The Funerary Papyrus of Khonsumes: Not an Ancient Depiction of Mitosis

 

by Leif Inselmann and Andrea Sinclair

Read online in German at Leif's blog Wunderkammer der Kulturgeschichte here

  

Papyrus of Khonsumes, Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna, ÄS 3859. Photo Leif Inselmann.

 

Introduction
 

The permanent exhibition of ancient Egyptian art in the Kunsthistorisches Museum (Museum of Art History) in Vienna is home to a remarkable artifact: The funerary papyrus of Khonsumes (inv. no. ÄS 3859), consisting of two parts of 207 and 223 cm length, and first described by H. von Demel (1944), features a long row of elaborate religious imagery far from self-explanatory to modern eyes.
 

In recent times, one depiction on the papyrus has attracted the interest of fringe theorists such as the Austrian writer Reinhard Habeck. In his book Dinge, die es nicht geben dürfte (‘Things that should not exist’, 2008, p. 186), Habeck suggests:

‘The document is on display at the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna and shows amazing details of biochemical processes! Particularly clear in an illustration that resembles a cell nucleus division (mitosis). This biological process ensures the growth and reproduction of all living organisms. Cell division creates two cells from one old cell, whereby the genetic material of the daughter cells is identical to that of the mother cell. This is exactly what is depicted on the papyrus: Two women hold vessels in their hands and supply the large depicted ovule with fluid. Within this cell, the beginnings of the daughter cells can be recognised, which are connected to each other with dotted lines. They resemble graphically correctly drawn spindle threads during metaphase. A contemporary biology book could hardly illustrate the process better.’ (trans. LI)

Microbiological knowledge in ancient Egypt, almost three thousand years before the discovery of cell division in the 19th century CE? Habeck’s unusual claim, adapted from the German computer scientist and energy healer Dieter Vogl, and repeated in his later book Wesen, die es nicht geben dürfte (‘Creatures that should not exist’, 2012, p. 206), is part of a wider context of ancient astronaut speculation. In both his books, Habeck explicitly links the ‘mitosis papyrus’ to other examples of ancient biotechnology supposedly imparted by extraterrestrial gods, such as resurrection via cloning and the alleged existence of genetically engineered hybrid creatures (Mischwesen), an idea directly borrowed from Erich von Däniken (see Inselmann in prep. for discussion).

 

Indeed, to a modern observer the papyrus seems – at least superficially, not in all details ‒ to resemble a modern depiction of mitosis as known from biology curriculum. But what does it really show? If the scene ‘only’ depicts the circuit of the sun, as assumed by Egyptologists, then -

 

‘why is the central star supplied with liquid? And why are there two other suns within the sun that send each other sunbeams? […] And what about the ‘spindle threads’ between the two poles? […] Symbols, nothing but symbols, without reference to reality?’ (Habeck 2008, p. 187 f; trans. LI).

 

However, answering these questions and decoding the actual meaning of the picture is only possible by rigorous consideration of its historical context, including the adjacent hieroglyphs, ancient Egyptian iconography, and comparison with similar depictions.

 

Schematic depiction of mitosis: After the DNA has condensed into chromosomes (prophase), 

these arrange themselves in the centre of the cell along the spindle (metaphase), before splitting 

in the middle (anaphase) and forming two new cell nuclei (telophase). Graph Jpablo cad 

/ Juliana osorio; tr. Matt, Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA 3.0

 

  

The historical context 

Papyrus of Khonsumes, Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna, ÄS 3859. Photo Leif Inselmann.

The funerary papyrus of Khonsumes (xnsw-ms) from the Vienna museum has no provenience, i.e. no archaeological find context, having been acquired by the museum from the antiquities collector Bernardino Drovetti in 1825. It was possibly originally from the Bab el Gasus cache (tomb of the Amen priests at western Thebes) and very likely to be from the region of Thebes in southern Egypt, due to the titles and activities of Khonsumes, and the importance of the city and the Amen priesthood of Thebes at this time. It is dated to the Third Intermediate Period, 21st Dynasty (1064-940 BCE) when Egypt was not united under one pharaoh, and the Theban priesthood had considerable power (Khonsumes).

The papyrus is generously illustrated in polychrome with only a nominal amount of hieroglyphic text to explain the images. The minimal text consists of brief captions naming some of the gods that are depicted and the titles of the dead man, Khonsumes, who had senior roles in the precincts of the temple of Amen:

- Overseer of scribes of the treasury of the domain of Amen and god’s father of Amen  

 

The mummy of Khonsumes lying on a funerary bed, jars containing his organs beneath. 
From his Book of the Dead, Louvre N 3070. Image © Ushabtis.com.

