01-01 Ubaid

http://everything2.com/title/Sumer?searchy=search
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Cities Before the Flood:   after Cain killed his brother he went into the land of "wandering" (the meaning of Hebrew nod) and built a city. Here he apparently set up a new religious system in defiance of YHVH -- "wandering" not in the countryside, but in his heart. Some indication of the earliest cities are given in Genesis 4. Cain built the first city (Genesis 4:.17), naming it after his son Enoch. This may set an early precedent for men to name cities after themselves. According to Sumerian King Lists, eight cities (at least) were built before the Flood. If the names of men were given also to these cities, we may be able to equate Eridu of the King List with Irad of Genesis 4:18 and possibly Lamech with Larak. (Hallo 1970: 64. See article on Cain.)




///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

 Ubaid

8500-6000 BCE: The slow transition from semi-nomadic hunter/gatherer existence to a slightly more urbane, village-centered existence takes hold in various regions of Southern Africa, Egypt, India and the Fertile Crescent regions around this time. Specific to the Tigris-Euphrates area, early shepherd communities seem to have come down from the mountainous north, after several continuous harsh winters, to settle on the valley plain.ⁱ Villages and towns were established along the shores of the two rivers – and with these settlements livestock breeding, grain cultivation and primitive irrigation emerged as sound practice. The people of this pre-historic culture are often referred to as proto-Sumerians or the Ubaid


5000 BCE: With better resource sharing, farming & communal effort, the villages grow into towns, and towns into cities. The town of Eridu is established on the grassland marsh just south of the lower Euphrates, the oldest extant town-site in the region

3500 BCE: Better irrigation practices and food surpluses lead to increased birth rates, decreased infant mortality, and even larger communities. City-life begins to adhere, with increased specialization and more productive division of labour. Ur, Uruk, Lagash & Nippur now rise alongside Eridu as the principal centers in the region. Simultaneous with the ascendance of these city-states, early cuneiform scripts are developed. Previously, as far back as 75,000 BCE, special rock tokens, bone wands or carved wooden counters had been used to calculate trade or track goods, but for the first time, in Sumer, an actual syllabic form of writing emerged for the first time beyond crude pictographic marks.

3360-2400 BCE: With these foundations, Archaic Sumerian culture flourishes and grows for centuries. Sheep, goats, milk, grain, wool, bread, honey and fish became the major components of the local market. Increased trade leads to increased competition between various competing interests leading each city-state, who begin to vie for wider control. At the same time, cultural, economic and technological exchange from Sumeria extends to Anatolia (Lower Turkey),Syria, Persia (Iran) and as far away as the Indus River valley. Internal wars between city-rulers erupt as cities begin to fortify their walls and mobilize crude, four-wheeled chariots

2400-2350 BCE: Sargon I unites Sumer into a loose confederation of city-states, the first in a chain of Mesopotamian empires. The Akkadian prince (from the hilly region north of the lower Tigris) pushes his troops³ and influence to the cedar forests of Lebanon, the silver rich Taurus Mountains of Anatolia (southern Turkey), and to the rich stone quarries of Elam (southern Iran). Trade and diplomatic missions are extended to Egypt and Ethiopia, as well as Harappa &Mohenjo-Daro on the Indus. The Akkadian Sumerians supply barley, grain, glasswork, bronze, millet, and alcohol to most of their trade partners. ⁴ The raw metal resources of the Akkadians had to be imported, as there were few productive mines in the mostly marshy region. As an early example of economic interdependence, when the tin supplies of the Levant were exhausted around this time, Sumerian weapons reverted from bronze to copper

2150 BCE: The city of Akkad is invaded by Gutian forces, severing three centuries of Akkadian rule. The city of Ur, now some 80,000 souls, becomes the major political center, with provinces extending from Susa (Elam/Iran) to Byblos in Lebanon. Ziggurats over 100 ft. high are build with baked mud bricks.

”The great storm howls above…in front of those clouds, fires burn. All our people moan. In its boulevards, where our feast were celebrated, scattered they lay. The children lay in heaps. Cry for my city! Tears for my home!” – Lament for Ur, dated est. 2000 BCE

2000 BCE: Elamites revolt against Sumerian dominion and destroy Ur. The now fragile priesthood class governing the region disperse in fear, and the unity of the region collapses. However, in Nippur, the Epic of Gilgamesh is written down for the first time, and added to an extensive library of hymns, omens, laments, aphorisms, creation tales, legends, epics, grammars and dictionaries. Amid a crumbling empire, the first organized libraries, with catalogues and indices, first appeared in Nippur.⁵ Sumerian writing, much like Latin, remained the lingua franca of the Near East’s literate class for another millennium.

01-02 3500 BCE ubaid

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/49345/49345-h/49345-h.htm
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

THE LANDS OF SUMER AND AKKAD

Trend of recent archaeological research—The study of origins—The Neolithic period in the Aegean area, in the region of the Mediterranean, and in the Nile Valley—Scarcity of Neolithic remains in Babylonia due largely to character of the country—Problems raised by excavations in Persia and Russian Turkestan—Comparison of the earliest cultural remains in Egypt and Babylonia—The earliest known inhabitants of South Babylonian sites—The "Sumerian Controversy" and a shifting of the problem at issue—Early relations of Sumerians and Semites—The lands of Sumer and Akkad—Natural boundaries—Influence of geological structure—Effect of river deposits—Euphrates and the Persian Gulf—Comparison of Tigris and Euphrates—The Shatt en-Nîl and the Shatt el-Kâr—The early course of Euphrates and a tendency of the river to break away westward—Changes in the swamps—Distribution of population and the position of early cities—Rise and fall of the rivers and the regulation of the water—Boundary between Sumer and Akkad—Early names for Babylonia—"The Land" and its significance—Terminology—

EARLY CITIES AND THE RACIAL CHARACTER OF THEIR INHABITANTS

Characteristics of early Babylonian sites—The French excavations at Tello—The names Shirpurla and Lagash—Results of De Sarzec's work—German excavations at Surghul and El-Hibba—The so-called "fire-necropoles"—Jôkha and its ancient name—Other mounds in the region of the Shatt el-Kâr—Hammâm—Tell 'Îd—Systematic excavations at Fâra (Shuruppak)—Sumerian dwelling-houses and circular buildings of unknown use—Sarcophagus-graves and mat-burials—Differences in burial customs—Diggings at Abû Hatab (Kisurra)—Pot-burials—Partial examination of Bismâya (Adab)—Hêtime—Jidr—The fate of cities which escaped the Western Semites—American excavations at Nippur—British work at Warka (Erech), Senkera (Larsa), Tell Sifr, Tell Medîna, Mukayyar (Ur), Abû Shahrain (Eridu), and Tell Lahm—Our knowledge of North Babylonian sites—Excavations at Abû Habba (Sippar), and recent work at Babylon and Borsippa—The sites of Agade, Cutha, Kish and Opis—The French excavations at Susa—Sources of our information on the racial problem—Sumerian and Semitic types—Contrasts[Pg xiv] in treatment of the hair, physical features, and dress—Apparent inconsistencies—Evidence of the later and the earlier monuments—Evidence from the racial character of Sumerian gods—Professor Meyer's theory and the linguistic evidence—Present condition of the problem—The original home and racial affinity of the Sumerians—Path of the Semitic conquest—Origin of the Western Semites—The eastern limits of Semitic influence

