THE BROCKMON COLLECTION DUPLICATE

OF THE SUMERIAN KINGLIST (BT 14)

Jacob Klein (Bar-Ilan University)

One of the many important contributions of Marcel Sigrist to Sumerology is his Mesopotamian
Yearnames (Sigrist and Damerow 1991), which became a major tool for the study of Mesopotamian
history and chronology of the third and second millennia. It is therefore most suitable to honor him
with the publication of a hitherto unpublished duplicate of the Sumerian King List (SKL), a major,
albeit fragile, source for the reconstruction of the early history of Mesopotamia.1
BT 14, a tablet fragment kept in the Brockmon Collection, University of Haifa, is a rather interesting
duplicate of SKL. Its publication was signaled by the present author aproximately ˜fteen years ago, in
an article published in the anniversary volume for Miguel Civil.2 In that article I pointed out and dem-
onstrated that BT 14 joins the Nippur duplicate CBS 13994, which was designated as P3 in Jacobsen’s
editio princeps of the King List ( Jacobsen 1939: 6), and the contents and structure of the extant part
of this duplicate were described (Klein 1991: 124). The join between the two fragments was estab-
lished on the basis of the unique formula, giving the total of the regnal years of each hereditary (i.e.,
genetic) dynasty, a feature absent in all other duplicates of the SKL (Klein 1991: 125). Since our dupli-
cate begins with the dynasty of Kis I and ends with Ur-nigin3 of the Uruk IV dynasty; and since P4
(CBS 13293 + CBS 13484) begins with the summary of the regnal years of the dynasty of Uruk IV,
and ends with a ˜nal summary of all dynasties,3 Glassner rightly concluded that our duplicate and P4
constitute a two tablet recension of the SKL, designating it in his composite edition as text C (Glassner
2004: 117).
The purpose of this article is to oˆer a transliteration4 and a minimal commentary of BT 14 + CBS
13994 (i.e., the ˜rst tablet of this recension), supplemented with a hand copy and a photograph of BT 14
(see plates below), thus ful˜lling an obligation owed for a long time to University of Haifa Faculty of
Humanities.5

1. For a full list of sources and studies of the SKL, published before 2004, see Glassner (2004: 117–18). Note also ETCSL
c.2.1.1 “The Sumerian king list.”
2. See Klein (1991: 124, ns. 4 and 6). For the Brockmon tablet collection in general see Klein (1991: 123, n. 1).
3. For a copy of the reverse of P4 see Hallo (1963: 54); for a transliteration of the same see (1963: 55–56).
4. In the transliteration we indicate the correlation between each line of our text with the corresponding line of the WB
edition (upon which Glassner’s edition is based) and the ETCSL edition.
5. A full study of this duplicate will be incorporated in a Harvard dissertation, in preparation by Gianni Marchesi. I take this
opportunity to thank Mrs. Ofra Rimon, Director of the Hecht Museum, where the Brockmon tablets are housed, and Professors
Oded Bustenai and Gershon Galil of the Department of Jewish History, University of Haifa, who were most helpful in making
BT 14 available to me and oˆered indispensable logistical assistance.

77
78 JACOB KLEIN

BT 14 is part of a four-column tablet inscribed on both sides (containing altogether eight columns).6
Columns iv and v, which are located on the right side, are very narrow (ca. 1 cm less in width than
the other six columns) and therefore many of their lines continue on the right edge. Similarly, one or
two of the last lines of cols. vi and vii are written on the upper edge.7 Judging from a comparison of the
extant text of our tablet with the reconstructed text of the SKL, BT 14 constitutes about thirty-˜ve per-
cent from the top of the tablet and BT 14 + CBS 13994 about seventy-˜ve percent from the top of the
left side of the tablet. The obverse, which is almost entirely preserved, is extremely eroded (Klein
1991: 123–24); the reverse, on the other hand, is almost entirely defaced, with only a few lines pre-
served, although clearly legible. The tablet is copied here to gain a better reading of it and to make the
eroded areas, which cannot be read from the photograph, visible. In spite of the careful copy, there remain
some illegible signs, or signs which where possibly misread.
The careful collation and the copy of BT 14, as well as a new reconstruction of the contents of the
original tablet, resulted in signi˜cant corrections of formerly erroneous readings and interpretations of
the text. Among others, it turned out that this recension of the SKL most probably combined the Kis III
and Kis IV dynasties, listing them as one continuous dynasty. Consequently, the dynasty of Aksak was
probably placed in col. vii, after the Kis IV dynasty. The Mari dynasty, on the other hand, seems to have
been placed earlier, between the dynasties of Kis II and Hamazi.8 These slight deviations regarding the
sequence of dynasties in the pre-Sargonic section from the other OB duplicates of the SKL recall the
corresponding but more radical deviations in the recently discovered Ur III version.9
During the preparation of this edition, I also realized that formerly I misread the unique historical
note concerning Dumuzi of the First Dynasty of Uruk, found only in this duplicate (iii 9–10). I read this
note previously as s u - a s e n? - m e - b a r a2 - g e4? - e - s i n a m - r a ªìº - a k?, which I translated accordingly:
“single handed he (i.e., Dumuzi) captured Enmebaragesi.”10 The new reading, and this time I believe
the correct one, is ªs uº - a s e n - m e - ªb a r a2 - g e4 - e - s i - t aº n a m - r a ªa kº, which is to be translated: “he
(i.e., Dumuzi) was taken captive by the (single) hand of Enmebaragesi.”11
It should be noted that in the entire King List there is only one other similar note that synchronizes
two dynasties, namely the note that tells us that Sargon of Agade was, prior to his accession, the “cup-
bearer of Ur-Zababa” of Kis. From this note, Jacobsen concluded that Sargon was contemporary with