 

 

Context of funerary papyri

The Book of the Dead, or more correctly the Book of Coming out in the Day (‘pri m hrw’), was designed to provide the (elite) Egyptian deceased with a guide to navigate the process of death and regeneration in the Egyptian afterlife. It was buried in their tombs with their carefully mummified corpse and other grave goods considered essential for a comfortable afterlife. For this process of regeneration, the deceased needed to pass through the Underworld, knowing the portals and its guardians, be purified, and undergo judgement of his integrity by the gods, ultimately being revived as the god Osiris, just as the Sun god Re was thought to have been reborn from the Underworld every morning.

The Book of the Dead first appears on papyri and linen shrouds in the early New Kingdom, Dynasty 18 (1549-1298 BCE) in the tombs of nobles, but not the tombs of kings. These papyri were the descendants (with changes) of the much earlier Old Kingdom Pyramid Texts which were originally exclusive to kings. These later became the Coffin Texts of the Middle Kingdom, ultimately becoming the Book of the Dead of the New Kingdom. Because it was a large text and probably quite costly to produce most examples of the Book of the Dead and other funerary papyri were not produced in their entirety, rather they vary widely in choice of imagery and spells. Therefore, many papyri in museums are economical versions of this book, with only a selection of spells represented as images and/or text (Niwinski 1989a, pp. 1-5; Hornung 1979, pp. 22-3; 1999, pp. 13-5; Quirke 2013, viii; Lucarelli & Stadler 2023, passim).

Khonsumes making an incense offering to Re, Osiris, Isis and Nephthys. 
From his Book of the Dead, Louvre N 3070, Paris . Image © Ushabtis.com.

 

 

21st Dynasty papyri
 

However, what might be called the ‘Book of the Dead’ today in mainstream media actually involves a variety of different funerary documents that were related to navigating the Egyptian afterlife. In around 1000 BCE in the 3rd Intermediate Period when the papyrus of Khonsumes was made it was normal for two papyri to be interred with the (wealthy) dead in their tomb, usually a Book of the Dead and a Book of the Amduat (‘jm.j-dwA.t’ – lit. ‘in the Underworld’), but other Underworld books, like the Litany of Re and combinations of these as ‘mythological’ papyri also occur (Piankoff and Rambova 1957, p. 20; Niwinsky 1989a, pp. 159-61; Hornung 1999, pp. 27-30; Darnell & Manassa 2018, pp. 127-31).

Therefore, while Habeck states in his introduction that this papyrus is Khonsumes’ Book of the Dead: It is not. This Book of the Dead is in the Louvre museum in France (N 3070). The papyrus that is the subject of Habeck’s claim of cell division is instead a Book of the Amduat, which is clearly written in hieroglyphs on the introductory margin of the papyrus. This type of funerary text originally only occurred in king’s tombs in the 18th and 19th Dynasty (1549-1187 BCE), but began to appear in elite tombs in the 19th Dynasty, becoming a feature of these by the 21st (1064-940 BCE).

The Amduat type of papyrus is a guide for the Sun god and the deceased to navigate the twelve dangerous hours of the night in the Underworld in order to be reborn on the eastern horizon in the morning (Warburton 2007, passim). However, in the 21st Dynasty Amduat is also the name applied to variations to this type of papyrus that could contain spells from the Book of the Dead, Litany of Re and mythological or cosmological themes. These mix-and-match papyri were also less dependent on text and much more image based (Hornung 1999, 27-53; Piankoff & Rambova 1957). 

The Judgement scene, weighing of the heart of Khonsumes.
From his Amduat papyrus, Vienna. Image © Ushabtis.com.

The Vienna Khonsumes papyrus is one of this type, where the other scenes accompanying the Hacking of the Earth motif discussed here are references to the creation myth, to Underworld books, and particularly to over 15 spells from the Book of the Dead, such as the Weighing of the Heart (BD 125, above), the 7 Hathor cows (BD 148), the Lake of Fire (BD 126), the Mounds of the Underworld (BD 149-50), and the deceased given water by the goddess of the sycamore, Nut (BD 59).

Because of this wide spectrum of motifs, the Khonsumes papyrus was designated as a ‘mythological papyrus’ by Piankoff and Rambova in 1957. Whereas, in his study of 3rd Intermediate funerary papyri from 1989 Niwinski classified this papyrus as ‘other (Amduat) papyri with BD-motives’ (Amduat.III.1B). Other scholars may use the term ‘cosmological’ or even ‘classical’, the latter in relation to coffins that share these motifs (Sousa 2024, 35).