THE AGE AND PRINCIPAL ACHIEVEMENTS OF SUMERIAN CIVILIZATION

Effect of recent research on older systems of chronology—Reduction of very early dates and articulation of historical periods—Danger of the reaction going too far and the necessity for noting where evidence gives place to conjecture—Chronology of the remoter ages and our sources of information—Classification of material—Bases of the later native lists and the chronological system of Berossus—Palaeography and systematic excavation—Relation of the early chronology to that of the later periods—Effect of recent archaeological and epigraphic evidence—The process of reckoning from below and the foundations on which we may build—Points upon which there is still a difference of opinion—Date for the foundation of the Babylonian Monarchy—Approximate character of all earlier dates and the need to think in periods—Probable dates for the Dynasties of Ur and Isin—Dates for the earlier epochs and for the first traces of Sumerian civilization—Pre-Babylonian invention of cuneiform writing—The origins of Sumerian culture to be traced to an age when it was not Sumerian—Relative interest attaching to many Sumerian achievements—Noteworthy character of the Sumerian arts of sculpture and engraving—The respective contributions of Sumerian and Semite—Methods of composition in Sumerian sculpture and attempts at an unconventional treatment—Perfection of detail in the best Sumerian work—Casting in metal and the question of copper or bronze—Solid and hollow castings and copper plating—Terra-cotta figurines—The arts of inlaying and engraving—The more fantastic side of Sumerian art—Growth of a naturalistic treatment in Sumerian design—Period of decadence

THE EARLIEST SETTLEMENTS IN SUMER; THE DAWN OF HISTORY AND THE RISE OF LAGASH

Origin of the great cities—Local cult-centres in the prehistoric period—The earliest Sumerian settlements—Development of the city-god and evolution of a pantheon—Lunar and solar cults—Gradual growth of a city illustrated by the early history of Nippur and its shrine—Buildings of the earliest Sumerian period at Tello—Store-houses and washing-places of a primitive agricultural community—The inhabitants of the country as portrayed in archaic sculpture—Earliest written records and the prehistoric system of land tenure—The first rulers of Shuruppak and their office—Kings and patesis of early city-states—The dawn of history in Lagash and the[Pg xv] suzerainty of Kish—Rivalry of Lagash and Umma and the Treaty of Mesilim—The rôle of the city-god and the theocratic feeling of the time—Early struggles of Kish for supremacy—Connotation of royal titles in the early Sumerian period—Ur-Ninâ the founder of a dynasty in Lagash—His reign and policy—His sons and household—The position of Sumerian women in social and official life—The status of Lagash under Akurgal—

WARS OF THE CITY-STATES; EANNATUM AND THE STELE OF THE VULTURES

Condition of Sumer on the accession of Eannatum—Outbreak of war between Umma and Lagash—Raid of Ningirsu's territory and Eannatum's vision—The defeat of Ush, patesi of Umma, and the terms of peace imposed on his successor—The frontier-ditch and the stelæ of delimitation—Ratification of the treaty at the frontier-shrines—Oath-formulæ upon the Stele of the Vultures—Original form of the Stele and the fragments that have been recovered—Reconstitution of the scenes upon it—Ningirsu and his net—Eannatum in battle and on the march—Weapons of the Sumerians and their method of fighting in close phalanx—Shield-bearers and lance-bearers—Subsidiary use of the battle-axe—The royal arms and body-guard—The burial of the dead after battle—Order of Eannatum's conquests—Relations of Kish and Umma—The defeat of Kish, Opis and Mari, and Eannatum's suzerainty in the north—Date of his southern conquests and evidence of his authority in Sumer—His relations with Elam, and the other groups of his campaigns—Position of Lagash under Eannatum—His system of irrigation—Estimate of his reign—

THE FALL OF LAGASH

Cause of break in the direct succession at Lagash—Umma and Lagash in the reign of Enannatum I.—Urlumma's successful raid—His defeat by Entemena and the annexation of his city—Entemena's cone and its summary of historical events—Extent of Entemena's dominion—Sources for history of the period between Enannatum II. and Urukagina—The relative order of Enetarzi, Enlitarzi and Lugal-anda—Period of unrest in Lagash—Secular authority of the chief priests and weakening of the patesiate—Struggles for the succession—The sealings of Lugal-anda and his wife—Break in traditions inaugurated by Urukagina—Causes of an increase in officialdom and oppression—The privileges of the city-god usurped by the patesi and his palace—Tax-gatherers and inspectors "down to the sea"—Misappropriation of sacred lands and temple-property, and corruption of the priesthood—The reforms of Urukagina—Abolition of unnecessary posts and stamping out of abuses—Revision of burial fees—Penalties for theft and protection for the poorer classes—Abolition of diviner's fees and regulation of divorce—The laws of Urukagina and the Sumerian origin of Hammurabi's Code—Urukagina's relations to other cities—Effect of his reforms on the stability of the state—The fall of Lagash—

EARLY RULERS OF SUMER AND KINGS OF KISH

Close of an epoch in Sumerian history—Increase in the power of Umma and transference of the capital to Erech—Extent of Lugal-zaggisi's empire, and his expedition to the Mediterranean coast—Period of Lugal-kigub-nidudu and Lugal-kisalsi—The dual kingdom of Erech and Ur—Eushagkushanna of Sumer and his struggle with Kish—Confederation of Kish and Opis—Enbi-Ishtar of Kish and a temporary check to Semitic expansion southwards—The later kingdom of Kish—Date of Urumush and extent of his empire—Economic conditions in Akkad as revealed by the Obelisk of Manishtusu—Period of Manishtusu's reign and his military expeditions—His statues from Susa—Elam and the earlier Semites—A period of transition—New light on the foundations of the Akkadian Empire—

THE EMPIRE OF AKKAD AND ITS RELATION TO KISH

Sargon of Agade and his significance—Early recognition of his place in history—The later traditions of Sargon and the contemporary records of Shar-Gani-sharri's reign—Discovery at Susa of a monument of "Sharru-Gi, the King"—Probability that he was Manishtusu's father and the founder of the kingdom of Kish—Who, then, was Sargon?—Indications that only names and not facts have been confused in the tradition—The debt of Akkad to Kish in art and politics—Expansion of Semitic authority westward under Shar-Gani-sharri—The alleged conquest of Cyprus—Commercial intercourse at the period and the disappearance of the city-state—Evidence of a policy of deportation—The conquest of Narâm-Sin and the "Kingdom of the Four Quarters"—His Stele of Victory and his relations with Elam—Narâm-Sin at the upper reaches of the Tigris, and the history of the Pir Hussein Stele—Narâm-Sin's successors—Representations of Semitic battle-scenes—The Lagash Stele of Victory, probably commemorating the original conquest of Kish by Akkad—Independent Semitic principalities beyond the limits of Sumer and Akkad—The reason of Akkadian pre-eminence and the deification of Semitic kings—

THE LATER RULERS OF LAGASH

Sumerian reaction tempered by Semitic influence—Length of the intervening period between the Sargonic era and that of Ur—Evidence from Lagash of a sequence of rulers in that city who bridge the gap—Archaeological and epigraphic data—Political condition of Sumer and the semi-independent position enjoyed by Lagash—Ur-Bau representative of the earlier patesis of this epoch—Increase in the authority of Lagash under Gudea—His conquest of Anshan—His relations with Syria, Arabia, and the Persian Gulf—His influence of a commercial rather than of a political character—Development in the art of building which marked the later Sumerian[Pg xvii] period—Evolution of the Babylonian brick and evidence of new architectural ideas—The rebuilding of E-ninnû and the elaborate character of Sumerian ritual—The art of Gudea's period—His reign the golden age of Lagash—Gudea's posthumous deification and his cult—The relations of his son, Ur-Ningirsu, to the Dynasty of Ur—

THE DYNASTY OF UR AND THE KINGDOM OF SUMER AND AKKAD

The part taken by Ur against Semitic domination in an earlier age, and her subsequent history—Organization of her resources under Ur-Engur—His claim to have founded the kingdom of Sumer and Akkad—The subjugation of Akkad by Dungi and the Sumerian national revival—Contrast in Dungi's treatment of Babylon and Eridu—Further evidence of Sumerian reaction—The conquests of Dungi's earlier years and his acquisition of regions formerly held by Akkad—His adoption of the bow as a national weapon—His Elamite campaigns and the difficulty in retaining control of conquered provinces—His change of title and assumption of divine rank—Survival of Semitic influence in Elam under Sumerian domination—Character of Dungi's Elamite administration—His reforms in the official weight-standards and the system of time-reckoning—Continuation of Dungi's policy by his successors—The cult of the reigning monarch carried to extravagant lengths—Results of administrative centralization when accompanied by a complete delegation of authority by the king—Plurality of offices and provincial misgovernment the principal causes of a decline in the power of Ur

