Sumerian King Research Articles

Some Thoughts on the Sumerian King List and Genesis 5 and 11B

Research Article| March 01 1972 Some Thoughts on the Sumerian King List and Genesis 5 and 11B Thomas C. Hartman Thomas C. Hartman Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Journal of Biblical Literature (1972) 91 (1): 25–32. https://doi.org/10.2307/3262917 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Thomas C. Hartman; Some Thoughts on the Sumerian King List and Genesis 5 and 11B. Journal of Biblical Literature 1 March 1972; 91 (1): 25–32. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/3262917 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectiveSBL PressJournal of Biblical Literature Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright 1972 Society of Biblical Literature1972 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

The Antediluvian Kings: A University of California Tablet

Previous articleNext article No AccessThe Antediluvian Kings: A University of California TabletJ. J. FinkelsteinJ. J. Finkelstein Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Journal of Cuneiform Studies Volume 17, Number 21963 A journal of ASOR Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.2307/1359063 Views: 1Total views on this site Citations: 2Citations are reported from Crossref PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article: James R. Davila The Flood Hero as King and Priest, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 54, no.33 (Oct 2015): 199–214.https://doi.org/10.1086/373756 Dwight W. Young A Mathematical Approach to Certain Dynastic Spans in the Sumerian King List, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 47, no.22 (Oct 2015): 123–129.https://doi.org/10.1086/373263

Beginning and End of the Sumerian King List in the Nippur Recension

Beginning and End of the Sumerian King List in the Nippur Recension

The Date of the Sumerian King List

Previous articleNext article No AccessThe Date of the Sumerian King ListM. B. RowtonM. B. Rowton Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Journal of Near Eastern Studies Volume 19, Number 2Apr., 1960 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/371575 Views: 16Total views on this site Citations: 7Citations are reported from Crossref PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Ercüment YILDIRIM ÇİVİYAZILI METİNLERDEN ANTİK YAZARLARA: BEROSSOS, Amisos (Jun 2022).https://doi.org/10.48122/amisos.1119199Ioannis Liritzis, Alexander Westra, Changhong Miao Disaster Geoarchaeology and Natural Cataclysms in World Cultural Evolution: An Overview, Journal of Coastal Research 35, no.66 (Nov 2019): 1307.https://doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-19-00035.1 Chul-Hyun Bae Divine Kingship in Ancient Mesopotamia, The Journal of Classical Studies null, no.2424 (Jun 2009): 35–66.https://doi.org/10.20975/jcskor.2009..24.35I. E. S. Edwards, C. J. Gadd, N. G. L. Hammond The Cambridge Ancient History, 56 (Mar 2008).https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521077910C. J. Gadd THE CITIES OF BABYLONIA, (Oct 1971): 93–144.https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521077910.004I. E. S. Edwards, C. J. Gadd, N. G. L. Hammond The Cambridge Ancient History, (Mar 2008).https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521070515William C. Hayes, M. B. Rowton, Frank H. Stubbings CHRONOLOGY, (Dec 1970): 173–247.https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521070515.007

The Best Man and Bride-From Sumer to St. John with a New Interpretation of Judges, Chapters 14 and 15

the inheritance which fell to the kings of Isin was therefore the claim to divine worship. It seems, however, that this was more a matter of formalities than a reflection of real greatness. The dynasty of Isin is far from imposing, and Lipit-Ishtar himself was the end of an anticlimax.4 His successor on the throne of Isin began a new dynasty, which did not, however, succeed in strengthening the realm. One may therefore compare the codification by Lipit-Ishtar5 to the reformation by Urukagina. That ancient Sumerian king also tried to add strength to a shaking throne by restoring righteousness and justice ;6 but he too failed, and no enduring results of his effort were seen in the following generations. The difference between Urukagina and Lipit-Ishtar is, however, that, whereas until now no actual trace has been found of the ancient laws of Lagash, the reconstructed Code of Lipit-Ishtar gives us some insight into the methods of Sumerian law-giving. But can C.L. really be considered a piece of Sumerian law? That is a problem which cannot be solved with our present

Gilgamesh and Agga

ROBABLY the most significant piece of creative writing in the ancient Near East is the long known Semitic epic poem commonly called The Epic of Gilgamesh. Divided over twelve tablets, its text originally consisted of more than three thousand lines written in the cuneiform script and in the Semitic language now usually designated as Accadian. It is particularly remarkable for its plot-structure; a number of episodes in the restless, adventurous life of the hero are integrated with no little skill into a relatively long and intricate epic tale, probably the first of such size apd complexity in the history of epic literature. Moreover, this Babylonian product was current all over the ancient Near East; fragments of the epic written in the Accadian, Hittite, and Hurrian languages have been excavated in Boghaz Keui, in central Anatolia. In modern days, quite a number of cuneiformists have devoted much of their time and effort to the copying, translating, and interpreting of the poem; among the better known of these are George Smith and Paul Haupt, Peter Jensen and Campbell Thompson. Now while on the whole the Epic of may be accurately described as a Semitic literary creation, not a little of its contents goes back to sources. Available at present, wholly or in part, are the texts of five epic tales concerned with the deeds and adventures of the hero Gilgamesh; an analysis of their contents reveals that, while there was no original for the Babylonian Epic of as a whole, several of the individual episodes and motifs can be traced back to prototypes.1 However, by no means all of the tales concerned with were utilized by the Semitic authors and redactors of the Epic of Gilgamesh; it is one of these tales, an epic poem of which there is not a trace in the Semitic work, that forms the basis of the present study. This poem, which for reasons that will soon become obvious may be entitled Gilgamesh and Agga, is one of the shortest of all epic tales; it consists of no more than 115 lines of text. In spite of its brevity, however, it is of unusual significance from several points of view. In the first place, its plot deals with humans only; unlike the rest of the epic tales, it introduces no mythological motifs involving any of the deities. Secondly, it is of considerable historical importance since it provides a number of hitherto unknown facts concerning the early struggle between the cities of Kish and Erech. More important still is the implication of these new bits of data for modern historical methodology, for, interestingly enough and quite unintentionally of course, they help the present-day Orientalist to evaluate more intelligently his ancient source material and recognize some of its hidden pitfalls. Thus, one of the most important documents for the reconstruction of the earlier history of Sumer is the so-called Sumerian King List.'2 According to this document, the first dynasty in Lower Mesopotamia immediately following

The Statue of the Sumerian King David

The Statue of the Sumerian King David