There are, to our knowledge, four papyri that contain this specific Hacking ritual motif. They date to a short period of about 50 years during the 21st Dynasty, to ca. 1050-1000 BCE:

Khonsumes Vienna INV 3859, mid 21st Dynasty (Niwinski A.III.1B). 
Tantimen Biblioteque Nationale de Paris (BNF) 170-173, mid 21st Dynasty (BD with mythological scenes, Niwinski BD.III.1A). 
Nestytanebettawy Cairo CG 40017, mid 21st Dynasty (Niwinsky A.III.1B). 
Nesypaqashuty Louvre E 17401, early to mid 21st Dynasty (Niwinski A.III.1B). 

Papyrus of Khonsumes, Vienna ÄS 3859. Photo Leif Inselmann).

Deciphering the images

The ‘Hacking’ scene on the papyrus of Khonsumes shows two goddesses holding vases and facing inwards towards a large circle onto which they pour a liquid substance. In the text the goddess on the left is called ‘She of the North’ and on the right ‘She of the South’. In the upper left the names and titles of Osiris Khonsumes are given, above a representation of him being given water by the goddess Nut as tree goddess (BD 57-59). To the right of the Hacking scene there are also hieroglyphic symbols: a swallow, falcon, man with vase, etc that are cryptic references to the sacred Mounds of the Underworld from spells 149-50 of the Book of the Dead.

Hacking scene, Padiamen I, Cairo JE 29668. Illustration A. Sinclair.

Between the goddesses with jars there is a large circle containing two yellow globes – one centre top, one below – that are joined by 9 lines of vertical red ‘rays’ not dissimilar to the goddess’s ‘liquid’. These globes (and rays) are standard symbolism for solar disks, and refer to the Sun god, Re. The rays unsurprisingly represent rays of light. This red substance and that which the goddesses pour is interpreted as ‘fiery liquid’ by Piankoff and Rambova (1957, 145), which is supported by other examples, like the papyrus of Tantimen where all ‘substances’ are red and emphasis is placed on fire by the addition of fire symbols (‘Ax.t’) within the circle.

Book of the Dead papyrus of Tantimen, BNF Paris 170-173. Image © Ushabtis.com.

 

For Tantimen the scene is also flanked by the Underworld Lake of Fire (right) and the ram-headed Sun god in the solar boat (left), also surrounded by signs for fire. However, the liquid has also been interpreted as water by Niwinski (1989b, p. 57) and Regen (2017, p. 444). The latter argues this on the basis of the image from a coffin (Imiseba, Cairo JE 29659) where the caption in front of each goddess reads ‘spit out’ - ‘water’. For that example, the liquid may indeed be intended to be ‘spit’ or water, but not necessarily all, as in Egyptian art water is commonly indicated by a blue wavy or zig zag line, and it is clearly shown as such in funerary vignettes adjacent to this motif elsewhere.

 

Concerning the interior of the picture, Habeck (2008, pp. 186 f) writes:

‘On the left and right, four male figures ‘hoeing the earth’. This ancient rite is also associated by Egyptologists with ‘fertilisation’ and ‘new life’. What is striking is that all the men are presenting their ‘best piece’ in an erect pose. A further indication that the scene was not intended to show ‘some imaginary symbol for fertile farmland’, but a human fertilisation and ‘life generation’ process.’ (trans. LI)

Indeed, on all four papyri on either side of the disks with vertical rays, there are four male figures wearing kilts who face inwards holding raised mattocks (the sign ‘mr’ – ‘hoe’). However, contrary to Habeck, these figures do not have erections (‘to reinforce the fertility symbolism’). What he interprets as an ‘erect’ penis is the tie that is part of the linen kilt, and is standard for the iconography of male labourers and Egyptian men in general. The schematic nature of these figures varies depending on the specific example, and naturally the so-called ‘erections’ are not on most examples of this motif. This human figure as an ideogram (as hieroglyph or in hieratic) was used on papyri to illustrate or write ‘hacking’ the ground with a mattock, ‘xbs’ ‒ ‘hacking up’ (Gardiner A58 - Thoth Sign List TSL_1_843; Aku Pal Grapheme; TLA).

Illustrations L & R - A. Sinclair. Centre: wooden figure of Tjeteti, Old Kingdom 

Image © Metropolitan Museum 26.2.10.