 RULERS OF ELAM, THE DYNASTY OF ISIN, AND THE RISE OF BABYLON

Continuity of the kingdom of Sumer and Akkad and the racial character of the kings of Isin—The Elamite invasion which put an end to the Dynasty of Ur—Native rulers of Elam represented by the dynasties of Khutran-tepti and Ebarti—Evidence that a change in titles did not reflect a revolution in the political condition of Elam—No period of Elamite control in Babylonia followed the fall of Ur—Sources for the history of the Dynasty of Isin—The family of Ishbi-Ura and the cause of a break in the succession—Rise of an independent kingdom in Larsa and Ur, and the possibility of a second Elamite invasion—The family of Ur-Ninib followed by a period of unrest in Isin—Relation of the Dynasty of Isin to that of Babylon—The suggested Amorite invasion in the time of Libit-Ishtar disproved—The capture of Isin in Sin-muballit's reign an episode in the war of Babylon with Larsa—The last kings of Isin and the foundation of the Babylonian Monarchy—Position of Babylon in the later historical periods, and the close of the independent political career of the Sumerians as a race—The survival of their cultural influence

01-03 HE DYNASTY OF UR AND THE KINGDOM OF SUMER AND AKKAD

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

DYNASTY OF UR AND THE KINGDOM OF SUMER AND AKKAD

Chaldean history and civilization between the age of Narâm-Sin and the rise of the city of Ur under Ur-Engur, the founder of the kingdom of Sumer and Akkad. What we now know of Lagash during this period may probably be regarded as typical of the condition of the other great Sumerian cities. The system of government, by means of which Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin had exercised control over Sumer from their capital in the north, had doubtless been maintained for a time by their successors; but, from the absence of any trace of their influence at Tello, we cannot regard their organization as having been equally effective. They, or the Semitic kings of some other northern city, may have continued to exercise a general suzerainty over the whole of Babylonia, but the records of Lagash seem to show that the larger and more distant cities were left in the enjoyment of practical independence. The mere existence of a suzerain, however, who had inherited the throne or empire of Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin, must have acted as a deterrent influence upon any ambitious prince or patesi, and would thus have tended to maintain a condition of equilibrium between the separate states of which that empire had been composed. We have seen that Lagash took advantage of this time of comparative inactivity to develop her resources along peaceful lines. She gladly returned to the condition of a compact city-state, without dropping the intercourse with distant countries[Pg 279] which had been established under the earlier Akkadian kings.

During this period we may suppose that the city of Ur enjoyed a similar measure of independence, which increased in proportion to the decline of Semitic authority in the north. Gudea's campaign against Anshan affords some indication of the capability of independent action, to which the southern cities gradually attained. It is not likely that such initiative on the part of Lagash was unaccompanied by a like activity within the neighbouring, and more powerful, state of Ur. In an earlier age the twin kingdoms of Ur and Erech had dominated southern Babylonia, and their rulers had established the kingdom of Sumer, which took an active part in opposing the advance of Semitic influence southwards. The subjection of Sumer by the Dynasty of Akkad put an end for a time to all thoughts of independence on the part of separate cities, although the expedition against Erech and Naksu, which occurred in the patesiate of Lugal-ushumgal, supports the tradition of a revolt of all the lands in the latter part of Sargon's reign. Ur would doubtless have been ready to lend assistance to such a movement, and we may imagine that she was not slow to take advantage of the gradual weakening of Akkad under her later rulers. At a time when Gudea was marching across the Elamite border, or sending unchecked for his supplies to the Mediterranean coast or the islands of the Persian Gulf, Ur was doubtless organizing her own forces, and may possibly have already made tentative efforts at forming a coalition of neighbouring states. She only needed an energetic leader, and this she found in Ur-Engur, who succeeded in uniting the scattered energies of Sumer and so paved the way for the more important victories of his son.

That Ur-Engur was the founder of his dynasty we know definitely from the dynastic chronicle, which was recovered during the American excavations at Nippur.[1] In this document he is given as the first king of the Dynasty of Ur, the text merely stating that he became king and ruled for eighteen years. Unfortunately the[Pg 280] preceding columns of the text are wanting, and we do not know what dynasty was set down in the list as preceding that of Ur, nor is any indication afforded of the circumstances which led to Ur-Engur's accession. From his building-inscriptions that have been recovered on different sites in Southern Babylonia[2] it is possible, however, to gather some idea of his achievements and the extent of his authority. After securing the throne he appears to have directed his attention to putting the affairs of Ur in order. In two of his brick-inscriptions from Mukayyar, Ur-Engur bears the single title "king of Ur," and these may therefore be assigned to the beginning of his reign, when his kingdom did not extend beyond the limits of his native city. These texts record the rebuilding of the temple of Nannar, the Moon-god, and the repair and extension of the city-wall of Ur.[3] His work on the temple of the city-god no doubt won for him the support of the priesthood, and so strengthened his hold upon the throne; while, by rebuilding and adding to the fortifications of Ur, he secured his city against attack before he embarked upon a policy of expansion.

first city over which he extended his authority was Erech. It would necessarily have been his first objective, for by its position it would have blocked any northward advance. The importance attached by Ur-Engur to the occupation of this city is reflected in the title "Lord of Erech," which precedes his usual titles upon bricks from the temple of the Moon-god at Ur, dating from a later period of his reign; his assumption of the title indicates that Erech was closely associated with Ur, though not on a footing of equality. That he should have rebuilt E-anna, the great temple of Ninni in Erech, as we learn from bricks found at Warka, was a natural consequence of its acquisition, for by so doing he exercised his privilege as suzerain. But he honoured the city above others which he acquired, by installing his own son there as high priest of the goddess Ninni,[Pg 281] an event which gave its official title to one of the years of his reign. We have definite evidence that he also held the neighbouring city of Larsa, for bricks have been found at Senkera, which record his rebuilding of the temple of Babbar, the Sun-god. With the acquisition of Lagash, he was doubtless strong enough to obtain the recognition of his authority throughout the whole of Sumer.

The only other city, in which direct evidence has been found of Ur-Engur's building activity, is Nippur.  he rebuilt E-kur, Enlil's great temple, and also that of Ninlil, his spouse. It was doubtless on the strength of his holding Nippur that he assumed the title of King of Sumer and Akkad. How far his authority was recognized in Akkad it is impossible to say, but the necessity for the conquest of Babylon in Dungi's reign would seem to imply that Ur-Engur's suzerainty over at least a part of the country was more or less nominal. Khashkhamer, patesi of Ishkun-Sin, whose seal is now preserved in the British Museum,[4] was his subject, and the Semitic character of the name of his city suggests that it lay in Northern Babylonia. Moreover, certain tablets drawn up in his reign are dated in "the year in which King Ur-Engur took his way from the lower to the upper country," a phrase that may possibly imply a military expedition in the north. Thus some portions of Akkad may have been effectively held by Ur-Engur, but it is certain that the complete subjugation of the country was only effected during Dungi's reign.

n the reign of Dungi, who succeeded his father upon the throne and inherited from him the kingdom of Sumer and Akkad, the whole of Northern Babylonia was brought to acknowledge the suzerainty of Ur. Considerable light has been thrown upon Dungi's policy, and indirectly upon that of the whole of Ur-Engur's dynasty, by the recently published chronicle concerning early Babylonian kings, to which reference has already been made. The earlier sections of this document, dealing with the reigns of Sargon and Narâm-Sin, are followed by a short account of Dungi's reign, from which we learn two facts of considerable significance.[5] The first of these is that Dungi "cared greatly for the city of Eridu, which was on the shore of the sea," and the second is that "he sought after evil, and the treasure of E-sagila and of Babylon he brought out as spoil." It will be noted that the writer of the chronicle, who was probably a priest in the temple of E-sagila, disapproved of his treatment of Babylon, in consequence of which he states that Bêl (i.e. Marduk) made an end of him. In view of the fact that Dungi reigned for no less than fifty-eight years and consolidated an extensive empire, it is not improbable that the evil fate ascribed to him in the chronicle was suggested by Babylonian prejudice. But the Babylonian colouring of the narrative does not affect the historical value of the other traditions, but rather enhances them. For it is obvious that the disaster to the city and to E-sagila was not an invention, and must, on the contrary, have been of some magnitude for its record to have been preserved in Babylon itself through later generations.

