Kufale-based Chronology

1596 AM - Tower of Babel is begun.
(Note: R.H. Charles was normally careful to calculate the AM (Anno Mundi) date from Jubilees correctly, but here, for some reason, he has made an error and miscalculated it to 1645 AM, adding an extra Jubilee when he should not have.)

Neither Genesis nor Jubilees ascribes this feat to the character of Nimrod, but plenty of other ancient texts do; the account by Josephus is typical.

I am convinced that "Nimrod" is the same king as the Enmerkar of Sumerian texts, who built a ziggurat in Eridu (the original 'Babel'.) He was also remembered in some histories as Euechoios, Euechoros, etc.

When the new city of Babel was built by Sargon the Great much later, they took Marduk as their patron deity, possibly a remembrance of the same name. This suggests a possibility that while the king's Sumerian name is transcribed as Enmerkar, it may have been pronounced something like Enmerdkar or Enmerdukar.

So on this basis, I assume that Enmerdkar created post-flood government with himself as king in this same year, 1596 AM, which year is 2357 BC according to my calculations.

Reign of Enmerdkar - 1596-1665 AM
The sources for this reign are not just Sumerian. The "Kitab al-Magall" (KM) claims to be written by St. Clement, based largely on information passed on from Jesus to Peter, in the form of a scroll that was supposedly given to the infant Jesus by the Magi. Two other books, the "Cave of Treasures" (CT) and the "Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan" (AE) have slightly divergent details, but a careful study will reveal that the information in all three must be from the same original source. I will call these 3 the "Magi Scroll Family of texts". (MSF)

The Sumerian Kinglist (SKL) states that Enmerkar ruled for 420 (or 900) years. The "Magi Scroll Family" all agree that Nimrod's reign was 69 years, which is much more realistic. 69 years would bring it from 1596 AM until 1665 AM (2357-2288 BC).

We know from Jubilees that the Tower building went on 43 years until the peoples were scattered - 1596-1639 AM. (2357-2314 BC). My assumption, based on the texts, is that Enmerdkar continued to reign in Uruk, for another 26 years after that.

KM states that Nimrod built the other cities when Peleg was 50, although CT makes it when Reu was 50. When Peleg was 50 fits better with the Jubilees chronology, for that would be 1617 AM (2336 BC) - during the time the tower was still being built. I identify these three cities he built near the Euphrates as: Uruk in southern Mesopotamia, Akkad in middle Mesopotamia, and Harran in northern Mesopotamia. In the Bible, Harran has become "Calneh", which interpreters are not agreed about, but Jerome spells it Chalanne, and MSF specifically identifies Harran.

Around the same time, Asshur built some cities along the Tigris. Nineveh is mentioned as one of them in Genesis 10. The other names seem to have become corrupted and are less certain. However, the SKL has a clue. The ancestor of the standard versions of SKL we have, was heavily edited and distorted, for the benefit of a Kishite point of view. That is why Kish was moved to the "first" dynasty after the flood, before Uruk. The founder of this dynasty is called Gushur (where the G represents a sound that is not certain in Sumerian, but was similar to G, or even a glottal stop.)  Here I recognize the name of Asshur son of Shem, and thus identify Kish along with Nineveh as one of his cities, which became corrupted to "Calah" in Genesis 10.. The third city he built is undoubtedly the one that bears his name, Asshur. But in the Bible this became "Resen". I would thus emend the verse to: "Nineveh, the square city; Kish; and Asshur between Nineveh and Kish, that is, the capital city."

In 1639 AM (2314 BC by my count), as Jubilees tells us, the Tower project failed and all the peoples - whether black, white, yellow, or some mixture of these - began to scatter to their various allotments. The confusion of languages is also alluded to in the Sumerian Enmerkar sagas. The countries immediately around Sumer at this time are all named there. Shubur (Shuwur) = Asshur (upper Tigris). Martu (Amurru) = Amorites (descendants of Canaan, W. of Euphrates). Aratta is surely the old country around Mt. Ararat. Hamazi is East of the Tigris, between Shubur and Elam, and is described as 'many-tongued' - probably including several tribes mixed between Madai and Asshur's offspring. Lullubi is mentioned as part of this area, and Susa, Anshan, parts of Elam are mentioned.