6. It measures 11.2x7.8x1.8 cm (the tablet is relatively thin and baked).

7. Similarly the upper edge facing col. v, now missing, was most probably also inscribed with one or two lines.
8. For details see comments to vi 6u–7u below. Because of the lack of space we cannot oˆer here a full reconstruction of the
tablet to demonstrate our hypothesis. The structure of the extant text, as far as we could determine, is as follows: Kis I (i 1–ii 24);
Uruk I (ii 25–iii 15); Ur I (iv 1u–6u); Awan (iv 7u–9u); Hamazi (v 1u–2u); Uruk II (v 3u–11u); Kis III+IV (vi 1u–7u); Aksak? (vii 1u–3u);
Uruk III (vii 10u–15u); Agade (vii 16u–viii 15u); Uruk IV (viii 23u–26u).
9. See Steinkeller (2003: 269–71, 274–76). Note that the placement of Ku-Baba after the Dynasty of Aksak, at the head of
the dynasty of her two sons is also attested in the duplicates Su and Su3+4 (see further comment to vi 6u–7u below).
10. See Klein (1991: 125–29). I owe an apology to the participants of the 37th RAI in Paris, and especially to Miguel Civil
(see Klein 1991: 123, note *), for formerly misreading and mistranslating these two lines.
11. If the new reading of this note is correct, the ablative su¯x -ta has here an instrumental function; and the non-˜nite
hamtû verbal root ak, perhaps to be read a k a (=a k - a), is to be understood as an “intransitive/passive participle” (for the ablative
su¯x denoting the instrument or means; see Thomsen 1984: 106, §209; Edzard 2003: 41–42). For the compound su PN- a k - t a
and similar compounds with the ablative su¯x, which were formed to circumvent the rule that this su¯x cannot be used with
animate nouns, see Thomsen (1984: 104, § 205); for the nominal form of the verb in a “passive participle” meaning see Thomsen
(1984: 255–56); Edzard (2003: 130–31).
The translation “He was captured single-handed by Enmebaragesi” is impossible because the ablative-instrumental su¯x never
occurs with a noun designating a human or divine person; see Thomsen 1984: 104, sub §205 (note the expression /su . . . -ak-ta/
“under the authority of ” listed there); § 209 (quoting expressions like: á DN-ta “by the means of the strength of DN,” i n i m s i -
s á - n i - t a “at his righteous word,” u s u m a - d a - n i - t a “by the power of his land”); Edzard (2003: 41–42 sub 4.4.2.7).