Above the large circle and its flanking goddesses, the subject varies for the four papyri, but not its value – the rising Sun, with whom the deceased hopes to be merged as Osiris. The upper scene may contain Isis and Nephthys flanking a central motif (Nestytanebettawy), Bennu phoenixes (Tantimen), gods and West symbols (Nesypaqashuty) or only the solar motif (Khonsumes). The goddesses are clearly labelled on two of the papyri and where repeated have the same identifying features. On the Khonsumes papyrus they are named using titles of these goddesses (‘She of the North’ and ‘She of the South’, Niwinsky 2018, 42).

Amduat papyrus of Nestytanebettawy, Cairo CG 40017. Image © Ushabtis.com.

However, on the papyrus of Nestytanebettawy (above) there is a clear double line separating the upper and lower scenes, so it is likely that the upper scene with Isis and Nephthys adoring the Ta-wer standard of Osiris and the city of Abydos may refer to a different vignette from the Book of the Dead – the entry of the deceased into Osiris’ city of Abydos and joining the Followers of Osiris there (BD 138), however it may also allude to the annual festival of death and revival of Osiris-Sokar which would directly connect it with the lower Hacking ritual image. 

 

 

Illustration A. Sinclair 

The upper motif of the three other papyri is specifically related to the reappearance of the Sun at dawn from the Duat or Underworld. On the Khonsumes papyrus this is simply represented by the symbol of the rising Sun between two mountains - ‘akhet’ (‘Ax.t’), which is also the ideogram for ‘horizon’ (and not related to the word for fire). The papyrus of Tantimen shows a more elaborate version of this with the akhet sign representing the Sun god within the Solar boat. Phoenixes (rebirth), and Khepri beetles (creation/dawn) are used to reinforce this message. The papyrus of Nesypaqashuty (below) has a mummified Re-Osiris with winged Khepri scarab as its head. This god is flanked by symbols of the West (land of the dead) and captioned ‘Duat’ (far left).

Nephthys (left) and Isis (right), Amduat papyrus of Nesypaqashuty 
Louvre E 17401. Image © Ushabtis.com.

21st Dynasty Sarcophagi

This rare scene is also attested on ten coffins with cosmological motifs similarly dating to the early to middle 21st Dynasty. At this time funerary imagery from the Book of the Dead and Amduat were no longer painted on tomb walls and as a result the inner and outer surface of the elite coffins acquired these various funerary texts and vignettes instead. This magical action was combined with the actual papyri Book of the Dead and Amduat that were placed within these (Regen 2017, p. 447; Niwinski 2018, p. 35; Sousa 2024, p. 26).

Padiamen I Cairo JE 29668 
Padiamen II usurped by Amenempermut, Cairo JE 29706 
Pakharu Cairo JE 29670 
Imiseba usurped by Nesyamenipet, Cairo JE 29659 
Nespawershefyt Fitzwilliam, Cambridge E.1.1822 
Sutymes Louvre, Paris, N 2610 
Itamen usurped by Nesyamen, Metropolitan Museum, New York 26.32.2a-b (currently Virginia MFA 6.7.47.77) 
Paentahutresu Metternich Museum, Königwart, Czech, 1086 
Pasebakhaienipet Brooklyn CUR 08.480 
Seramen Besanḉon, France A778

On the coffins with this motif the basic format remains unchanged. Isis and Nephthys are again usually present, but they are not always performing the ‘watering action’. The predominant motif placed above the large circle is again symbolism related to the regenerated rising Sun, nearly always including the solar boat over a mummified solar god (Re-Osiris), as on the papyrus of Tantimen. The most noticeable difference to the papyri, however, is that on the coffins there is variation in the number of hacking men, who can be ten, twelve or fourteen. 

 

In addition, one early 21st Dynasty coffin (Paentahutresu) has no hacking men and instead has twelve stars (12 hours of the night). It also has stars instead of rays passing between the two solar disks. The five-pointed star in Egyptian is a symbol of the Duat, and naturally also for ‘star’. The motif of the goddesses Isis and Nephthys adoring the rising solar-Osirian god with the solar barque placed above it is also present on coffins of this period without the circle with Hacking ritual (e.g. Tjenetipet, Sousa 2024, p. 368, figs. 5.10-11).

Brooklyn 08.480 & Louvre N 2610. Image and illustrations A. Sinclair.

 

 

Solar iconography

These colourful vignettes on papyri and coffins of the 21st Dynasty, and the specific image from Khonsumes are usually described as mythological or cosmological scenes within Egyptology, because they represent snippets of mythological lore, as well as funerary spells and motifs from the Underworld books. They also come with captions, more often than not naming the setting as the ‘Duat’ (‘Underworld’) and the gods who are present: Isis, Nephthys and various aspects of the Sun god: Khepri, Re-Herakhte and Atum.