Magog and Gomer took up either side of the Don River. Other Japhethites (Yawan, Tubal, Tiras, Meshech) moved into Asia Minor and beyond. Asia Minor was also to be contested by offspring of Shem (Lud - Luwia) and Ham (Heth - Khatti). Some of the legends of Cronus refer to this time. Aside from Africa, the Hamites (black) did not just occupy Canaan at first, but a strip of land extending to the Halys and probably all the way up to Colchis in Georgia, said to have a darker-skinned population even in Classical times. The area around Harran was already settled by Aram's offspring. After the Tower failed at Eridu, most of these people became out of the reach of Enmerdkar's central government at Uruk.

The Enmerkar sagas mainly concentrate on his early political dealings with his main rival, Aratta (the later Urartu). We can make educated guesses about some more events of his reign. At one point, it is stated that 50 years into his reign, the Martu people swarmed Sumer and Akkad, necessitating his building of a wall in the desert to protect Uruk. By my scheme, that event can be dated to 1646 AM = 2307 BC, or seven years after the Tower failed.

The sagas suggest that his post-Tower political rivalry with Aratta continued for some time; at one point it says he sent Aratta a diplomatic message after ten years of this. In another place, it mentions much later that Hamazi had been "destroyed" and that an agent fled from there to the court at Aratta. By the end of Enmerkar's reign, he takes a large army to siege Aratta for one year. Putting it all together, I infer (educated best guess) that about ten years after the Tower failed (1649 AM / 2304 BC) Enmerdkar  began to take action to deal with Aratta, including suppressing Hamazi that was sympathetic to Aratta. Since I placed the end of his reign at 1665 AM / 2288 BC, the siege of Aratta thus began in 1664 AM / 2289 BC. The tablet is broken, so that we don't know exactly how the siege turned out. But one of his commanders, Lugalbanda, seems to have had something to do with it, and he is also named as the next king at Uruk.

So to sum up, here is my tentative expanded timeline for this section:


 * 1596 AM - Enmerdkar becomes king, begins tower at Babel (Eridu)


 * 1597 AM - Peleg marries Lomna


 * 1600 AM - Reu born


 * ca. 1617 AM - Enmerdkar builds Uruk, Akkad & Harran. Asshur builds Niniveh, Kish, Asshur.


 * 1639 AM - Tower fails, peoples scattered


 * 1646 AM - Martu encroach in Sumer, Akkad, Enmerdkar builds wall in desert.


 * 1649 AM - Enmerkar subjects Hamazi during rivalry with Aratta


 * 1657 AM - Noah dies (possibly having long since moved to Crimea area)


 * 1664 AM - Enmerkar begins siege of Aratta


 * 1665 AM - Lugalbanda succeeds Enmerkar as King of Uruk.

Reign of Lugalbanda in Uruk - 1665 AM - ca. 1693 AM (2288-2260 BC)
Lugalbanda appears as a leader in Enmerkar's army in the Enmerkar sagas, and as the king who follows Enmerkar in the King list, where he is called 'Lugalbanda the Shepherd'.


 * 1681 AM - Reu marries Ura (2272 BC)


 * 1687 AM (2266 BC) - Serug born to Reu; city of Ur built by Arfaksadites (Kesedim / Keled-im, Ara Kesed = A-kelemdug?) on south bank Euphrates. Around this time, per Jubilees, wars begin on Earth in earnest, as all peoples are led astray into idolatry and paganism. I figure this is roughly the time Enmebaragesi, king of Kish 'subdues the weapons of Elam', as on some versions of the Sumerian King List. Records also suggest that this archaeologically attested king, Enmebaragesi of Kish, built a pagan Temple in Nibru (Nippur), in fact he probably had the entire so-called "holy city" built during his reign.

Reign of Dumuzid in Uruk - ca. 1693 to 1696 AM. (2260-2257 BC)

 * 1693 AM - Dumuzid succeeds Lugalbanda in Uruk (2260 BC)
 * 1695 AM - Dumuzid captures Enmebaragesi of Kish. Enmebaragesi is succeeded by Aga in Kish. (2258 BC)
 * 1696 AM - Dumuzid toppled by revolt, pursued and killed in Harran; he succeeded by Gilgamesh in Uruk. (2257 BC)

There is a series of Sumerian epics dealing with "Dumuzid the Shepherd", king of Uruk as well. There is some confusion on the Kinglist between Dumuzid the Shepherd, who is made to rule before the flood from Bad-Tibira, and Dumuzid of Uruk, whom it calls "the Fisherman". There may also be confusion with the similar title of "the Shepherd" applied to Lugalbanda on the Kinglist.