One Line Short

 THE BROCKMON COLLECTION DUPLICATE OF THE SUMERIAN KINGLIST 79

no fewer than six subsequent kings of Kis and one of Uruk (Lugalzagesi), before he gained control over
Mesopotamia.12 Similarly, our note about the capture of Dumuzi by Enmebaragesi reveals that the
latter was a contemporary of at least two kings of Uruk, namely Dumuzi and Gilgames.
This new historical data about Dumuzi seems to explain two puzzling details in his biography.
First, according to the King List, he reigned only one hundred years,13 which falls short of those of
Gilgames, by forty years. Second, unlike Gilgames, he did not have hereditary successors.14 Further-
more, this new reading seems to allow a better perspective as to the course of events in the political
and military struggle between Kis and Uruk on the eve of history. Assuming that this note is not merely
a propagandistic Ur III or Isin addition to the King List aiming to enhance the glory of Gilgames, we
may reconstruct the following hypothetical course of events:
After a long and stable rule by the general-king Lugalbanda, a certain Dumuzi from Ku’ara,15 who
happened to be a weak ruler, seized the throne. This situation may have been exploited by Enmebaragesi
of Kis, who attacked Uruk, captured Dumuzi, and subjugated the city by putting Gilgames on its throne
as a vassal-king.16 Whether Gilgames was himself a usurper of obscure origin or perhaps a relative of
the royal family of Kis, as some epical sources seem to indicate (see Shaˆer 1983), he soon became
popular in Uruk, and felt strong enough to rebel and free himself from Kis’s tyrannical subjugation.
He may have clashed with Enmebaragesi, as †ulgi O claims.17 Most probably, however, he used the
opportunity of the death of Enmebaragesi, Aga’s father (or mother), to rebel, taking advantage of the
change of rule and the weakness of a new king.18
It is admitted here that the above hypothesis concerning the political and military struggle between
Kis and Uruk toward the end of the ED II period, is based on late literary sources, and is therefore
highly speculative. But we should not forget the numerous synchronisms between Gilgames and the
dynasty of Enmebaragesi, provided by hymnic and epic literature originating in the Ur III period, and
the new synchronism between Dumuzi and Enmebaragesi, which is found in a historiographical source
and has the nature of a factual historical note.19 We also should bear in mind that Dumuzi and Gil-
games lived in a relatively late period, on the verge of history, and many of the later traditions about
them agree with each other. Therefore, we should not dismiss these traditions as merely the product of
the respective authors’ imagination.20

12. SKL vi 33; cf. the chronological and historical analysis of this synchronism in Jacobsen (1939: 145, 158–61, 178–79).
13. So all manuscripts with the exception of L (the Tell Leilan tablet), which seems to have the ˜gure of 110 (see ZA 85
[1995]: 253).
14. Admittedly, many other kings listed in the SKL did not have hereditary successors for unknown reasons. But in the case
of Dumuzi we seem to be informed as to the reason for his not having left posterity. The possible implications of this “historical”
note to the mythological tradition about the death of Dumuzi will be discussed in a forthcoming article.
15. For K u ’ a r a, see W. Heimpel’s corresponding entry in RLA 6: 256–57. It is not impossible that the epithet “˜sherman,”
applied here to Dumuzi, re˘ects a word play on the name of the city of his origin, Ku6-a(r), which was connected by popular ety-
mology with the word k u ’ a “˜sh.”
16. The possibility cannot be excluded that Uruk, already under Dumuzi, was subjugated by Kis, and Dumuzi was captured
during an unsuccessful rebellion in an attempt to regain independence for his city.
17. †ulgi O, ll. 54–60 (see pertinent bibliography in Klein 1991: 126, n. 16).
18. For some new insights as to the political background of the con˘ict between Gilgames and Aga, as described in the
above epic, see recently Keetman (2007).
19. Unfortunately the section concerning the rulers of the First Dynasty of Uruk is missing from the Ur III version of SKL,
and therefore their identity and sequence cannot be veri˜ed from this source (Steinkeller 2003: 274–75).
20. The credibility of ancient historical and literal sources for the reconstruction of ancient history has been subject to much
scholarly debate. For arguments in favor and against the credulity of ancient sources see recently Hallo (1990) and Beckman
(2005).
80 JACOB KLEIN

