The newly published Nippur documents will cause us to modify that view.  The lists of early kings were themselves drawn up under the Dynasty of Nisin in the twenty-second century B.C., and they give us traces of possibly ten and at least eight other “kingdoms” before the earliest dynasty of the known lists.(1) One of their novel features is that they include summaries at the end, in which it is stated how often a city or district enjoyed the privilege of being the seat of supreme authority in Babylonia.  The earliest of their sections lie within the legendary period, and though in the third dynasty preserved we begin to note signs of a firmer historical tradition, the great break that then occurs in the text is at present only bridged by titles of various “kingdoms” which the summaries give; a few even of these are missing and the relative order of the rest is not assured.  But in spite of their imperfect state of preservation, these documents are of great historical value and will furnish a framework for future chronological schemes.  Meanwhile we may attribute to some of the later dynasties titles in complete agreement with Sumerian tradition.  The dynasty of Ur-Engur, for example, which preceded that of Nisin, becomes, if we like, the Third Dynasty of Ur.  Another important fact which strikes us after a scrutiny of the early royal names recovered is that, while two or three are Semitic,(2) the great majority of those borne by the earliest rulers of Kish, Erech, and Ur are as obviously Sumerian.

(1) See Poebel, Historical Texts, pp. 73 ff. and Historical and Grammatical Texts, pl. ii-iv, Nos. 2-5.  The best preserved of the lists is No. 2; Nos. 3 and 4 are comparatively small fragments; and of No. 5 the obverse only is here published for the first time, the contents of the reverse having been made known some years ago by Hilprecht (cf. Mathematical, Metrological, and Chronological Tablets, p. 46 f., pl. 30, No. 47).  The fragments belong to separate copies of the Sumerian dynastic record, and it happens that the extant portions of their text in some places cover the same period and are duplicates of one another.

(2) Cf., e.g., two of the earliest kings of Kish, Galumum and Zugagib.  The former is probably the Semitic-Babylonian word kalumum, “young animal, lamb,” the latter zukakibum, “scorpion”; cf.  Poebel, Hist.  Texts, p. 111.  The occurrence of these names points to Semitic infiltration into Northern Babylonia since the dawn of history, a state of things we should naturally expect.  It is improbable that on this point Sumerian tradition should have merely reflected the conditions of a later period.

It is clear that in native tradition, current among the Sumerians themselves before the close of the third millennium, their race was regarded as in possession of Babylonia since the dawn of history.  This at any rate proves that their advent was not sudden