There's definitely a lot of confusion on the Kinglist regarding length of reigns, many of the huge numbers there are fanciful, and to be discarded. Since it is all there is to go on, I have made my best educated guesses at trying to discern and reconstruct the original data as it would have appeared in the beginning, centuries before the standard school copies we have going all the way to Ibbi-Sin, etc. And I think there may be just barely enough threads left for me to try it.

I figure that in the days of these first few dynasties, they were using a calendar dating years from Enmerdkar's accession, in 1596 AM. His "kingship" turned 1 in 1597, so that was counted as the year 1 in that calendar. While many of the huge numbers here on the SKL can be dismissed, there seems to be a progressive sequence discernible for some of them, that suggests a theory to me that they may have, in the oldest copies, signified what 'year' (after the accession of Enmerkar in 1596) they reigned until. A later scribe may have seen a number after the word MU (year), eg "Dumuzid - MU 100" and assumed it meant "Dumuzid reigned 100 years", which is what it now says. My theory is that it means Dumuzid reigned until the year (MU) 100, ie until 1696 AM or 2257 BC.

The Sumerian epics about Dumuzid of Uruk all suggest to me that he was the first king in post-flood (Homo sapiens) history ever to be toppled by a revolt of dissatisfied, hungry citizens on account of his being dissolute. A female character remembered (and deified) as Inanna seems to have played some intrigue against him as well, but the clues are a stretch to piece together. Inanna, possibly the same individual. was also central in the rivalry between Enmerkar and the lord of Aratta, Ensuh-keshdanna. Who was this Inanna? I've found clues that she may actually have been one if the Sibyls, perhaps the wife of Japheth who lived before the flood, who lived a long life and got involved in politics for some time. There are Hungarian legends that trace their wanderings all the way to "Hunor and Magor", ie Gomer and Magog, whose mother was "Eneh". Some versions have her as Japheth's wife, others call her the wife of Nimrod. Maybe both are correct?

The 6th tablet of the Babylonian Gilgamesh epic, Gilgamesh (Dumuzid's successor) also alludes to Inanna having betrayed Dumuzid, apparently through seduction. The first translation of this tablet I had found online was a loose English translation that rendered this part of the tablet as rhymed verse, where Gilgamesh, rebuking Inanna, reminds her that she had destroyed the youthful Tammuz (= Dumuzid) "after a three year long seductive look". On this basis, I had assumed that as he was apparently a weak king, it made sense that his reign would not have lasted much more than 3 years, before getting tossed out. But then I found another English translation that interprets the phrase in question as saying she caused Tammuz to be mourned "year upon year", which he was. I don't know which is more correct, but 3 years or so still sounds like a good guess for him.

The following cities are mentioned in one of the Dumuzid epics as homes of the men that pursued Dumuzid from his palace and eventually kill him: Uruk, Ur, Nippur, Adab, Akshak, and Umma.

I later noticed that some of the 'Magi Scroll Family' even seem to allude to these events. After stating that Nimrod (Enmerdkar) had built Harran, they state that later on, Tammuz (Dumuzid) fled there after his wife ran off with Belshamen (= Bilgamesh?), and ended up being burned to death there. Certain it is that the pagans would fast and mourn for the deified Tammuz at Harran on the 17th of the month of Tammuz (it also became a Babylonian-Jewish fast day) every year, even as late as the 10th century AD, according to Islamic observers.

Reign of Bilgamesh in Uruk - 1696 AM to 1722 AM (2257-2231 BC)
Bilgamesh is the original Sumerian spelling of the more famous Gilgamesh. He was the fourth king of Uruk after Enmerdkar, Lugalbanda, and Dumuzid.

The epics tell us his father was Lugalbanda. There is also evidence that Bilgamesh was a grandson of Enmerdkar on his mother's side.

The king list, however says his father was a "phantom" (lillu), similar to the ones who pursue Dumuzid in the Dumuzid stories. It may mean instead that Bilgamesh was the "father" (leader) of the "phantoms". Other corroborating evidence is the Syriac Cave of Treasures, naming Bilshamen in connection with the demise of Tammuz.