Habeck (2008) describes this scene as being related to fertilisation and newly developing life (»Befruchtung« und »neu entstehendem Leben«) which suits his argument that it is an image of cell division. However, that is not what is happening here.

The two goddesses, Isis and Nephthys, wife and sister of Osiris, were essential to the regeneration of the solar Osiris as he passes through the night and therefore they were also essential to the dead person, who wishes to be Osiris-Re. In Books of the Dead these goddesses are commonly depicted in mourning, kneeling either side of the coffin of the Osiris, as kites (BD 17, 151) or adoring the rising or setting Sun god (BD 15-16).

 

Solar disks over the head of the mummy, coffin of Imiseba. Cairo JE 29659. 
21st Dynasty. Illustration A. Sinclair after Niwinsky 1989b, fig. 4.

 

In the Hacking scene, these goddesses sometimes pour a red substance, likely fire, perhaps water or even blood, over a circle representing the Earth and Underworld that the Sun god must pass through at night. A circle or oval can represent totality or entirety of a cosmic idea, like the Underworld, whereas a freestanding red or yellow circle usually indicates the Sun. Nonetheless the two red circles with rays passing between them are unequivocally the Sun god in two aspects, likely at dusk and dawn, on the western and eastern horizons, when he is entering and leaving the Duat. Here they are shorthand for his passage through the land of the dead at night.

Therefore, to answer Habeck’s ‒ ‘why are there two other suns within the sun that send each other sunbeams?’ ‒ there was no restriction on the amount of times that a symbol, like a god or solar disk, could be repeated in an image. In fact, Egyptian art favours duplication or mirroring symbols. It is not a snapshot of a single moment, but rather a mapping of a complex process. This is apparent on two earlier examples of Underworld imagery related to this topic from the tombs of pharaohs Ramses III (1185-1153 BCE) and Ramses VI (1141-1133 BCE), where the Sun god’s passage through the twelve hours of the night (from the Book of the Earth) are represented by twelve solar disks and Duat symbols, in addition to two sun symbols (not to mention sun signs within the text).

Solar Osirian Underworld motif from the Book of the Earth, naming Ramses III. 
Sun disks highlighted in red. Image Champollion 1844, 422-3.

The original template for the dual solar motif, apart from the examples given above, is likely to come from another Underworld book, the Litany of Re, or Book of Adoring Re in the West, which also is painted on papyri and a few coffins at this time and slightly earlier. This book, like the Book of the Dead, also first appears in the 18th Dynasty (in king’s tombs) and lists the 75 names and forms of the Sun god that were essential for the deceased to know as he passes through the Underworld (Hornung 1997, p. 136-9; Darnell & Manassa 2018, pp. 61-3; Piankoff 1964). 

 

The two disks with rays passing between them are specific forms of this solar Re-Osiris attested from the papyri of Henuttawy (Cairo JE 95887), Mutemwiya (British Museum EA 10007), Paser, (BNF 158-161) and Pakharu (Cairo JE 95878). This motif reinforces a connection to the passage of the Sun when entering and leaving the Underworld, and is conveniently explicit in the text accompanying this symbolism from the papyri of Paser and Pakharu (Piankoff 1964, pp. 137, 169):

‘They grant to enter and to come out of the Necropolis before the gods and the goddesses, lords of the Netherworld, to Osiris … Paser, the justified one before the gods.’

‘Words spoken by the Lords of the Netherworld, the Mysterious ones (?). They grant that Osiris … Pakharu, the justified one, may enter.’

Dual disks on 21st Dynasty papyri. Illustration A. Sinclair.

The myth of the slaughter of the ‘band of Seth’

On the other hand, the ritual of khebes-ta, (xbs-tA) - ‘Hacking the Earth’, that is shown being performed either side of the solar disks is an expression of ‘rebirth’, but not fertilisation per se or new life, rather it shows the process of the specific regeneration of a dead man after passing all the purifications, trials and gates of the Underworld. In fact, one of the problems with clarity for this topic is the unfortunate use of ‘loaded’ terms like ‘resurrected’ and ‘reborn’. This image is a re-enactment of the regeneration of the dead, who after many trials becomes assimilated with the god of the Underworld, ‘Osiris’. The god whom Isis and Nephthys magically revived after he was murdered by his brother Seth, god of chaos.