BT 14 + P3 (= CBS 13994)
Obverse
BT 14 + P3 WB21 ETCSL
BT 14 i 1 nam-lugal i 41a 41a
i2 an-ta e1122-da-ba i 41b 41b
i3 kiski finamfl-ªlugalº-la i 42 42
i4 ªkiski-a g^ usur23-eº i 43 43
i5 1200 mu ì-ak i 45 44
i6 Ku-la-sí-na-be-el i 46 45
i7 600+ª300º mu ì-ªakº i 47 47
i8 Na-an-ªgis?-li?-is?!º-ma ii 1 48
i9 1800 mu ì-ak ii 2 49
i 10 ªen-dara3º-an-na-ke4 ii 3 50
i 11 [420? m]u a-rá 7-ªàm?º24 ii 4 51a
i 12 [itu] 3 u4 1/2 ì-ak 51b
i 13 [Ba-b]u-um-e ii 5a 52
i 14 [300 mu] ì-ak ii 5b 53
P3 i 15 [Pu-an-n]u?-um i 6a/7 ?
54a?
i 16 [n] ªmuº ì-ak i 6b/8? 54b?
?
i 17 [x x x]-x ii 5a 55?
i 18 [n] mu ì-ak ii 5b? 56?
i 19 ªáº?-tab-ba ii 12a 60a?
i 20 600+3[00 m]u ì-ak ii 12b 60b?
i 21 Qá-l[u-mu]-ªumº ii 9a 57a
i 22 900 m[u ì-a]k ii 9b 57b
i 23 ªZuº-qá-qi4-i[p] ii 10 58
i 24 ª600+240º mu ì-[ak] ii 11 59
i 25 ªar-bu-um dumu MA†.EN.KAK-ke4º ii 14 62
i 26 [7]20?25 mu ì-ak ii 15 63
i 27 ªeº-tá-na sipa ii 16a 64–65a
i 28 [l]ú ªan?-sè baº-e11-da ii 16b–17 65b
i 29 [lú kur-kur mu-un]-ªgi4-néº ii 18 66
(ca. 9 lines are missing from col. i)
21 22 23 24 25

21. Lines i 41–47 in Jacobsen’s edition correspond to ll. i 40–46 in Glassner’s edition of the composition (Glassner 2004:
118–26); in the rest of the reconstruction we follow Glassner’s line numbering, which occasionally slightly deviates from that of
Jacobsen.
22. DUL.ªDUº.
23. ªGfl I†.ÙRº.
24. A.ªAN?º.
25. I.e., [60]xª10+120º.
 THE BROCKMON COLLECTION DUPLICATE OF THE SUMERIAN KINGLIST 81

BT 14 + P3 WB ETCSL
BT 14 ii 1 1560 mu bala en-me-nun-na-kam 73A
ii 2 bar-sal-nun-na ii 26a 74
ii 3 1200 mu ì-ak ii 27 75
ii 4 sumug2ªsà-mug?º fidumufl26 bar-sal-nun-na-ke4 ii 28 76
ii 5 140 mu ì-ak ii 29 77
ii 6 ªti-iz-kàr?º du[mu] ªsumug2-ga-ke4º ii 30 78
ii 7 305 m[u ì]-ak ii 31 79
ii 8 1200+ª420 mu ba[la bar-sal-nu]n?-ªnaº?-kam? 79A
ii 9 ªilº-k[u(-x)]-x ii 32a? 80a
ii 10 ª1500º? m[u ì]-ªakº ii 34 80b
ii 11 il-t[a-sa]-du ii 33 81
ii 12 1200 m[u ì]-ak ii 34 82
ii 13 en-me-[bara2-ge4?]-e-si ii 35 83
ii 14 ªlúº? [ma-da-el]am?ki-ªdaº? ii 36 84
g^ is
P3+BT 14 ii 15 tukul-bi ªíb-taº-[an]-ªgúrº? ii 37 85
P3 ii 16 90[0] mu [ì-ak] ii 38 86b
ii 17 aka(=AG) dumu-en-me-ªbara2º-g[e4?-e-si-ke4] ii 39–40 87–88
ii 18 625 mu [ì-ak] ii 41 89
ii 19 600+600+300?+25 m[u bala] 89A
ii 20 en-me-b[ara2-ge4-e-si?] 89B
ii 21 23 [lugal] ii 42 90
ii 22 mu-bi 21,6[00?+n] ii 43 91a
ii 23 itu 3 u4 3 U[D?-MA†? íb-ak?] ii 44 91b–92
ii 24 kisªki g^ is?tukul?º-[e? ba?-sìg?] ii 45 93
ii 25 [nam-lugal-bi] ii 46a? 94a
ii 26 [é-an-na-sè ba-de6] ii 46b? 94b
ii 27 é-a[n-na-ka?] ii 47? 95
ii 28 mes!?-[ki-in-ga-se-er] iii 1? 96
(ca. 11 lines are missing from col. ii)
26

26. Less probable reading: sumug2ªsà dumuº.

82 JACOB KLEIN

BT 14 (+ P3) WB ETCSL
BT 14 iii 1 420 mu ì-[ak] iii 11 106
iii 2 745 ªmuº [bala]
iii 3 mes-ki-in-ªgaº-[se-er] 106Aa
iii 4 lugal-bàn-da sip[a]27 iii 12 106Ab
iii 5 1200 mu ì-ak iii 13 108
iii 6 dumu-zi su-ku6 iii 14 109
iii 7 uru-ni ku'ara ({A.A)ki28 iii 15 110
iii 8 100 mu ì-ak iii 16 111
iii 9 ªsuº-as en-me-ªbara2-ge4-e-si-taº 111A
iii 10 nam-ra ªakº 111B
d
iii 11 bìl-ga-mes iii 17 112
iii 12 ab-ba-ni líl-lá iii 18 113
iii 13 en-kul-abªkiº29-ke4 iii 19 114
iii 14 ªlugal-àmº
iii 15 [126?] ªmuº [ì]-ªakº? iii 20? 115
(ca. 27 lines are missing from col. iii)