Just as with Enmerdkar, Lugalbanda, and Dumuzid, there was also a series of epics produced for this fourth reign of Uruk. Some of them were reworked into the later Babylonian "Gilgamesh Epic", the most widely studied of all Mesopotamian stories.

The original purpose of these tablets was probably political propaganda - they were mainly supposed to frighten most of the populace subject to Uruk into staying at home - giving them the impression that the rest of the world was filled with dangerous wild animals, monsters etc.

When Gilgamesh warns Enkidu about going into the "Netherworld" (KUR), it almost sounds like the elites stayed up in their ziggurat temples most of the time, and looked down on most of those below as "phantoms". (Despite Bilgamesh himself having originally arisen from that class). The classical Latin author Aelian picked up a story to the effect that "Gilgamos" was the grandson of "Euechoros" (Enmerkar) who tried to kill him as an infant to thwart a prophecy, but that he survived and eventually became king anyway.

Despite the abundance of stories about Gilgamesh, it is difficult to glean many political events of his reign from them. The main exception is the tablet stating that king Aga of Kish, son of Enmebaragesi and Bilgamesh's main political rival, came to seige Uruk at some point during this reign, but was defeated.

The kinglist says he ruled 126 years. I interpret this to mean he ruled until "Year 126" counting from the beginning of Enmerkar's reign; thus I place the end of his reign, and the beginning of his son Ur-Nungal's reign, in the year 1722 AM, or 2231 BC.

Reign of Ur-Nungal in Uruk - 1722 AM to 1726 AM (2231-2227 BC)
Ur-Nungal was the son of Bilgamesh and 5th king of Uruk, but unlike the first four, there are no epics in his name. The main document mentioning his name is the "Tummal Chronicle", from which we learn that he maintained the pagan Temple in Nippur (the "holy" city), as did Gilgamesh, Enmebaragesi and Aga before him. Note that the "holy city" seems to have been transferred from the control of Kish to control of Uruk - probably when Bilgamesh defeated Aga.

The kinglist says he ruled 30 years. I estimate that this figure is slightly corrupted, and that the original notation probably said he reigned until "Year 130" (1726 AM = 2227 BC). He thus had a fairly short reign, and no new epics were produced in his name, as there were for his 4 deified predecessors.

Names are given on the kinglist for six more kings of Uruk in this dynasty after Ur-Nungal. However, nothing is known of them. They may indeed have reigned as lesser kings (or more like mayors) in Uruk, but I think it likely that Ur-Nungal was the last to hold the supreme "kingship" of Sumer, and that at the end of his reign in 1726 AM, the "kingship" was seized by the ruler of Ur, Mesannepada.

Reign of Mesannepada of Ur - 1726 AM to 1756 AM (2227-2197 BC)
Up until now, the hegemony established by Enmerdkar in 1596 AM had had its capital in Uruk. A rival kingship had been established by Asshur, in the city-state of Kish. Enmebaragesi of Kish had built a "holy" temple city of Nippur near Kish. His son Aga of Kish apparently lost this "holy" city to Gilgamesh of Uruk. With Uruk in control of Nippur, the "kingship" over Sumer was solidly in the hands of Gilgamesh and his son Ur-Nungal.

This situation was to change with the rise of king Mesannepada of Ur, which I place, according to my calculations, in the year 1726 AM of the "Jubilees" calendar. The Sumerian King List indicates that he seized the "kingship" from Uruk. I assume that the last independent king to actually rule from Uruk was Ur-Nungal, since the six names following his in that dynasty appear to have been inconsequential, leaving no signs of notability. However, Mesannepada of Ur is named in the Tummal inscription, along with Enmebaragesi and Aga of Kish, Gilgamesh and Ur-Nungal of Uruk (although some copies have these names out of correct order). This indicates who the major players were in the early history of Nippur, and it indicates that Mesannepada, besides defeating Uruk, also added Nippur to his empire. Mesannepada also apparently took Kish itself, assuming the title "King of Kish". Archaeology shows that he traded with Mari farther up the Euphrates, showing that Mari was in existence by this time.