In Dungi's treatment of Babylon, and in his profanation of the temple of its city-god, we have striking proof that the rise of the Dynasty of Ur was accompanied by a religious as well as a political revolution. Late tradition retained the memory of Sargon's building activity in Babylon, and under his successors upon the throne of Akkad the great temple of E-sagila may well have become the most important shrine in Northern Babylonia and the centre of Semitic worship. Eridu, on the other hand, was situated in the extreme south of Sumer and contained the oldest and most venerated temple of the Sumerians. Dungi's care for the latter city to the detriment of Babylon, emphasized by contrast in the late records of his reign, suggests that he aimed at a complete reversal of the conditions which had prevailed during the preceding age. The time was ripe for a Sumerian reaction, and Ur-Engur's initial success in welding the southern cities into a confederation of states under his own suzerainty may be traced to the beginning of this racial movement. Dungi continued and extended his father's policy, and his sack of Babylon may probably be regarded as the decisive blow in the struggle, which had been taking place against the last centres of Semitic influence in the north.

 Elam under Dungi's administration formed a rich source of supply for those material products, in the lavish display of which the later rulers of Sumer loved to indulge. Her quarries, mines, and forests were laid under contribution, and her cities were despoiled of their accumulated wealth in the course of the numerous military expeditions by which her provinces were overrun. From the spoil of his campaigns Dungi was enabled to enrich the temples of his own land, and by appropriating the products of the country he obtained an abundance of metal, stone and wood for the construction and adornment of his buildings. Large bodies of public slaves supplied the necessary labour, and their ranks were constantly recruited from among the captives taken in battle, and from towns and villages which were suspected of participation in revolts. He was thus enabled to continue, on an even more elaborate scale, the rebuilding of the [Pg 293]ancient temples of his country, which had been inaugurated by his father, Ur-Engur

01-04 Antediluvian Kings

http://www.greatdreams.com/chronology-of-kings.htm
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Adapa (attested before 1500 B.C.),


ppears in the reign of A-lulim, the first antediluvian king in the form of a man clothed to resemble a fish. He is the first of the apkallu (= AB.GAL in Sumerian), i.e. the seven sages sent by Ea to civilize human beings.


the event of the Flood and served as inspiration for the Bible. Between the appearance of Uanna-Oannes and the Flood episode there reigned some dozen kings according to the temple records of Nippur, the religious capital of Sumer

he Isin Dynasty (ca. 2000 B.C.)

The chronology of Mesopotamian kings, the earliest of them being mythical figures, extends from the earliest times up to the 18th century B.C.

1 - Eridu	A-lulim	28.800 years = 8 saroi
2 - Eridu	Alalgar	36.000 years = 10 saroi
3 - Bad-tibira	En-men-lu-Anna	43.200 years = 12 saroi
4 - Bad-tibira	En-men-gal-Anna	28.800 years = 8 saroi
5 - Bad-tibira	Dumu-zi	36.000 years = 10 saroi
6 - Larak	En-sipa-zi-Anna	28.800 years = 8 saroi
7 - Sippar	En-men-dur-Anna	21.000 years = 5,833 saroi
8 - Shuruppak	Ubar-Tutu	18.600 years = 5,166 saroi

All the numbers are divisible by 3600, with the exception of the last two, which are divisible globally. Hence the last two antediluvian kings are said to have reigned for eleven periods. In total, five cities were governed by eight kings during 67 saroi, or periods of reign.

The List of Berossus (ca. 747 B.C.)

1 - Babylone	Alôros (Aloros) = 1 A-lulim	36.000 years = 10 saroi
2 - Babylone	Alaparos = 2 Alalgar	10.800 years = 3 saroi
3 - Pautibiblon	Amêlôn (Amelon) = 3 En-men-lu-Anna	46.800 years = 13 saroi
4 - Pautibiblon	Ammenôn (Ammenon) = 4 En-men-gal-Anna	43.200 years = 12 saroi
5 - Pautibiblon	Megalaros (Amegalaros)	64.800 years = 18 saroi
6 - Pautibiblon	Daônos ou Daôs (Daonos) = 5 Dumu-zi	36.000 years = 10 saroi
7 - Pautibiblon	Euedôrachos (Euedorachos) = 7 En-men-dur-Anna	64.800 years = 18 saroi
8 - Larak	Amempsinos = 6 En-sipa-zi-Anna	36.000 years = 10 saroi
9 - Larak	Opartes (Otiartes) = 8 Ubar-Tutu	28.800 years = 8 saroi
10 - Shuruppak	Xisouthros	64.800 years = 18 saroi

