(1) Var. {Euedoreskhos}; the second half of the original name, Enmeduranki, is more closely preserved in Edoranchus, the form given by the Armenian translator of Eusebius.

I do not propose to detain you with a detailed discussion of Sumerian royal names and their possible Greek equivalents.  I will merely point out that the two suggested equations, which I venture to think we may regard as established, throw the study of Berossus’ mythological personages upon a new plane.  No equivalent has hitherto been suggested for {Daonos}; but {’Ammenon} has been confidently explained as the equivalent of a conjectured Babylonian original, Ummanu, lit.  “Workman”.  The fact that we should now have recovered the Sumerian original of the name, which proves to have no connexion in form or meaning with the previously suggested Semitic equivalent, tends to cast doubt on other Semitic equations proposed.  Perhaps {’Amelon} or {’Amillaros} may after all not prove to be the equivalent of Amelu, “Man”, nor {’Amempsinos} that of Amel-Sin.  Both may find their true equivalents in some of the missing royal names at the head of the Sumerian Dynastic List.  There too we may provisionally seek {’Aloros}, the “first king”, whose equation with Aruru, the Babylonian mother-goddess, never appeared a very happy suggestion.(1) The ingenious proposal,(2) on the other hand, that his successor, {’Alaparos}, represents a miscopied {’Adaparos}, a Greek rendering of the name of Adapa, may still hold good in view of Etana’s presence in the Sumerian dynastic record.  Ut-napishtim’s title, Khasisatra or Atrakhasis, “the Very Wise”, still of course remains the established equivalent of {Xisouthros}; but for {’Otiartes} (?  {’Opartes}), a rival to Ubar-Tutu, Ut-napishtim’s father, may perhaps appear.  The new identifications do not of course dispose of the old ones, except in the case of Ummanu; but they open up a new line of approach and provide a fresh field for conjecture.(3) Semitic, and possibly contracted, originals are still possible for unidentified mythical kings of Berossus; but such equations will inspire greater confidence, should we be able to establish Sumerian originals for the Semitic renderings, from new material already in hand or to be obtained in the future.

(1) Dr. Poebel (Hist Inscr., p. 42, n. 1) makes the interesting suggestion that {’Aloros} may represent an abbreviated and corrupt form of the name Lal-ur-alimma, which has come down to us as that of an early and mythical king of Nippur; see Rawlinson, W.A.I., IV, 60 (67), V, 47 and 44, and cf. Sev.  Tabl. of Creat., Vol.  I, p. 217, No. 32574, Rev., l. 2 f.  It may be added that the sufferings with which the latter is associated in the tradition are perhaps such as might have attached themselves to the first human ruler of the world; but the suggested equation, though tempting by reason of the remote parallel it would thus furnish to Adam’s fate, can at present hardly be accepted in view of the possibility that a closer equation to {’Aloros} may be forthcoming.

     (2) Hommel, Proc.  Soc.  Bibl.  Arch., Vol.  XV (1893), p.
     243.