There is also a figure known to archaeology as "Mesilim, King of Kish". Gordon years ago found evidence that he was in fact the same as the Mesannepada who was called "King of Kish", viz, that while a certain Sumerian proverb refers to Mesilim, there is an Akkadian version of the proverb that is nearly identical, but mentioning Mesannepada in place of Mesilim. Later scholars disputed this identification, but usually when names are interchangeable between Sumerian and Akkadian, it is not due to ignorance, thus I think it is likely that they were indeed both the same. So assuming that Mesilim is the same as Mesannepada, we can additionally gather that this king built temples in Lagash and Adab, and even resolved a border dispute between Lagash and Umma on behalf of Lagash.

Since he seems to have had control at least in Ur, Uruk, Nippur, Kish, Lagash and Adab, it thus it appears that Mesannepada did indeed enjoy hegemony throughout Sumer. Dilmun (Bahrain) was also apparently settled by this time.

The SKL gives Mesannepada of Ur 80 years, his son MeskiaG-nuna 36 or 30 years, then names two more kings from Ur ("Balulu and Elulu") with 25 and 36 years respectively. The total for all four is said to be 171 years.

As usual, these figures likely became thoroughly confused and exaggerated over the centuries. The last two kings of this first Ur dynasty, like the last six given for Uruk, are otherwise unknown, left no signs of enjoying hegemony in Sumer, and were probably more like mayors - while MeskiaG-nuna is at least mentioned in the Tummal inscription, confirming his control at Nippur. It was probably MeskiaG-nuna of Ur, then, who lost the "kingship" to Awan (a city-state in Elam, in the mountains just north of Susa).

My best guess of the reality is that these first two kings held the hegemony for Ur with only 36 years between them - with Mesannepada reigning for 30 of those years, and the remaining 6 for his son MeskiaG-nuna. The transfer to Awan would thus have been in the "Year 165" (after Enmerdkar), but the six years got wrongly added in again at some point, becoming 171.


 * 1740 AM (2213 BC) - Reu is 140 years old; according to Conflict of Adam and Eve, this is when the Misraimites re-established a king in Egypt, followed by the sons of Joktan - Saba, Ophir and Havilah.
 * 1744 AM (2209 BC) - Serug marries Milcah; Nahor born to Serug in Ur.

Reign of MeskiaG-nuna in Ur 1756-1761 AM (2197-2192 BC)

 * 1761 AM (2192 BC) - Awan defeats Ur, seizes Nippur; Lagash become independent.

Reign of king (Peli ?) of Awan - 1761 AM to 1797 AM (2192-2156 BC)
The Sumerian king list says 3 kings held the kingship from Awan, an Elamite city. Their names are missing from all extant later copies, because they were probably rubbed off the earlier copies long before. It says the three ruled for 356 years, and it can still be read that the third of these ruled for 36 years, but all other information is blank.

This data is obviously corrupt; I doubt the Sumerians would have put up with so many Elamite kings for so long. I can believe the figure "36 years" for one king from Elam, though, before the "kingship" was once again seized by Kish. This would bring us to 1797 AM for the end of Awan's kingship - which is the year (MU) 201 from Enmerdkar's reign. MU 201 is the first legible figure in the next dynasty for Kish, so I suspect it originally meant that in that year (= 2156 BC), Kish took over the hegemony from Awan.

Reign of Kalbum of Kish - 1797 AM - 1828 AM (2156-2125 BC)
The data on the SKL for the second dynasty of Kish is very badly corrupt. It lists 8 kings, of whom Kalbum is the fourth, and they all have fantastically long reigns for a total of 3,195 years. Obviously, this can be discarded.

None of these kings have been authenticated elsewhere. Just hazarding a guess, only one of these actually held the kingship for Kish at this time. However, at some point, his ancestors and descendants got their names added into the SKL here.

The first legible figure in this dynasty, as mentioned, "MU 201", gives us the start of this dynasty - 1797 AM. Looking for signs of the next likeliest correct date is difficult; we see that Kalbum is said to rule 195 years, but two of the oldest copies read "132 years" and I reconstruct that it originally said Kalbum ruled until "MU 232", with a later miscopy from 232 to "132". So in other words, Kalbum, who is the probable actual king holding hegemony here, ruled 31 years from 1797 until 1828 AM. The names before his, Susuda the fuller, Dadasig, and Mamagal the boatman, just do not sound like regal names that would be taken by a sitting Emperor; they are probably Kalbum's ancestors. The names after Kalbum's are equally obscure, and I find it dubious that they too actually held hegemony before "Kish was defeated and the kingship was carried off to Hamazi", presumably in 1828 AM.


