Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
THE TEXT WHICH WE KNOW AS THE SUMERIAN KING LIST has been with us for quite some time.' Seventyone years ago V. Scheil published the first manuscript of the composition but the text truly made its imprint on the field of Assyriology due to the pioneering efforts of A. Poebel and, most importantly, those of T. Jacobsen, who published his now classic treatment of the in 1939.2 Since that time the King List has been dissected and commented upon there has been, surprisingly, little critical literature on the subject. Most studies of early Mesopotamian history have in one way or another made use of this text and while one often encounters isolated comments on the tendentious nature of the composition, to this day we lack any comprehensive modern study of the nonphilological aspects of the King List. In the comments that follow I would like to make a preliminary attempt at a reevaluation of the Sumerian King List. I cannot pretend to solve most of the questions which I feel should be raised concerning this composition; I would, however, like to discuss a number of issues which arise from the study of this rather peculiar text. I use the word peculiar not because of the fact that like most of us I often feel frustrated and lost when confronting any ancient text, but because I am becoming convinced that the King List is unique in many ways and that it contains certain features which it shares with no other Sumerian text.
Piotr Michałowski (Sat,) studied this question.