BT 14 (+ P3) WB ETCSL
(ca. 5 lines are missing from the beginning of col. iv)
BT 14 iv 1u ªeº-[lu-lu] iv 1a 141a
iv 2u 2530 [mu ì-ak] iv 1b 141b
iv 3u ba-ªlu-luº iv 2a 142a
iv 4u 36 mu ªìº-a[k] iv 2b 142b
iv 5u 4 lugal iv 3 143
iv 6u ªmu-bi ª170º+x-[íb-ak]?31 iv 4 144
iv 7u ªurim2kiº-[ma] iv 5a 145a
iv 8u nam-ªlugalº-[bi] iv 6a 146
iv 9u a-w[a-an-sè ba-de6] iv 6b 147
(ca. 27 lines lines are missing from the end of col. iv)
27 28 29 30 31

27. PA.L[U].
28. HA. ªAkiº.
29. Almost certainly ªKIº (BA seems to be excluded).
30. 20+ª5º?.
31. The number on the original is 120+ª50º(=4 visible wedges)+x(2 visible horizontals).
 THE BROCKMON COLLECTION DUPLICATE OF THE SUMERIAN KINGLIST 83

Reverse
BT 14 (+ P3) WB ETCSL
(ca. 27 lines are missing from the beginning of col. v)32
BT 14 v 1u [ ]xx iv 40? 181?
v 2u [(x x x) luga]l?-ªbiº33 1-en-à[m] iv 41? 182
v 3u [nam-lu]gal a-rá-2-kam-ma-sè 185a
v 4u [unug]ki-sè ba-e-gur iv 44a 185b
v 5u ªunugºki-ga iv 45a 186a
v 6u en-sakan2-sa4-an-na filugalfl?-ªàmº34 iv 45b– 186b–
46a 187a
v 7u 60 mu ì-ak iv 46b 187b
v 8u lugal-ki-ªniº?-s[è?-du7-du7] iv *47a 188a
v 9u 120 mu ì-[ak] iv *47b 188b
v 10u ar-ªganº-[dé-a] [iv 48a] 189a
v 11u ª7º [mu ì-ak]35 [iv 49b] 189b
(ca. 2 lines are missing from the end of col. v)

BT 14 (+ P3) WB ETCSL
(ca. 32 lines are missing from the beginning of col. vi)36
BT 14 vi 1u [dumu kù]-ªdba-ba6?º-[ke4?] vi 10 245
vi 2u [25 m]u ì-ak vi 11 246b
vi 3u ªurº-[d?]37za-ba4-ba4 vi 12 247
vi 4u dumu-pù-zur8-dsuen-ke4 vi 13 248
vi 5u 360 mu ì-ak vi 14 249
vi 6u 131 mu bal[a] 249Aa
vi 7u kù-dba-ba6-k[am]? 249Ab
32 33 34 35 36 37

32. Including the 12 lines or so containing the Mari dynasty, which were probably inserted after the Kis II dynasty (see
comment to vi 6u–7u below).
33. Traces could also point to m]u-ªbiº.
34. Or ªl u g a lº? - à [m] (uncertain).
35. Probably last line of the column.
36. Assuming that our text in this column omitted the dynasty of Aksak and listed Kis III and IV as one hereditary dynasty
(see comment to vi 6u–7u below).
37. Or perhaps ªdº (uncertain).
84 JACOB KLEIN