 * 1800 AM (2153 BC) - Nahor marries Iyoska.
 * 1806 AM (2147 BC) - Terah born in Ur.
 * 1814 AM (2139 BC) - According to the "Magi Scroll Family" of texts, JAH destroyed the idols of Mesopotamia in an earthquake around this time, but the dates in all three sources are contradictory. This date, given by CT, seems to me the likeliest, in this case.

Reign of Hadanish of Hamazi 1828 AM - 1856 AM (2125-2097 BC)
The SKL says this one king ruled 360 years, obviously corrupt. It fits better if we assume it originally read that he reigned until "260 MU" - which is 1856 AM, or 2097 BC. Hamazi was a non-Sumerian region lying east of the Tigris and between Assyria and Elam, as we have already seen.


 * 1832 AM ? - The MSF texts state that child sacrifice began at this time, but again 3 conflicting dates are given. This time, KM seems to have the best date, but the whole passage here seems to be influenced somewhat by a completely different statement in Jubilees, so it may be anecdotal info.
 * 1839 AM - Reu dies in this year, according to KM.
 * 1844 AM - JAH destroys the idols of Mesopotamia again, this time with a whirlwind, according to MSF.


 * 1856 AM (2097 BC) - Hadanish of Hamazi is defeated (MU 260), and the kingship (hegemony) is seized by Enshakushanna of Uruk.

Reign of Enshakushanna of Uruk - 1856 AM - 1876 AM (2097-2077 BC)

 * 1856 AM (2097 BC) - Enshakushanna regains the supremacy for Uruk, defeating Hadanish of Hamazi. He also controls Nippur, Kish, Akkad and Akshak.

However, Lagash is independent, and its king, Eannatum, gains territory at the expense of Uruk during this time.

Eannatum of Lagash probably began to seize real control of the cities, one by one, from Enshakushanna of Uruk over the course of these 20 years. Not only that, but this Eannatum of Lagash also expanded his empire well outside of Sumer, into Elam, up the Tigris into Assyria (Shubur) and up the Euphrates as far as Mari.


 * 1870 AM (2083 BC) Terah marries Edna in Ur.

Eannatum of Lagash - 1876-1877 AM
Eannatum finally seized Nippur and Uruk itself, at the end of Enshakushanna's reign. Apparently, Eannatum did not get around to claim the official "kingship" for Lagash, which is not on the SKL.

The SKL has dates for this "2nd dynasty" of Uruk that are as usual suspect. It lists Enshakushanna with 60 years, Lugal-kinishe-dudu with 120 years, then Argandea with 7 years, total of 187 years.

I presume that Eannatum, having conquered much of Mesopotamia during Enshakushanna's reign, himself died soon after seizing Uruk - probably within a year of that, since he never claimed the title of hegemony. All the cities of Sumer then regained their independence as city-states on Eannatum's death. Nippur, the "holy" city who conferred kingship, presumably went with Uruk and its new king, Lugal-kinishe-dudu, who officially held the title of the "kingship" next. But he was not that prominent a king, and I doubt he ruled for 120 years. I believe the numbers on the later SKL were jumbled. 20 years for Enshakushanna and 7 for Lugal-kinishe-dudu appears more likely. This brings us to the year "MU 287" counting from Enmerdkar, which is corrupted to "187 years" appearing in the text. "Argandea", if a real name, is unknown and probably never held the kingship at all. So on this basis, I reconstruct the chronology as looking something like this:


 * 1876 AM (2077 BC) - Eannatum of Lagash seizes Uruk, ends reign of Enshakushanna. This is also the same year Abram is born in Ur, per Jubilees.
 * 1877 AM (2076 BC) - Eannatum dies, empire of Lagash breaks apart into city-states.

Reign of Lugal-kinishe-dudu of Uruk - 1877-1884 AM
From 1877 to 1881, Lagash was ruled by a governor, Enannatum I, brother of Eannatum. Entemena became king of Lagash in 1881 AM, ruling Lagash until 1910 AM. Lugalkinishe-dudu of Uruk (who holds the nominal "kingship") is allied with Entemena of Lagash, against Umma.


 * 1884 AM (2069 BC) - After Lugal-kinishe-dudu, the kingship along with control of Nippur passes again to Ur, and its king Nanni.