This scene shows part of the rituals that were enacted in festival contexts from as early as the Old Kingdom and continued until the Classical period. The Hacking of the Earth was an important ancient ritual that took place at night as a component of the mysteries of Osiris-Sokar (Gaballa & Kitchen 1969, pp. 23, 39; Bonnet 2000/1959, pp. 167-8). It was performed on the 22nd day of the festival in the 4th Akhet and involved digging over the ground with mattocks, re-enacting the digging in of the blood of the Followers of Seth who were ritually slaughtered in revenge for Osiris’ murder. Their blood, when dug into the earth, was essential to revive the god in his passage through the Underworld and naturally also for the deceased as Osiris. After the ritual is performed, the god and deceased could receive offerings and be regenerated into the new day. The goddesses Isis and Nephthys were also an essential part of these rites. In addition, the Abydos Ta-wer standard of Osiris was one of the main emblems of this festival (see Tantimen papyrus).

The Creation from the papyrus of Tantimen, BNF Paris 170-173. Image © Ushabtis.com.

This Osirian ritual of Hacking of the Earth is recorded as early as Old Kingdom Pyramid Texts (pyramids of Pepi I, Pepi II and Merenre, Allen 2005), where the action, with the presentation of offerings, is part of the final process of deification of the deceased king before their regeneration and ascension to reside among the gods. This idea passed through into the festival calendar and Middle Kingdom Coffin Texts (CT 84, 557, Faulkner 1973), then further into the New Kingdom Book of the Dead (spells 18.8 & 20.20, Hornung 1979) to become an unusual visual motif in a few 21st Dynasty papyri and coffins in around 1000 BCE, at which time the assimilation of Osiris and Re into one living (Re) and dying (Osiris) solar god had taken place. A god called the Hacker of the Earth is also one of the four guardians of a portal in the 9th hour in the Book of the Amduat (Warburton, 2007, p. 270; Darnell & Manassa 2018, p. 212).

BECOMING NEHEBKAU IN THE REALM OF THE DEAD.  

I have used(?) myrrh, I have burnt incense, I have hacked up the earth, I have presented offerings before Isis and Nephthys…

Ho N! [name of deceased] Come that you may see Osiris; the earth is hacked up for you, the offering presented to you, reverence is paid to you… O N. live and be a spirit for ever in these your six festivals of eternity…

Spells 84 & 557, Coffin Texts, Faulkner 1973

Context again

This scene is rare and was only introduced to vignettes of funerary papyri and coffins in the 21st Dynasty along with other novel mythological scenes, like the image of the creation of the world by the god of air, Shu separating his daughter, the sky goddess Nut, from her brother, Geb, the earth god. Another common motif from this type of coffin or papyrus is the deceased receiving water from a tree goddess, or the Underworld Lake of Fire with sacred baboons that the deceased must be purified by, each Spells from the Book of the Dead. Nonetheless, the Hacking of the Earth is not a standard iconographic motif for Egyptian papyri or coffins, and it does not occur before the 3rd Intermediate period (not before about 1064 BCE).

It was based on a mythological theme that had evolved in funerary literature from the Old Kingdom (3rd millennium) and was a summary interpretation of the myth of the slaughter of Osiris’s enemies in which their blood was dug into the earth. This later became a novel component of the trials the dead person had to pass through in the Underworld as a part of funerary rites. The ritual as an actual performance of ‘hoeing the ground’ was associated with the annual Osirian festival during which the death and regeneration of the Underworld god Osiris-Sokar was re-enacted. It is a good illustration of the merging of the Sun god with the Underworld god that took place at this time.

L-R: Khonsumes making an offering to Re-Herakhte, he takes water from the tree goddess (Nut).
BD 59, Hacking the Earth, spells from the BD 78, 81, 86, 87, 149-150. Image © Ushabtis.com.

 

The accompanying scenes

Rather than viewed in isolation, as Habeck has done, it is also important to examine the entire context of a motif, which involves looking at the designs of the whole papyrus or coffin. The various motifs that are placed above the Hacking scene, such as the horizon sign on Khonsumes, or Sun god in solar barque, solar Ba souls, phoenixes, scarabs and mummified figure with scarab or disk for its head similarly represent the end of the Sun’s passage through the treacherous hours of the night and his daily rebirth on the eastern horizon in the morning. For each of the fourteen examples of this motif a visual progression is depicted that begins in the Underworld with symbolism of the Sun’s forms and his passage through the Underworld at night, illustrating the actions necessary for the offerings to the dead, and then his process of regeneration, rising on the eastern horizon, ultimately sailing the heavens in his barque through the day.

