introduces a "new and substantial cast of characters" to the human history of the Near East, and suggests that humans may have established permanent settlements in the region thousands of years before current migration models suppose.

Dicovery News

The waters of the Persian Gulf may cover one of humanity’s oldest and largest footholds outside Africa, according to archeologist Jeffery Rose in Current Anthropology. A verdant oasis provided a sanctuary the size of Great Britain for humans from approximately 74,000 years ago until 8,000 years ago. Then the rising sea may have burst through natural barriers and flooded the region.

“Certainly, I think there is compelling evidence to suggest that both the flood and Eden myths may be rooted in these events around the Gulf basin. When we trace the flood myth back in time from Genesis, it appears almost verbatim in Babylonian and Sumerian sources (living in southern Mesopotamia/ northern shoreline of the Gulf) at least back to 2,500 BC when writing was first used to tell stories.” Rose told Discovery News.

originally posted by: SargonThrall
a reply to: ancienthistorian



If "gods" were the kings of Kish, why were they so easily defeated by Sargon, a man?

Maybe he (you) had his own TR3B that's still classified to this day.

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: Byrd

Hi Byrd..

As I stated earlier, Speculation on my part, It's an hypothesis by an archeologist.

Ahhh..

I've run into this problem in multidisciplinary research before (specifically with anthropologists trying for a biological explanation) - and even the best-intentioned ones with excellent research in their fields can turn into complete nut-cases when they don't research the other field (there's also a biologist whose name escapes me right now... very famous... tried to connect Native American languages with Hebrew on the base of "sounds" - which is total nonsense, as any linguist can tell you)

Looking at the geology of the area, I don't think it was a sudden inflooding as with Lake Mizzoula and the Channeled Scablands. I could be wrong... we should look closer at it.

a reply to: ancienthistorian

You are wrong and have left out the context in the book of enoch. I'm guessing you don't research this yourself and is a common lie spread by those who want to to paint Noah as an annunaki.

The book of enoch CONFIRMS that Noah is a human and the son of Lamech despite his appearance at birth. Read just a few more lines from where you quoted...

Source

18. And now make known to thy son Lamech that he who has been born is in truth his son, and call his name Noah; for he shall be left to you, and he and his sons shall be saved from the destruction, which shall come upon the earth on account of all the sin and all the unrighteousness, which shall be consummated on the earth in his days.

a reply to: SLAYER69
Local flooding is not nearly the same as a global flood, nor is 6000BC close to the time attributed to Atlantis' downfall (10,000 or 12000 BC according to cultists), nor is that close to the Mesopotamian flood timeline.

Bottom line being, regardless, this was not Atlantis, nor the basis for it.

The Sumerian tradition holds that the Flood happened after Eridu's prominence and before Kish's establishment. Archaeology shows the lack of serious occupation at Eridu after the Uruk period, and Kish did not become major until after 3000BC. The Sumerians believed the Flood happened roughly thereabouts.

originally posted by: SargonThrall

Bottom line being, regardless, this was not Atlantis, nor the basis for it.

I appreciate that.

I didn't mention Atlantis?

a reply to: SLAYER69
Excuse me? You used the word 4 times in your post. You have now explicitly lied for... no apparent reason.

a reply to: SargonThrall

Here means he isn't the one who brought it up...