P3 (+) BT 14 WB ETCSL
38
(ca. 23 lines are missing from beginning of column vii)
P3 vii 1u u[r?-ur] v 48a? 235a?
vii 2u 6 [mu ì-ak] v 48b? 235b?
vii 3u P[ù?-zur8 d-Nirah~20 mu ì-ak] v 1? 236?
(ca. 6 lines are missing)
BT 14 vii 10u ªnam?º-[lugal a-rá-3-kam-ma-sè] vi 23a 258b
vii 11u ªunugki-sèº [ba-e-gur] vi 23b 258c
vii 12u unugki-[ga] vi 24a 259a
vii 13u ªlugalº-[zà-ge4-si] vi 24b 259b
vii 14u ª25º?39 [mu ì-ak] vi 25a 290b
vii 15u mu-bi ª25º?40-[ì-ak]? vi 27 262
vii 16u unugki g^ istukul-ªeº [ba-sìg] vi 28 263
vii 17u nam-lugal-b[i] vi 29 264
vii 18u a-ga-dèki-sè ba-de6 vi 30 265
vii 19u a-ga-dèki-a vi 31a 266a
vii 20u sar-ru-GI vi 31b 266b
vii 21u ab-ba-ni nu-kiri641 vi 32 267
38 39 40 41

38. Assuming that the 15 lines or so, having contained the dynasty of Aksak, were inserted in this column following the the
Kis III + IV dynasties (see comment to vi 6u–7u below).
39. 20+ª5º? (of the 5 only two digits visible).
40. 20+ª5º (of the 5 only 4 digits are visible).
41. nu-GI†.SAR.
 THE BROCKMON COLLECTION DUPLICATE OF THE SUMERIAN KINGLIST 85

P3 (+) BT 14 WB ETCSL
(ca. 13 lines are missing from beginning of column viii)
P3 viii 1u ª56º? [mu ì-ak] vi 45? 280
viii 2u [sa]r-kà-[li-sar-rí ] vi 46 281
viii 3u dumu na-[ra-am-dsîn] vi 47 282
viii 4u 24 mu ì-[ak] vi 48 283
viii 5u [120]+37 mu [bala] 283A
viii 6u [sa]r-ru-kí-nim 283B
viii 7u [m]a-nu-um sàr vii 1a 284a
viii 8u ma-nu-um la sàr vii 1b 284b
viii 9u i-gi4-gi4 lugal vii 2 285
viii 10u i-mi lugal vii 4 286
viii11u na-ni lugal vii 3 287
viii 12u e-lu-lu lugal vii 5 288
viii 13u 4-bi 3 ªmu íb-akº vii 6–7 289
viii 14u du-[du mu 21 ì-ak] vii 8 290
viii 15u su-[dur-ùl] vii 9a 291
(ca. 7 lines are missing)
BT 14 viii 23u [unug]ªki-sè ba-de6º vii 14b 296b
viii 24u [un]ugki-ªgaº vii 15a 297a
viii 25u ur-nigin3 [lu]gal vii 15b 297b
viii 26u ª7º? mu ì-ªakº vii 16 298
(illegible traces of a colophon)

Commentary
I 1–7: For the numbering of these lines see n. 21 above.
i 3: Judging from the traces, the scribe seems to have omitted nam-.
i 4: Note k i ski - a (for k i ski). The RN seems to read ªGfl I†.ÙRº = g^ u s u r (Glassner 2004 – Gisur; cf. his
comment on p. 150), probably Akk. maskakatu “harrow;” ªg^ a n a2 - ù rº (cf. Hallo 1963: 52) seems to be
excluded. Note also MUL.GI†.GÁN.ÙR as a name of a constellation (CAD sub maskakatu).
i 6: For Kullassina-bel (a RN or a phrase indicating some form of a corporate rule?); see Hallo
(1963: 52); CAD K 505b.
i 7: The ˜gure in BT 14 seems to read: 600+ª300º? = 900 (cf. Hallo 1963: 52), as in P2+L2; Jacobsen
has 600+ª360º.
i 8: Reading uncertain. For the meaning of the name, see Jacobsen (1939: 78, n. 44).
i 9: Note the clearly visible ˜gure 1800 (as against 1200, tentatively read by Hallo [1963: 52]; and
670, read by ETCSL).
i 11: The compound a - r á 7 - ªà m ?º is ignored by ETCSL and Glassner in the translation. The
meaning probably is “7 times,” which seems to make the regnal years total 420x7=2940! Or perhaps
one should restore in our text: [70 m] u a - r á 7-ªà mº “70 years times 7” (=420)?
i 12: Note u4 !/2 (for u4 3 !/2 of the other texts).
86 JACOB KLEIN