UNDERWORLD (DUAT) AT NIGHT – corpse of Re-Osiris/deceased is rejuvenated through the correct rituals – ascends HORIZON AT DAWN

It is also necessary to be aware of the visual content of the whole artefact, inclusive of the vignettes flanking these scenes, which are a blend of the select motifs characteristic of the content for papyri and coffins in the 21st Dynasty. These mostly allude to spells from the Book of the Dead, books of the Underworld and the cosmological scenes previously mentioned. Accompanying the Hacking motif there may be an offering scene with the deceased before the guardian of the gates of the Underworld, the goddess Hepet-hor. On at least one coffin (Padiamen I) the Hacking motif behind this goddess is labelled ‘Duat’ ‒ Underworld, making the setting abundantly clear. 

 

Regardless of the flexible choices of visual elements, the intention is the same for this imagery – for the ‘Osiris’ to survive the trials of the Underworld, become a god and live among the gods after death.

L-R: Lake of fire, creation scene, Hacking the Earth, Osirian djed pillar (BD 155?), water from tree goddess. 

Papyrus of Nesypaqashuty, Louvre E 17401. Image © Ushabtis.com.

Ancient Egyptian science

In ancient Egypt, the coffin and funerary papyri served as magical instruments for the regeneration of a dead person in the afterlife, so that their soul, shadow, body and spirit could each be provided for and live comfortably in death. Basically, these were a roadmap to surviving the trials of death and the Underworld, to ascension among the celestial gods and to reach the Land of the Dead, the fertile Fields of Iaru. A formula for navigating life after death. The many spells and cosmological vignettes were part of this complex machinery. Their purpose was not to understand the human reproductive system at a microscopic level. This imagery is not about creating new life, it is about the daily cosmic cycle of the Sun and the promise of regeneration after death.

The image cited by Habeck as proof of cell division from the papyrus of Khonsumes has no tangible connection with Egyptian sciences and is not recorded or described in any medical or scientific papyrus, which is something you might expect if the process was meaningful to the ancient Egyptians, from whom we actually have a large corpus of papyri. The standard counter argument that may be given by pseudo-scientists that this was ‘secret knowledge’ and that is why there is no evidence does not explain why cell division would only be present in a few funerary papyri and coffins hidden amongst known religious imagery specifically intended to guide a dead person through the Underworld. This rationale also overlooks that all Egyptian scientific and funerary documents are arguably examples of Egyptian secret knowledge, because very few people in ancient Egypt were literate. In addition, this Hacking motif is not standard to the 3,000 year tradition of Egyptian death culture, rather it is only attested on about fourteen objects for a limited, approximately 50 year, time period in the Third Intermediate Period when Egypt was politically divided and in the south was ruled by the powerful priests of Amen.

Finally, there is little realism involved in Egyptian visual conventions, which were rather about conveying ideas as effectively as possible, not photographic reality. Their funerary conventions were even more cryptic and complex, and had broad overlaps with their highly visual hieroglyphic system. Because of this it is really important to understand their language and symbolic systems rather than wing-it using intuition and the looks-a-bit-like system of analysis. In addition, had the Egyptians discovered the process of cell division (which would involve the use of magnification instruments for which there is no empirical evidence) there is no reason to assume their model would look anything like the model of cell division drawn in a modern biology textbook.

Andrea Sinclair and Leif Inselmann

 

Aug. 2025 

 

 

 

Sources 

The woo

Habeck, R. 2008. Dinge, die es nicht geben dürfte. Mysteriöse Museumsstücke aus aller Welt. Ueberreuter. 
Habeck, R. 2012. Wesen, die es nicht geben dürfte. Unheimliche Begegnungen mit Geschöp-fen der Anderswelt. Ueberreuter.

Links 
Vienna Kunsthistorisches Museum - AE INV 3859 - Chonsu-mes - https://www.khm.at/en/artworks/book-of-the-dead-for-chonsu-mes-319162 
Ushabtis database - Datenbank vollständig wiedergegebener Papyrusrollen aus dem alten Ägypten - https://www.ushabtis.com/papyri/ 
TLA / Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae - Earth Hacking texts https://aaew.bbaw.de/tla/servlet/GetWcnRefs?f=0&l=0&of=0&ll=851602&db=0&lr=0&mo=1&wt=y&bc=Start 
TM - Trismegistos database ‘Collections’ - https://www.trismegistos.org/coll/ - 
Aku Pal ‘Graphemes’ - https://aku-pal.uni-mainz.de/graphemes 
Thoth Sign List - https://thotsignlist.org/sign_gen 
TLA / Thesaurus Linguae Ägyptiae ‘Lemmata’ - https://aaew.bbaw.de/tla/servlet/BwlSearch?u=guest&f=0&l=0&db=0

References 
Allen, J.P. 2005. The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts. SBL Atlanta. 
Bonnet. H. 2000/1959. ‘Erdhacken.’ Reallexikon der ägyptischen Religionsgeschichte. Walter de Gruyter. 
Champollion, le jeune 1844. Monuments de l’Égypt et de la Nubie. Didot, Paris. 