Reign of Nanni of Ur - 1884-1886 AM
The figures given for this 2nd dynasty of Ur are not only corrupted, but wildly divergent one from another in the various later copies of the SKL. Some give Nanni 120+ years, and his son MeskiaG-nanna 48 years, two kings. A second version gives Nanni 54+ years, then MeskiaG-nanna (missing number), then a third king (missing name) 2 years, for a total of 582 years. The third variant lists these 3 kings, giving only their total as 578 years.

I reconstruct it with only two kings, giving Nanni of Ur the 2 years, and his son MeskiaG-nanna of Ur the 48 years, bringing us up to MU 338 (1935 AM = 2018 BC). This is mainly based on a hunch, or an educated guess as to what is most realistic for these 2 kings. These 2 kings of Ur also appear on the Tummal Chronicle, showing they controlled Nippur along with the official kingship.

Reign of MeskiaG-nanna of Ur - 1886-1935 AM

 * 1886 AM (2067 BC) - MeskiaG-nanna of Ur succeeds his father Nanni to the kingship.
 * 1891 AM (2062 BC) - Abram, a 15 year old living in Ur, develops the plow, revolutionizing agriculture, per Jubilees. This actually seems to correspond with the Sumerian tablet on the history of the rulers of Lagash, where it clearly describes the situation in the earliest days of Lagash before the plow was developed.  Other sources tell us that Abram's job was to sell idols for his father, Terah, but that he began to question this practice.
 * 1897 AM (2056 BC) - birth of Sara in Ur.
 * 1925 AM (2028 BC) - Abram marries Sara in Ur.
 * 1932 AM (2021 BC) - birth of Lot in Ur.
 * 1935 AM (2018 BC) - Ur is defeated and the "kingship" passes from MeskiaG-nanna of Ur, to Lugal-Anne-Mundu of Adab.

Reign of Lugal-anne-mundu of Adab - 1935 AM-1964 AM (2018-1989 BC)
This is where it starts to get highly interesting.

The Sumerian king list states that following King MeskiaG-nanna of Ur, "Ur was defeated and the kingship was taken to Adab" - represented by a single king, whom it names as Lugal-anne-mundu.

This Lugal-anne-mundu of Adab seems to have been an important king, to hold the hegemony in Sumer, but he is almost always completely overlooked in most history books. It's almost as if most scholars would prefer not to mention him at all, for some curious reason.

Why is this? Well, most everything else we know about him comes from a single text that is known only from later Babylonian fragments, of a much later era. The scholars, beginning with Guterbock, who published the first competent translation of it, used the fact that there was no known contemporary inscription from him, as a pretext to practically dismiss him from consideration as an authentic ruler.

But, the translation of the Lugal-anne-mundu inscription (albeit from centuries-later copies) is still available.

We have already seen some events in the life of Abraham (Abram), which Jubilees places at this time. I have shown my estimate that he was born around the time Eannatum defeated Uruk, and lived much of the first part of his life through the hegemony of king MeskiaG-nanna, who hailed from his own hometown of Ur. And that around 1935, Ur was defeated by Adab.

Continuing from there: in 1936 AM (2017 BC), Jubilees tells us, Abram burned the temple in Ur, and fled with his family to Harran, one of the most ancient cities built by Nimrod, in the region northwest of Sumer, known as Paddan-Aram or Aram-Naharain.

We can also gather that it was in 1950 AM (2003 BC), that the king of Elam first subdued the area including Sodom and Gomorrah. This is because the Bible tells us that it 14 years before the "War of Kings", which Jubilees places in 1964 AM.

Who was this king of Elam who campaigned as far as the Dead Sea and Jordan region? The Bible calls him "Chedorlaomer", and it has been generally recognized that this does have the appearance of a genuine Elamite name, Kutur-Lagamar or the like. But, no individual with this exact name has yet been found in any other records.

Jubilees says that in 1951 AM (2002 BC), Abraham, still living in Harran, was blessed by JAH, and he began to learn the holy language. In 1953 AM (2000 BC), he moved to Canaan; in 1954 AM (1999 BC) Hebron was built; in 1956 AM (1997 BC) he went to Egypt on account of famine; in 1961 AM (1992 BC) Tanis in Egypt was built; and in 1963 AM (1990 BC) he returned to Canaan (Bethel).