Sumerian King List In the Biblical account, there were ten patriarchs between Adam and Noah, who also lived long lives. Noah was 600 years old at the time of the landing of the Ark on the mountains of Ararat (in present day Turkey). The total years add up to 1,656. Dates in Genesis Antediluvian Patriarch Age wen Begging Son Age at Time of Death Adam (Gen 5:3-5) 130 930 Seth (Gen 5:6-8) 105 912 Enosh (Gen 5:911) 90 905 Kenon (Gen 5:12-14) 70 910 Mahalalel (Gen 5:15-17) 65 895 Jared (Gen 5:18-20) 162 962 Enoch (Gen 5:21-24) 65 365 Methuselah (Gen 5:25-27) 187 969 Lamech (Gen 5:28-31) 182 767 Noah (Gen 7:6) 600 when Flood came Total years until Flood = 1,656 In 1,656 years, there are 86,400 weeks, and half that number is 43,200. There are myths about cycles in time, and out of time, so this doubling/halving is not uncommon. He believed that someone carefully gave the age of Noah to secretly hide the time cycle number. Translation After the kingship descended from heaven, the kingship was in Eridu. In Eridu, Alulim became king; he ruled for 28,800 years. Alalgar ruled for 36,000 years. Two kings; they ruled for 64800 years. Then Eridu fell and the kingship was taken to Bad-tibira. In Bad-tibira, Enmen-lu-ana ruled for 43,200 years. Enmen-gal-ana ruled for 28,800 years. The divine Dumuzi, the shepherd, ruled for 36,000 years. Three kings; they ruled for 108,000 years. Then Bad-tibira fell and the kingship was taken to Larak. In Larak, En-sipad-zid-ana ruled for 28,800 years. One king; he ruled for 28,800 years. Then Larak fell and the kingship was taken to Sippar. In Sippar, Enmen-dur-ana became king; he ruled for 21,000 years. One king; he ruled for 21000 years. Then Sippar fell and the kingship was taken to Šuruppak. In Šuruppak, Ubara-Tutu became king; he ruled for 18,600 years. One king; he ruled for 18,600 years. Five cities; eight kings ruled for 385,200sic years. Then the Flood swept over. After the Flood had swept over, and the kingship had descended from heaven, the kingship was in Kiš. In Kiš, Gišur became king; he ruled for 1,200 years. Kullassina-bêl ruled for 900 years. Nan-GIŠ-lišma ruled for 1,200 years. En-dara-ana ruled for 420 years, 3 months, and 3½ days. Babum ruled for 300 years. Pu'annum ruled for 840 years. Kalibum ruled for 900 years. Kalumum ruled for 840 years. Zuqaqip ruled for 900 years. Atab ruled for 600 years. Mašda, son of Atab, ruled for 840 years. Arwi'um, son of Mašda, ruled for 720 years. Etana, the shepherd, who ascended to heaven and put all countries in order, became king; he ruled for 1,500 years. Balih, son of Etana, ruled for 400 years. Enme-nuna ruled for 660 years. Melem-Kiš, son of Enme-nuna, ruled for 900 years. Barsal-nuna, son of Enme-nuna, ruled for 1,200 years. Samug, son of Barsal-nuna, ruled for 140 years. Tizkar, son of Samug, ruled for 305 years. Ilku'u ruled for 900 years. Ilta-sadum ruled for 1200 years. Enmen-baragesi, who destroyed Elam's weapons, became king; he ruled for 900 years. Agga, son of Enmen-baragesi, ruled for 625 years. Twenty-three kings ruled for 23,310 years, 3 months, and 3 1/2 days. Then Kiš was defeated and the kingship was taken to Eanna. In Eanna, Meš-ki'ag-gašer, son of Utu, became lord and king; he ruled for 324 years. Meš-ki'ag-gašer entered the sea and disappeared. Enmekar, son of Meš-ki'ag-gašer, the king of Uruk, who built Uruk, became king; he ruled for 420 years. The divine Lugal-banda, the shepherd, ruled for 1200 years. The divine Dumuzi, the fisherman, whose city was Ku'ara, ruled for 100. Gilgameš, whose father was an invisible being, the lord of Kulaba, ruled for 126 years. Ur-Nungal, son of the divine Gilgameš, ruled for 30 years. Udul-kalama, son of Ur-Nungal, ruled for 15 years. La-bašer ruled for 9 years. Ennun-dara-ana ruled for 8 years. Mešhe, the smith, ruled for 36 years. Melem-ana ruled for 6 years. Lugal-ki-GIN ruled for 36 years. Twelve kings ruled for 2310 years. Then Uruk was defeated and the kingship was taken to Ur. In Ur, Mes-ane-pada became king; he ruled for 80 years. Meš-ki'ag-Nuna, son of Mes-ane-pada, became king; he ruled for 36 year. Elulu ruled for 25 years. Balulu ruled for 36 years. (mss. L1+N1, P2+L2 have:) Four kings ruled for 177 years. Then Ur was defeated and the kingship was taken to Awan. In Awan, [...] became king; he ruled for [...] years. [...]-Lu ruled for [...] years. Kul[...] ruled for 36 years. Three kings ruled for 356 years. Then Awan was defeated and the kingship was taken to Kiš. In Kiš, Su-suda, the fuller, became king; he ruled for 200+N years. Dadase ruled for 81 years. Mamagal, the boatman, ruled for 240+N years. Kalbum, son of Mamagal, ruled for 195 years. TUG ruled for 360 years. Men-nuna ruled for 180 years. Enbi-Ištar ruled for 290 years. Lugalgu ruled for 360 years. Eight kings they ruled for 3195sic years. Then Kiš was defeated and the kingship was taken to Hamazi. In Hamazi, Hataniš became king; he ruled for 360 years. One king ruled for 360 years. Then Hamazi was defeated and the kingship was taken to Uruk. In Uruk, En-šakuš-ana became king; he ruled for 60 years. Lugal-ure ruled for 120 years. Argandea ruled for 7 years. Three kings ruled for 187 years. Then Uruk was defeated and the kingship was taken to Ur. In Ur, Nanne became king; he ruled for 54+N years. Mes-ki'ag-Nanna, son of Nanne, ruled for 48 years. [...], the son of [...], ruled for 2 years. Three kings ruled for [...] years. Then Ur was defeated and the kingship was taken to Adab. In Adab, Lugal-ane-mundu became king; he ruled for 90 years. One king ruled for 90 years. Then Adab was defeated and the kingship was taken to Mari. In Mari, Anubu became king; he ruled for 30 years. Anba, son of Anubu, ruled for 17 years. Bazi, the leather worker, ruled for 30 years. Zizi, the fuller, ruled for 20 years. Lim-er, the pašišu-priest, ruled for 30 years. Šarrum-iter ruled for 9 years. Six kings ruled for 136 years. Then Mari was defeated and the kingship was taken to Kiš. In Kiš, Ku-Baba, the woman tavern-keeper, who made firm the foundations of Kiš, became king; she ruled for 100 years. One queen ruled for 100 years. Then Kiš was defeated and the kingship was taken to Akšak. In Akšak, Unzi became king; he ruled for 30 years. Undalulu ruled for 6 years. Urur ruled for 6 years. Puzur-Nirah ruled for 20 years. Išu-Il ruled for 24 years. Šu-Sin, son of Išu-Il, ruled for 7 years. Six kings ruled for 93 years. Then Akšak was defeated and the kingship was taken to Kiš. In Kiš, Puzur-Sin, son of Ku-Baba, became king; he ruled for 25 years. Ur-Zababa, son of Puzur-Sin, ruled for 400. Simudara ruled for 30 years. Usi-watar ruled for 7 years. Ištar-muti ruled for 11 years. Išme-Šamaš ruled for 11 years. Nanniya, the stonecutter, ruled for 7 years. Seven kings ruled for 491 years. Then Kiš was defeated and the kingship was taken to Uruk. In Uruk, Lugalzagesi became king; he ruled for 25 years. (2341-2316) One king ruled for 25 years. Then Uruk was defeated and the kingship was taken to Agade. In Agade, Sargon, whose father was a gardener, the cupbearer of Ur-Zababa, became king, the king of Agade, who built Agade; he ruled for 56 years. (2335-2279) Rimuš, son of Sargon, ruled for 9 years. (2279-2270) Maništušu, the older brother of Rimuš, son of Sargon, ruled for 15 years.(2270-2255) Naram-Sin, son of Maništušu, ruled for 56 years. (2255-2218) Šar-kali-šarri, son of Naram-Sin, ruled for 25 years. (2218-2193) Then who was king? Who was not king? Irgigi was king, Nanum was king, Imi was king, Elulu was king; those four kings ruled 3 years. (2193-2190) Dudu ruled for 21 years. (2190-2169) Šu-Durul, son of Dudu, ruled for 15 years. (2169-2154) Eleven kings ruled for 181 years. Then Agade was defeated and the kingship was taken to Uruk. In Uruk, Ur-nigin became king; he ruled for 7 years. (2154-2147) Ur-gigir, son of Ur-nigin, ruled for 6 years. (2147-2141) Kuda ruled for 6 years. (2141-2135) Puzur-ili ruled for 5 years. (2135-2130) Ur-Utu ruled for 6 years. (2130-2124) Five kings ruled for 30 years. Uruk was defeated and the kingship was taken to the army of Gutium. The army of Gutium, a king whose name is unknown. Nibia became king; he ruled for 3 years. Then Ingišu ruled for 6 years. Ikukum-la-qaba ruled for 6 years. Šulme ruled for 6 years. Silulumeš ruled for 6 years. Inimabakeš ruled for 5 years. Ige'a'uš ruled for 6 years. I'ar-la-qaba ruled for years. Ibate ruled for 3 years. Yarla ruled for 3 years. Kurum ruled for 1 year. Apil-kin ruled for 3 years. La'arabum ruled for 2 years. Irarum ruled for 2 years. Ibranum ruled for 1 year. Hablum ruled for 2 years. Puzur-Sin, son of Hablum, ruled for 7 years. Yarlaganda ruled for 7 years Si'u ruled for 7 years. Tiriga ruled for 40 days. Twenty-one kings ruled for 91 years and 40 days. Then the army of Gutium was defeated and the kingship was taken to Uruk. In Uruk, Utu-hegal became king; he ruled for 420 years and 7 days. (2124-2113) One king ruled for 427 years and 6sic days. Then Uruk was defeated and the kingship was taken to Ur. In Ur, Ur-Nammu became king; he ruled for 18 years. (2113-2095) Šulgi, son of Ur-Nammu, ruled for 46 years. (2095-2047) Amar-Sin, son of Šulgi, ruled for 9 years. (2047-2038) Šu-Sin, son of Amar-Sin, ruled for 9 years. (2038-2029) Ibbi-Sin, son of Šu-Sin, ruled for 24 years. (2029-2004) Foursic kings ruled for 108sic years. Then Ur was defeated. The kingship was taken to Isin. In Isin, Išbi-Irra became king; he ruled for 33 years. (2018-1985) The divine Šu-ilišu, son of Išbi-Irra, ruled for 20 years. (1985-1975) Iddin-Dagan, son of Šu-ilišu, ruled for 21 years. (1975-1954) Išme-Dagan, son of Iddin-Dagan, ruled for 20 years. (1954-1935) Lipit-Ištar, son of Išme-Dagan, ruled for 11 years. (1935-1924) The divine Ur-Ninurta ruled for 28 years. (1924-1896) Bur-Sin, son of Ur-Ninurta, ruled for 21 years. (1896-1874) Lipit-Enlil, son of Bur-Sin, ruled for 5 years. (1864-1869) The divine Irra-imitti ruled for 8 years. (1869-1861) The divine Enlil-bani ruled for 24 years. (1861-1837) The divine Zambija ruled for 3 years. (1837-1834) The divine Iter-piša ruled for 4 years. (1834-1831) Urdukuga ruled for 4 years. (1831-1828) Sin-magir ruled for 11 years. (1828-1817) Damiq-ilišu, son of Sin-magir, ruled for 23 years. (1817-1794) Thirteensic kings ruled for 213 years. ------------------------------------------ Hand of Nur-Ninšubur. After this, tablet B, from Nippur, adds some totals: A total of thirty-nine kings ruled for 14409+N years, 3 months and 3½ days; four dynasties in Kiš. A total of twenty-two kings ruled for 2610+N years, 6 months and 15 days; five dynasties in Uruk. A total of twelve kings ruled for 396 years, 3 dynasties in Ur. A total of three kings ruled for 356 years; one dynasty in Awan. A total of one king ruled for 420 years; one dynasty in Hamazi. A total of one king ruled for 90 years; one dynasty in Adab. A total of six kings ruled for 136 years; one dynasty in Mari. A total of six kings ruled for 99 years; one dynasty in Akšak. A total of eleven kings ruled for 197 years; one dynasty in Agade. A total of twenty-one kings ruled for 125 years and 40 days; one dynasty in Gutium. A total of eleven kings ruled for 159 years; one dynasty in Isin. ------------------------------------------ Eleven royal cities. Their total: 134 kings. Total: 28,876+N years, N months, N days. A tablet from Nippur (CM 2) is an addition to the Sumerian King List. It is too damaged to make sense of it.

