period, apart from his preceding mythical ages, while the figure as preserved by Eusebius is 33,091 years.(1) The compiler of one of our new lists,(2) writing some 1,900 years earlier, reckons that the dynastic period in his day had lasted for 32,243 years.  Of course all these figures are mythical, and even at the time of the Sumerian Dynasty of Nisin variant traditions were current with regard to the number of historical and semi-mythical kings of Babylonia and the duration of their rule.  For the earlier writer of another of our lists,(3) separated from the one already quoted by an interval of only sixty-seven years, gives 28,876(4) years as the total duration of the dynasties at his time.  But in spite of these discrepancies, the general resemblance presented by the huge totals in the variant copies of the list to the alternative figures of Berossus, if we ignore his mythical period, is remarkable.  They indicate a far closer correspondence of the Greek tradition with that of the early Sumerians themselves than was formerly suspected.

(1) The figure 34,090 is that given by Syncellus (ed.  Dindorf, p. 147); but it is 34,080 in the equivalent which is added in “sars”, &c.  The discrepancy is explained by some as due to an intentional omission of the units in the second reckoning; others would regard 34,080 as the correct figure (cf. Hist. of Bab., p. 114 f.).  The reading of ninety against eighty is supported by the 33,091 of Eusebius (Chron. lib. pri., ed.  Schoene, col. 25).

     (2) No. 4.

     (3) No. 2.

     (4) The figures are broken, but the reading given may be
     accepted with some confidence; see Poebel, Hist.  Inscr.,
     p. 103.

Further proof of this correspondence may be seen in the fact that the new Sumerian Version of the Deluge Story, which I propose to discuss in the second lecture, gives us a connected account of the world’s history down to that point.  The Deluge hero is there a Sumerian king named Ziusudu, ruling in one of the newly created cities of Babylonia and ministering at the shrine of his city-god.  He is continually given the royal title, and the foundation of the Babylonian “kingdom” is treated as an essential part of Creation.  We may therefore assume that an Antediluvian period existed in Sumerian tradition as in Berossus.(1) And I think Dr. Poebel is right in assuming that the Nippur copies of the Dynastic List begin with the Post-diluvian period.(2)

(1) Of course it does not necessarily follow that the figure assigned to the duration of the Antediluvian or mythical period by the Sumerians would show so close a resemblance to that of Berossus as we have already noted in their estimates of the dynastic or historical period.  But there is no need to assume that Berossus’ huge total of a hundred and twenty “sars” (432,000 years) is entirely a product of Neo- Babylonian speculation; the total 432,000 is explained as representing