i 15: In accordance with Poebel’s copy, the photo points to [N]U before -um at the end of the line
(now invisible on the tablet). Hence, our text most probably read the name [Pu-an-n]u-um. annûm in
this PN is most probably a nominative form of anna “yes” (CAD A/2, 125), and Pû-annûm means “a
mouth (uttering) ‘yes’ ” or the like (for PNs of the type Annû-pÿ-DN; see Stamm 1939: 233–34.). If
Hallo’s alternative reading Pu-an-ªnaº-um is correct, then anna’um may represent the uncontracted
form of the word. Note that one could reconstruct the RN in this line alternatively as [Kà-lí-b]u-um,
since the traces in line i 17 do not point to this PN.
ii 1: The total years of Enmenuna’s hereditary dynasty reigns is correct (660 years for Enmenuna
and 900 for Melam-Kis); cf. the erroneous total of Barsalnuna in ii 8 below.
ii 4: The damaged sign after ZA seems to be MUG, rather than d u m u, which seems to be omitted.
ii 8: This line turns out to contain the total years of the reigns of Barsalnuna’s hereditary dynasty,
raising the number of occurrences of this formula in BT 14 to four (see Klein 1991: 125). The ˜gure
1620 (=10x60+10x60+7x60), which we were able to reconstruct, is short by 25 from the total of the
individual reigns, which amounts to 1645 (=1200+140+305).
ii 9: Reading of this PN is uncertain. Possibilities: il-k[u]-ªúº (so standard edition), il-q[í-sa]-ªdúº (see
Glassner’s note on p. 150), or il-k[u]-ªåu º.
ii 10: The ˜gure in BT 14 seems to be ª10x60+10x60+5x60º (=1500); the other versions have 900.
ii 13: Probably there was no room in the break for EN before BARA2. Hence we propose to restore
the RN as e n - m e - [b a r a2 - g e] - e - s i. ETCSL and Glassner read e n - m e - b a r a2 - g e - s i; Jacobsen has
variants: e n - m e - e n - b a r a2 - g e - s i and e n - m e - b a r a2 - g a - e - s i.
ii 14: Although the other versions have e l a mki - m a at the end of the line, indicating perhaps an
anticipatory genitive, our version seems to have [e l a] mki - d a (but -ta cannot be excluded). The ˜nal -da
(or -ta) is resumed by the -ta- pre˜x in the verb.
iii 1–2: Assigning 420 years to Enmerkar (1) and a total of 745 years to the line of Mes-kiag^ -aser (2),
our text must have assigned to the latter the expected reign span of 325 years, as P2 (not 324).
iii 3: For this spelling of the RN see P2 ii 5; other versions spell m e s - k i - á g^ - g^ á - s e - e r.
iii 9–10: For the new translation and discussion of these lines see above in the introduction with
notes 10–11 above.
iii 13: AB is followed by ªKIº (judging from the outline of the sign) and not BA (all other versions
read e n - k u l - a b - b a - k e4).
iii 14: Note the additional note l u g a l - à m, whose aim is to emphasize the importance of Gfl ilgames.
iv 5u–6u: The ˜gure to be reconstructed is most probably 177, as in he other versions (i.e., 120+
ª50+7º); so Jacobsen and Glassner; ETCSL restores ª171º.
v 2u: This line probably contained an abbreviated formula, summarizing the Hamazi dynasty, to be
restored accordingly: [(ha - m a - z i) l u g a] - b i 1 - e n - à [m]. If this restoration is correct, our version does
not apply here its usual formula for summarizing a hereditary dynasty, because the regnal years of
Hatanis, the single king of the Hamazi dynasty, were mentioned just in the preceding line. This corre-
sponds exactly to WB iv 41–42: 1 l u g a l m u - b i 6 su-si ì - a k (contrary to Jacobsen’s emendation, ibid.
p. 98, notes 172–74; cf. Glassner 1993:140; ETCSL 182–83).
v 3u–4u: For this unique formula for change of dynasty, see below BT 14 vii 10u–11u. This formula is
used also by P6 (see A. Poebel, PBS IV 81; CBS 15365 rev. ii 4–5) and P2 for the total ˜nal summaries
(see Hallo 1963: 55–56).
v 6u: So the RN read by Jacobsen and ETCSL; Glassner reads e n - UG? - s a4 - a n - n a.
In my ˜rst transliteration of the text I read at the end of the line: lugal!-àm; In the copy of the text,
I left the space of the LUGAL sign empty. Since the phrase in question is inscribed on the right edge,
I could not check on the photo whether the scribe wrote LUGAL or omitted it.
 THE BROCKMON COLLECTION DUPLICATE OF THE SUMERIAN KINGLIST 87

