From: Dick Fischer (dickfischer@earthlink.net)
Date: Mon Nov 17 2003 - 15:29:54 EST
Hi Rich, you wrote:
>In a message dated 11/17/03 12:13:18 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>dickfischer@earthlink.net writes:
>The Sumerian king list says, "after the flood swept thereover" kingship
>was restored at Kish Twenty-three kings ruled there until, "Kish was
>smitten with weapons; its kingship to E-Anna(k) was carried." In The
>Makers of Civilization, Waddell translated E-Anna(k) directly as "Enoch,"
>reckoning it as the Sumerian equivalent for Enoch, the city built by Cain.
>
>I have Waddell's Egyptian Civilization It's Sumerian Origin and Real
>Chronology - I asked John V. Day, Author of Indo-European Origins,
>the Anthropological Evidence if Waddell's work was still reliable and he
>told me the chronologies in the king lists were suspect.
Waddell was trying to prove that the origin of the peoples who settled the
Indus valley were of Sumerian and not Semitic origin. He produced
companion king lists from Sumer and juxtaposed them alongside king lists
found in the Indus valley showing that there was a commonality. As far as
being "suspect" I don't think he altered any of them.
>I am also perplexed the Oxford companion to archeology would mention 2900
>B.C. in reference to Uruk without mentioning a flood, although
>perhaps Kish was flooded and Uruk was not?
The Early Dynastic Period (E.D.I) began at Kish after the flood. The start
of E.D.I is dated at 2900 BC. The flood is kind of a third rail to
Sumerologists. They don't want to open that can of worms, lose
credibility, and be harangued by displeased, Bible thumping
evangelicals. But a thick layer of "water-laid" clay was found at Uruk
just as at the other city sites. Kish had multiple layers.
Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Nov 17 2003 - 15:30:36 EST