01-05 he Royal Line of Cain

http://www.halexandria.org/dward915.htm
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Generations 8 - 12

The Royal Line of Cain

One of the problems of constructing genealogical charts is the proliferation of spreading branches as one progresses into the older generations. In other words, building up a family tree from the bottom up -- often the only way for those without the pedigree that their ancestors constantly wore -- is that each earlier generation will have roughly twice the number of noteworthy characters. For example, one might have only two parents, but one is also likely to have four grandparents, eight great grandparents, and... by this logic... two to the power of the number of generations one is investigating. Obviously, however, two to the power of oh say... 150... is not a number that exists (because of its immense size). It's also a bear for anyone trying to chart the process on a single piece of paper. (Trust me on this one!) In either case, clearly there is something wrong here. The population of the royal folk simply don't amount to 2 to most any higher power.

Simultaneously there is also the problem of spreading roots as one progresses into the younger generations -- same inescapable numbers, albeit in this case, the number of children in any given generation can range from one (else there would be NO descendants) to as many as 18 (yes, there is a specific example coming up) to many, many more (in the case of kings with progeny in the hundreds). Still, even here the numbers can be daunting.

Unless, of course, there are intramarriages rampant among the ancestors... such that instead of having eight great grandparents, one only has five, because several of them married each other. And in fact, the good news for the royalty crowd is that their intense program of intramarriage among sisters, brothers, half-siblings, nieces, grandchildren, uncles and aunts, pets, and so forth... keeps the ancestral crowd at the top enormously more manageable (and chartable upon tables... such as Figure 1 below... particularly the line from Kalimath and Seth -- Men are in bold, women inbold italic).

That's one problem solved. Still, with royal succession being so important, we often encounter the second problem of genealogical construction: that of having to occasionally follow more than one line of descent. There is, in effect, more than one way to begat a future generation of kings and queens. The first example of this is the need to trace the different lines of Cain and his half-brother, Seth. There are undoubtedly a host of other lines of descent as well... all happily begatting along in rough parallel... but these we will have to forego to some degree (if only for a lack of direct evidence of assumed inheritances).

For the moment, we will follow the Cain line of descent (as is protocol for the senior line of royal descent). Seth, we will endeavor to follow, a bit later. Figure 1 shows both... in rough parallel. One might also note that Figure 1 is comparatively simple... being without multiple crossovers and marriages between lines. Enjoy the moment, inasmuch as it will be getting a bit more complicated... very quickly. <grin>)

Figure 1: The Royal lines of Descent from Cain and Seth

Generation No. 8

1. Enoch (Henokh) [8] Cain (=Luluwa-Lilith) [7] Enki and Eve [6] Enki and Nin-khursag [5] Anu and Antu (OR Anu and Ki) [4] Anshar and Kishar [3] Lahmu and Lahamu [2] Tiamat and Absu [1]

Note: The above description of Enoch’s heritage is standard genealogical practice when attempting to trace the route from one specific individual to another one. But in those cases where there are numerous individuals of note in the intervening generations, it is sometimes profitable to recognize alternative lines of descent. In Enoch’s case, for example, there is the following, alternate route from Tiamat to Enoch, with other notable descendants being highlighted:

Enoch (Henokh) [10] Luluwa-Lilith (=Cain) [9] Enki and Lilith [8] Nergal and Ereshkigal [7] Nanna [6] Enlil [5] Anu and Ki [4] Anshar and Kishar [3] Lahmu and Lahamu [2] Tiamat and Absu [1]

Obviously, Enki shows up in both of the variations... not only by virtue of his being prominent in each of the two royal lines, but also by his being one of the last two Anunnaki to impart his genetic heritage to the Homo sapiens who follow him (at least for the moment). The other Anunnaki is Lilith, who contributes to Luluwa’s/Enoch’s and Seth’s/Enos’ line). A curious feature of this fact is that Enki and Lilith are easily the most notorious of the Anunnaki in terms of being sexually prolific, independent, and authority questioners at the drop of a crown. One might wonder if these are the genetic characteristics that their descendants relish and enjoy on a daily basis

Also, Figure 1 above lays out three important lines of royal descent (but only two of which will be followed in any great detail). The line from Cain and Luluwa to Etana and his descendants are the basis of the Kings of Kish. This is the first Mesopotamian kingdom following the Flood, but likely contributes genetically to the other kingdoms (from Ur to Uruk, to Lagash, and so forth). While there are definitive Sumerian King Lists, the genetic structure is in general wholly clear... especially when the various city states create their own kingdoms, and thus they may be including genetically different royalty. (See also, Etana, below.)

In the end, however, as is alluded to in the Figure 2. Sumerians King List (following the notes on Etana), the various kingdoms of Sumerian (and pre-Babylonian) do maintain royal lines, and importantly are destined to contribute genetically to the Cain and Seth ultimate lines, the ones leading inevitably to King David. Note, for example, Lamech’s designation as “King of Ur”.