Also in that same year, 1963 AM, the Sodomites and other regional city-states first rebelled from Chedorlaomer of Elam.

In 1964, Lot went to Sodom, and the "War of Kings" took place, when scripture says Abraham's contingent ended up defeating Chedorlaomer and his confederates.

One of these is said to be Amraphel king of Shinar (Sumer), whom Biblical scholars at one time had identified with Hammurabi of Babylon (now known to have lived much later).

It is my contention that this king "Amraphel" is in fact none other than Lugal Anne-mundu of Adab, and that he, not Chedorlaomer of Elam, was actually the senior partner, or rather supreme overlord, in this confederacy.

Why Lugal Anne-mundu? Because, even apart from my chronological estimates, the situation described in the Bible fits his reign far better than any other, in several ways.

The inscription of Lugal Anne-mundu referred to above describes the extent of his empire; it was the largest the world had yet seen, larger even than Eannatum's conquests, and thus his title was "King (Lugal) of the Four Quarters". Eight constituent tributary provinces in this empire are named: Elam, Marhashi, Gutium, Subartu, the "Cedar Mountain land" (Lebanon), Martu, Sutium, and Eanna (Uruk).

Marhashi was probably an Elamite region beyond Elam proper. Gutium was evidently a region of the old Hamazi (Madai), and could easily have been corrupted in the Hebrew text into "Goyim". Three provinces were in the west: Lebanon, Martu (the Amorites), and "Sutium". "Sutium" is another name that scholars gloss over and generally ignore, but the few who have addressed it, make clear that it was far to the west of Mesopotamia. Meanwhile, other scholars have looked for the name of Sodom, and proclaimed "It's too bad there are no cuneiform texts referencing any such place."

Well, what would you expect? There is a "Sutium" in cuneiform text, and the text says that it was controlled by Lugal Annemundu of Sumer - along with Elam, Gutium, and the Amorites, etc..

It also says that his reign was fraught with rebellion, and it even mentions him at one point fighting with several rebel chiefs of governors, led by the chief of Marhashi.

The names of several of these chiefdoms are effaced, but the 13 rebel chieftains' names with whom he fought can be mostly made out.

One of the chieftains has a name that is intriguingly close to Abraham's, represented by Guterbock as "Abi-han[ish?]". The square brackets mean the letters "ish" were not there, but were supplied by Guterbock based on some conjecture of his on what was originally there. So what we really have there is just "Abi-han". But even before I knew that, I had found more than enough to establish a match for the correct timeframe, the very conditions that minimalists want to pretend were never attested in history outside scripture.

Among the chiefdoms whose names can be read, are "Ardama" and "Amdama", either of whom might possibly correspond with the "Admah" of Genesis 14. The rest of the known names in the inscription might not correspond with known names in Genesis -- but the fact that any matches even this close are found, has never been mentioned.

Hasn't anyone ever noticed this before? Well, there is actually some reason to suppose that if anyone had, in the days of pre Web 2.0 scholarship, they kept mum about it.

Now some might be saying "That is just ridiculous, Ras Feqade! What possible reason could there be, to suppose that there is some scholarly coverup going on here?"

I came across one copy of the Lugal-Anne-Mundu inscription online, in a Spanish translation. It had the following footnote:

"El contenido de este texto, considerado anacrónico, le ha hecho ser el destinatario de una maldición: ninguna edición especializada de inscripciones reales publicada hasta la fecha lo ha incluido entre sus páginas. Los prejuicios de los especialistas modernos les llevan no sólo a hacer oídos sordos a las afirmaciones de los reyes ancestrales, sino también a ignorar sus textos y condenarlos al ostracismo, para que nadie más tenga conocimiento de ellos."

Condemned to ostracism? That's a surprisingly revealing comment to read, considering that we're talking about reconstructing ancient history here for the pre-Sargonic era with whatever few "shoestrings" we have available!

In 1964, I reckon, the year Abraham defeated Lugal-anne-mundu, his empire finally broke apart, and the official "kingship" passed to Mari, per the SKL. However several other city states in Sumer also asserted their independence. This was also an interesting time; I identify the main ones as being king Sharrumiter of Mari, Lugalanda of Lagash, Puzur-Nirah of Akshak, and Lugal-zagesi of Ummah.