v 10u: The RN a r - g a - a n - d é - a (see ETCSL 189; Glassner 1993: 140) seems to be written in our
version: a r - ªg a nº - [d é - a].
vi 2u: The other versions give a ˜gure of twenty-˜ve years.
vi 5u: All editors restore the ˜gure 400. BT 14 has a clear 360!
vi 6u–7u: The formula m u b a l [a] k ù - db a - b a6 - k [a m], as well as the total of 131 given to the hered-
itary dynasty of Ku-Baba, indicate that our duplicate placed Ku-Baba (=Kis III) at the head of Kis IV,
listing the two dynasties as one continuous dynasty, similarly to manuscripts S and Su3–4 (see Jacobsen
1939: 53–54; 159–61; 104, n. 194; 177). The placement of Ku-Baba with her two sons in one sequence
is expected from our scribe who is particularly interested in the hereditary dynasties. A hypothetical
reconstruction of our tablet, compared to former editions of the SKL seems to indicate that unlike S
and Su3–4, in our duplicate the dynasty of Aksak was placed in col. vii, after the Kis IV dynasty, and the
dynasty of Mari was most probably placed in col. v, between the dynasties of Kis II and Hamazi.
From the number 131 given by our text for the total of the regnal years of Ku-Baba and her two sons,
we may conclude that our duplicate assigned to Ku-baba and Puzur-Suen 100 and 25 years respec-
tively, in accordance with the majority of the other duplicates.
vii 1u–3u: The highly tentative restoration of these lines is based on the assumption that the dynasty
of Aksak was placed in this duplicate in the middle of col. vii, after Kis II.
vii 14u: All versions give a ˜gure of 25 years. ETCSL (following my former erroneous reading) gives
for BT 14 a ˜gure of 34 years!
vii 15u:The ˜gure is probably 25, but 34 cannot be excluded.
vii 20u: The writing of Sargon with sar-ru-GI seems not to be attested in any of the other manu-
scripts of the SKL. Our scribe follows the standard writing of this RN in OAkk votive inscriptions
(Frayne 1993: 37–39) and OB copies of Sargonic inscriptions (see Frayne 1993: 10, 32; 13, 1; 14, 35 et
passim as well as the contribution of Joan Westenholz to this volume). Another archaic writing of this
RN, attested especially in Sumerian texts, is †ar-um-GI (see Frayne 1993: 8 et passim; A. Westenholz,
OSP 1 98; Gelb 1957: 139, 288). For OAkk PNs with the element GI (=kÿnum), including †arrum-kÿn,
see Gelb (1957: 138–40). Note however the syllabic spelling of the name in viii 6u below.

References
Beckman, G.
2005 The Limits of Credulity. JAOS 125: 343–52.
Edzard, D. O.
2003 Sumerian Grammar. HdOr I/71. Leiden: Brill.
Frayne, D.
1993 Sargonic and Gutian Periods (2334–2113 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods 2:
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Gelb, I. J.
1957 A Glossary of Old Akkadian. Materials for the Akkadian Dictionary 3. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Glassner, J.-J.
2004 Mesopotamian Chronicles. WAW 19. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Hallo, W. W.
1963 Beginning and End in the Sumerian Kinglist in the Nippur Recension. JCS 17: 52–57.
1990 The Limits of Skepticism. JAOS 118: 187–99.
Jacobsen, T.
1939 The Sumerian Kinglist. AS 11. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Keetman, J.
2007 König Gilgames reitet auf seinen Untertanen. BiOr 64: 14.
88 JACOB KLEIN

Klein, J.
1991 A New Nippur Duplicate of the Sumerian Kinglist in the Brockmon Collection, University of Haifa. AuOr 9:
123–29.
Shaˆer, A.
1983 Gilgamesh, the Cedar Forest and Mesopotamian History. JAOS 103: 309–13.
Sigrist, M., and Damerow, P.
1991 Mesopotamian Yearnames: Neo-Sumerian and Old-Babylonian Date Formulae I. Bethesda: CDL.
Stamm, J. J.
1939 Die akkadische Namengebung. MVAeG 44. Leipzig: Hinrichs.
Steinkeller, P.
2003 An Ur III Manuscript of the Sumerian King List. Pp. 267–92 in Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopota-
mien: Festschrift für Claus Wilcke, ed. W. Sallaberger, K. Volk, and A. Zgoll. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Thomsen, M.-L.
1984 The Sumerian Language. Copenhagen: Akademisk Verlag.
THE BROCKMON COLLECTION DUPLICATE OF THE SUMERIAN KINGLIST 89
90 JACOB KLEIN

BT 14 + CBS 13994 Obverse

THE BROCKMON COLLECTION DUPLICATE OF THE SUMERIAN KINGLIST 91

BT 14 + CBS 13994 Reverse and Right Edge (above right)