Of the second royal line, the one from Cain and Luluwa’s son, Enoch, much of our knowledge comes from sources other than the Bible. For example: “The Lord had punished Cain by condemning him to wander the earth, but when the curse of the Lord was lifted, Cain was allowed to build a city, which he also called Enoch, after his son. (Jasher 1:34-36)”

According to Laurence Gardner, Genesis of the Grail Kings, "Enoch, son of Cain, after whom Cain named the first city he founded, is not the same as Enoch, son of Jared (Genesis 5:18). The second Enoch in the Book of Jasher was a descendant of the first, and descended from Seth as well as from Cain. (Jasher 2:37) This later Enoch was the father of Methuselah, and was reputed to be so wise that a hundred and thirty kings and princes 'required of Enoch that he reign over them, to which he consented.' (Jasher 3:9) The Harvard Book of Jasher relates that the year Adam died, Enoch decided to live apart from other people. He appeared once a week, then once a month, then once a year, teaching his subjects about the ways of God. When it came time for his ascension into Heaven, he did not die.

"Instead, a horse descended from Heaven, paced in the air, and for seven days Enoch rode the horse. On the seventh day, Enoch and the horse were taken up into heaven in a whirlwind, with other horses and chariots of fire. (Jasher 3:17-36) Enoch inherited the garments of skin that God had made for Adam and Eve when they were banished from Eden. Before he was taken up to heaven, he gave the skin garments to his son, Methuselah, who in turn gave them to Methuselah's grandson, Noah, so that they would be kept safe from the flood.(Jasher 7:25)."

The apparently dual nature of Enoch, appearing in both the Cain and Seth lines (as just mentioned by Gardner) points also to the fact that many of the Cain line descendants have equivalent names to the Seth line (see Figure 1). Because of this, many scholars (including those from Hebrew University... who might have something of a vested interest in the subject) have begun to suspect that the Seth line as given in the Bible is quite possibly fictitious... or at least partially. This fictional nature includes assigning to Noah the bit about the Great Flood... which by our reckoning occurredbefore the time of Adam. The implication is that the story of the Flood was added to the story of Noah, with Noah playing the part of the Sumerian Ziasudra. Inasmuch as there is such an enormous amount of intramarriages of brothers, sisters, and so forth, the Enoch and Enos lines of descent may be even more conjoined than generally assumed. In fact, the reason for a separate Seth line may simply be an attempt by the authors to insert some distance from their hero, Seth, and a Cain who had raised cain by murdering his brother Abel. Stranger things have indeed happened when it comes to pleasing or attempting to please a very angry, dysfunctional god.

2. Etana (King of Kish) [8] Cain (=Luluwa-Lilith) [7] Enki and Eve [6] Enki and Nin-khursag [5] Anu and Antu (OR Anu and Ki) [4] Anshar and Kishar [3] Lahmu and Lahamu [2] Tiamat and Absu [1]

Etana is not part of the particular line of descent we will be following in these annals. However, he may very well be a direct ancient ancestor via the Kings of Kish and the other City-States of Sumer (Ur, Uruk, Akkad, et al). It is important to note that the earliest Kingships moved from city to city, alluded to already in the listing of the Antediluvian Kings of Sumer (Figure 1 of The Adam's Family). And while, the transfer of kingship from one City-State to another was likely accompanied by various forms of warfare, conquest, and so forth, the fact remains that the consolidation of new power in any particular city was almost always accompanied by inter-City marriages in order to legitimize the new king.

Furthermore, and very importantly, in this particular line of descendants, even if they failed to provide us the records that recorded just who begat who, we can assume that the descendants of Cain included those shown in Figure 2. Accordingly, we will be returning to this particular branch of the family, when we discuss the reconnection of the Etana line of descent with that of the Seth line (the sixth generation following Noah). (Note: the 1st Dynasty of Uruk followed the 1st Dynasty of Kish, which included in order: Etana, Balih, En-men-nunna, Melam-kish, and Bar-sal-nunna.

Figure 2. Sumerian King List (partial)

We will return to this Figure 2 in roughly the 21st generation (Seth line). For the moment, we will concentrate upon only the titular head of the Sumerian Kings: Etana (Atun).

According to Laurence Gardner, Genesis of the Grail Kings (pages 132-133), "Cain's wife was Luluwa-Lilith, the daughter of Lilith of the Netherworld, heiress to the matriarchal Malku (the Kingship of the Kingdom) [and the origin of the Malkuth (Kingdom) found in the Qabalistic Tree of Life]. She was of pure-bred Anunnaki stock and their sons [Cain and Luluwa's]... were Atun and Henokh. As a result, their Anunnaki blood was further heightened. Atun succeeded his father as king in Kish (c. 3,500 BCE). He is detailed in the Sumerian annals as King Etana, the shepherd who descended to Heaven and partook of the 'Plant of Birth' in order to father his own son and heirKing Balih. The other son, Henokh, is better known to us from the Bible as Enoch.

"The Plant of Birth was synonymous with the Tree of Life... which was directly associated with longevity and the office of kingship. It was also related to Star Fire and pineal-gland activity. Thus partaking of the Plant of Birth was the equivalent to taking the extract of Star Fire." "This was the potent Star Fire of Heaven, the pure Anunnaki female essence, the 'nectar of supreme excellence' called the Gra-al (later the Graal or Grail). In this regard, the goddess was held to be the 'cup-bearer', the transmitter of the power of the Anunnaki. She was also called the 'Rose of Sharon' (fromsha, meaning 'orbit' and from On relating to the Light -- or in Egypt to the Heliopolis temple-city of Annu and Ra, called the 'House of the Sun' (hence, Sha-Ra-On)." "The flower (flow-er) was identified as a lily and these two descriptions come together in the Bible's highly esoteric Song of Solomon, wherein the Messianic bride states, 'I am the Rose of Sharon and the lily of the valleys.'"

It should also become clear that the highly esoteric Jewish Qabala (Kabbalah) and all of its derivatives derived themselves from the earliest Sumerian teachings and royal families. The fact that the 'lowest' earth-bound state of the Malkuth appears to be appropriate for the King of Sumerian Kings... hints at the far greater levels in the Tree of Life. We've only just begun, baby!

Generation No. 9

Irad (Yarad/Jarad) [9] Enoch (=Edna?) [8] Cain (=Luluwa) [7] Enki and Eve [6] Enki and Nin-khursag [5] Anu and Antu (OR Anu and Ki) [4] Anshar and Kishar [3] Lahmu and Lahamu [2] Tiamat and Absu [1]

Irad was the son of Enoch in the biblical account of the descendants of Cain (Genesis 4:18). He is mentioned also in relation to Seth’s descendant, Jared. (This is shown in Figure 1... as well as the similar use of names in the two competing royal lines!)

Generation No. 10

Mehujael [10] Irad (=Baraka?) [9] Enoch (=Edna?) [8] Cain (=Luluwa) [7] Enki and Eve [6] Enki and Nin-khursag [5] Anu and Antu (OR Anu and Ki) [4] Anshar and Kishar [3] Lahmu and Lahamu [2] Tiamat and Absu [1]

Mehujael was a descendant of Cain, the son of Irad and the father of Methusael (Genesis 4:18).

Generation No. 11

Methusael [11] Mehujael (=?) [10] Irad (=Baraka?) [9] Enoch (=Edna?) [8] Cain (=Luluwa) [7] Enki and Eve [6] Enki and Nin-khursag [5] Anu and Antu (OR Anu and Ki) [4] Anshar and Kishar [3] Lahmu and Lahamu [2] Tiamat and Absu [1]

Methusael was a descendant of Cain, the son of Mehujael and father of Lamech (Genesis 4:18).

