mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
UPHOLDING THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE FROM THE VERY FIRST VERSE

The antediluvian patriarchs and the Sumerian king list

by [27]Raúl Erlando López

First published in:
[28]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 60^2.  A simple tally of the ciphers used yields six 10x60^2 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 10^3 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
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, Walton^2 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 BC^3)
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

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.

Sources of King List
Figure 1.  Relation between the sources of the Sumerian King List.

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.  Jacobsen^4 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 Jacobsen^4 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
reigned its 108,000 years.
I drop (the topic) Bad-tibira(k);
its kingship to Larak was carried.
20    (In) Larak En-sipa(d)-zi(d)-Anna(k)
reigned its 28,800 years.
1 king
reigned its 28,800 years.
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
reigned its 21,000 years.
30    I drop (the topic) Sippar;
its kingship to Shuruppak was carried.
(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, Jacobsen^4 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 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
reigned its 64,800 years.
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;
divine Dumu-zi(d), a shepherd, reigned 36,000 years.
3 kings
reigned its 108,000 years.
I drop (the topic) Bad-tibira(k);
(In) Larak En-sipa(d)-zi(d)-Anna(k)
reigned its 28,800 years.
1 king
reigned its 28,800 years.
I drop (the topic) Larak;
(In) Sippar En-men-dur-Anna(k)
reigned 21,000 years.
1 king
reigned its 21,000 years.
I drop (the topic) Sippar;
(In) Shuruppak Ubar-Tutu(k)
reigned 18,600 years.
1 king
reigned its 18,600 years.
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.  Jacobsen^4 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, Jacobsen^4 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 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 List^4 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
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.  Nissen^7 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 Nissen^7 calls `a strict bookkeeping mentality,'
was prevalent throughout the Middle East and is also found in the
Kings List.  [29]Joshua 12:9-24 is an example of its use in the Bible.

Proto-Sumerian Period
Figure 2.  Number symbols used during the Proto-Sumerian and Early
Dynastic Periods (3300-2334 BC).

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.

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 (60^1) 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 (60^2), 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 found^5
where two of the same large bullet 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.

Nissen^7 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).

Akkadian Period
Figure 3.  Number symbols used during the Akkadian Period (2334-2154
BC).

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 60^2 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 (10x60^2) 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
Figure 4.  Number symbols used during the Sumerian Period (2112-2004
BC).

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)

Babylonian Period
Figure 5.  Number symbols used during the Babylonian Period (2004
BC-75 AD).

Up to this time, a positional notation for sexagesimal numbers had not
become established and separate signs were used for 1, 10, 60, 10x60,
60^2, 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 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.

Antediluvian Sumerian reigns
Figure 6.  List of the duration of the Antediluvian Sumerian reigns.

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 (60^2 = 3,600) and the large circle with the small
circle inside (10x60^2 = 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 60^2, and in the last two with a precision of
10x60. Notice that all the numbers taken together yield three 10x60^2
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 60^2 signs would have yielded
three more 10x60^2 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 60^2  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
60^2 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 base (10^2), 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.
Ages of antediluvian biblical patriarchs
Figure 7.  List of the Ages of the Antediluvian biblical Patriarchs.

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 10^3 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 10x60^2, 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 10x60^2), 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 60^2 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
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 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 10x60^2 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 10^3 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 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, 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.  He works as a research meteorologist with
the National Severe Storms Laboratory.  He has published about 50
journal papers and 90 conference papers and technical reports.