Generation No. 12

Lamech (Amalek, AKALEM-DUG) [12] Methusael (=Edna?) [11] Mehujael (=?) [10] Irad (=Baraka?) [9] Enoch (=Edna?) [8] Cain (=Luluwa) [7] Enki and Eve [6] Enki and Nin-khursag [5] Anu and Antu (OR Ki) [4] Anshar and Kishar [3] Lahmu / Lahamu [2] Tiamat / Absu [1]

married

1) Adah (Ada)
2) Zillah (Tselah)

Children

by Adah

Yohal (Jubal)
Jabel, Patriarch of Assyrian Khorsahad kings

by Zillah

Nin-banda
Tubal-Cain, King of Ur (Mes-Kalam-dug)
Na'amah, a daughter (who may have married Noah)

[Note, parenthetically, the Jubal, Jabel, Tubal game of musical thrones... or whatever. These Sumerians really knew how to have fun with names.]

Lamech, King of Ur, was the name of two men in the genealogies of Adam in the Book of Genesis. One is the sixth generation descendant of Cain (Genesis 4:18); his father was named Methusael and he was responsible for the "Song of the Sword." He is also noted as the first polygamist mentioned in the Bible, taking two wives, Ada and Tselah. ["Mentioned in the Bible" as opposed to most everyone getting it on with most everyone else in accordance with the Anunnaki family traditions.]

The “other” Lamech is allegedly an eighth generation descendant of Seth (Genesis 5:25), the latter also the son of Methuselah, grandson of a second “Enoch”, and was, in this “Seth assumption”, the father of Noah (Genesis 5:29).

However... it would appear much more likely that Lamech was Noah’s father-in-law (instead of his father), the in-law bit being accomplished by Noah’s marriage to Na'amah. In fact, because of the similarities between the two lines, some critical scholarship regards both Lamechs as one and the same individual. Many more conservative scholars see no reason to confuse the two. One tradition specifically indicates that Na'amah, the daughter of Tselah and Lamech, son of Methushael, was the wife of Noah, the son of the other Lamech (son of Methuselah). [Obviously, in whichever case one follows... Incest is best.]

Sandwiched between two genealogical lines, the Biblical passage describing Lamech, son of Methushael, descendant of Cain and his children is fairly substantive:

"Then Lamech took for himself two wives: the name of one was Adah, and the name of the second was Zillah. And Adah bore Jabal. He was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. His brother’s name was Jubal. He was the father of all those who play the harp and flute. And as for Zillah, she also bore Tubal-Cain, an instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron. And the sister of Tubal-Cain was Naamah."

Translating the names as well, it is possible (iaw Wikipedia) to read the text of the story of Lamech as:

God's servant took two wives, light and darkness. The light brought forth the shepherd, who was the father of tent-dwellers, and herdsmen, and his brother was the musician, who was the father of harpists and pipers. But the darkness brought forth the blacksmith, the forger of brass, and of iron, and his sister was pleasure.

(Wikipedia:) When fully translated, the text has a strong resemblance simply to a basic mythology concerning the origin of the various forms of civilization, the shepherds and musicians being products of the day, and pleasure being a product of the night. [Obviously, these people have not played Ravel's Bolero at night.] Blacksmiths, in carrying out their trade, are also associated with the darkness. Thus, in a sense, Lamech could be interpreted as a culture hero. Some of the names also appear to demonstrate punning - Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal rhyme, and appear to be derived from the same root - JBL (YVL in modern Hebrew): to bring forth, (also) to carry. A similar description existed amongst Phoenicians.

The names in the Midrash are also interpreted as an attack on polygamy. Adah is thus the deposed one, implying that Lamech spurned her in favor of Zillah, whose own name is understood to mean she shaded herself. The Midrash consequently regards Adah as having been treated as a slave, tyrannized by her husband, and who was at the beck and call of his mistress, Zillah. It further goes on to claim that part of the immorality, which had led God to [pre- ?] flood the earth, was the polygamy practiced by Lamech and his generation.

[In other words, whatever disaster or catastrophe happens, it's always blamed on someone or some culture being immoral, or just insufficiently righteous -- all of which constitutes the epitome of Scapegoatology. The constant moralizing in the Biblical version tends to make the case for the most of the material being created out of thin air (or very thin theology) -- purely for the benefit of making various religious dogmas somehow justifiable. And in the true tradition of such exemplary publications as TheNational Enquirer, where one always starts with a truth (or what is perceived as a truth by most people), and then... speculates... wildly... or as much as necessary to sell whatever one is selling (be it advertising and/or theology). The relevant implication, however, is that the names and places quoted may be well documented and true... but the stories told about them, may be considerably less so... and in fact, the stories (and reasons) are just so much spin, misinformation, or creative journalism for the purposes of control and power.]

Meanwhile, the rabbinical tradition is just as condemning of Na’amah. [There is always in religious circles, a whole lot of condemnation going on... it's what they do.] While a minority of scholars see Na’amah as having become Noah's wife, and being so named because her conduct was pleasing to God, the majority of classical rabbinical sources consider her name to be due to her singingpleasant songs in worship of idols. [And the problem is? "Thou shalt have only one god..."? And why is that? And, by the way, can I pick the god? How about Enki? <grin> Or... better yet... Lilith? Both? And Nin-khursag? A "holy trinity" perhaps? <broad grin>]

Then [allegedly] Lamech said to his wives:

“Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
Wives of Lamech, listen to my speech!
For I have killed a man for wounding me,
Even a young man for hurting me.

If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,
Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”

—Genesis 4:19-24 (NKJV)

The last part of the tale of Lamech (Genesis 4:23-24), takes the form of a brief poem, which refers back to the curse of Cain. In the poem, Lamech's stance resembles that of a supreme warrior, able to avenge himself absolutely. However, no explanation of who Lamech supposedly killed is ever given. Some scholars have proposed that it is connected to the invention, contextually by Tubal-Cain, of the sword, for which reason the poem is often referred to as the Song of the Sword. The poem may originate from the mysterious Book of the Wars of the Lord, though the greater context for it is likely to remain obscure.

However, this paucity of context did not stop a rabbinical tradition growing up around it.[emphasis added... i.e., Just take a bit of truth... and then speculate!] The Talmud and Midrash present an extensive legend in which Lamech first loses his sight from age, and had to be led by Tubal-Cain, the seventh generation from Cain. Tubal-Cain saw in the distance something that he first took for an animal, but it was actually Cain (still alive, due to the extensive life span of the antediluvians). Lamech accidentally killed him with an arrow. When they discovered who it was, Lamech, in sorrow, clapped his hands together, which (for an unclear reason) kills Tubal-Cain. [There are a LOT of unclear reasons in this official legend.] In consequence, Lamech's wives desert him. [Bummer!] A similar legend is preserved in the pseudepigraphic Second Book of Adam and Eve, Chapter XIII; in this version Tubal-Cain is not named, but is instead referred to as "the young shepherd." After Lamech claps his hands he strikes the young shepherd on the head. To ensure his death, he then smashed his head with a rock. [I'm not making this stuff up!]

An alternate form of this negative attitude towards Lamech claims that even though Lamech did not kill anyone, his wives refused to associate with him and denied him sex, [allegedly] on the grounds that Cain's line was to be annihilated after seven generations. [The fact that Lamech was Cain's 5th generation, only goes to show that basic math was not a critical ingredient in training for the young ladies destined to be the king's consorts.] The poem is then given by Lamech to allay their fears. [Call Lamech's poem "a weapon of math instruction."] Other classical sources, such as Josephus, see the word seventy-seven as the number of sons which Lamech eventually had. [Apparently, the wives bought it hook, line, and sinker.]

Extending on this classical view of Lamech is the Book of Moses, regarded in Mormonism as scripture. According to this Latter-day Saint text, Lamech entered into a secret pact with Satan, as had Cain before him, becoming a second Master Mason. When Irad (an ancestor of Lamech) learned his secret and began to publicize it, Lamech murdered him. News of the murder was spread by Lamech's two wives, leading to his being cast out of society. [They're claiming that Freemasons went back as far as Lamech... and already they were in trouble with the media?]

The Adam's Family

Forward to:

Tubal-cain