Darnell, J.C., and C. Manassa 2018. The Ancient Egyptian Netherworld Books. SBL Press. 
Demel, H. von 1944. 'Der Toten Papyrus des Chonsu-mes`. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien N.F. 13: 1‒16. 
Faulkner, R.O. 1973. The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts. Aris & Phillips. 
Gaballa, G.A., and K. Kitchen 1969. ‘The Festival of Sokar.’ Orientalia 38(1): 1-76. 
Hornung, E. 1979. Das Totenbuch der Ägypter. Artemis Verlag. 
Hornung, E. 1999. The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife. Cornell. 
Inselmann, L. in prep. ‚Mumien, Monstren, Manipulationen ‒ Antike Mischwesen bei Erich von Däniken und Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels‘. Jahrbuch für Kryptozoologie 6. 
Lenzo, G. 2023. ‘The Book of the Dead in the Third Intermediate Period’. The Oxford Handbook of the Egyptian Book of the Dead, R. Lucarelli and M.A. Stadler (eds.), pp. 76-115. Oxford. 
Lucarelli, R. and M. Stadler 2023. The Oxford Handbook of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Oxford. 
Niwinski, A. 1989a. Studies on the Illustrated Theban Funerary Papyri of the 11th and 10th Centuries B.C. Freiburg / Göttingen; Vandenhöck Ruprecht. 
Niwinski, A. 1989b. ‘Untersuchungen zur Ägyptischen religiösen Ikonographie der 21. Dynastie (3). Mummy in the Coffin as the Central Element of Iconographic Reflection of Theology of the 21st Dynasty in Thebes,’ Göttinger Miszellen 109: 53-66. 
Niwinski, A. 2018. ‘The Decoration of the Coffin as a Theological Expression of the Idea of the Universe.’ In Ancient Egyptian Coffins: Craft Traditions and Functionality, J.H. Taylor and M. Vandenbeusch (eds), pp. 33-46. Peeters. 
Piankoff, A. 1964. The Litany of Re. Bollinger Series XL.4. Pantheon Books. 
Piankoff, A., and N. Rambova 1957. Mythological Papyri I & II. Bollinger Series XL.3. Pantheon Books. 
Quirke. S. 2013. Going out in Daylight - prt m hrw, the Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead, Translation, Sources, Meanings. GHP Egyptology 20. London. 
Regen, I. 2017. ‘Tradition and Innovation on the Third Intermediate Period Coffins: The Case of an Uncommon Solar and Osirian Scene with Hacking up of the Earth.’ In Proceedings of the First Vatican Coffin Conference June 2013, vol II, A. Amenta and A. Lob (eds), pp. 439-50. Edizio Musei Vaticani. 
Sousa, R. 2024. Nymphaea: A Visual Survey on Ancient Egyptian Coffins. CADMO Supplement 5. 
Stephens, M.A. 2018. Shaping Identities in the Context of Crisis: The Social Self Reflected in 21st Dynasty Funerary Papyri. Doctoral dissertation, University of California. 
Warburton, D. 2007. The Egyptian Amduat: Book of the Hidden Chamber. Revised and edited by E. Hornung and T. Abt, Zurich. 

Bullshit Memes #12: Alien astronauts in the Sumerian King List?

The Weld Blundell prism, Ashmolean Museum. Image Wikipedia.

 

As is not uncommon, I had not planned to write this blog post, even in the face of provocation from an endless variety of bullshit memes online. I simply did not believe it was necessary and I tend to want to bring something new to a topic when I write.

 

I mean, it really isn't difficult to find well-researched information that covers all one needs to know about the Sumerian King List. Maybe starting with the surprisingly not crap Wikipedia page.

 

But then one day I snapped after seeing yet another post on Facebook. So, I concluded that what was really needed was a basic overview of the facts about these tablets.

 

And some judicious naming and shaming of the woo. 

 

Perhaps starting with some pointers on how to recognise Sumerian based bullshit, because I find that the greatest crime against Sumer in the meme-verse is ignorance of this ancient culture and its art. After all, most ppl can recognise fake ancient Egypt stuff... right? ... right?

And the recent advent of AI online has meant that internet searches for Sumerian topics are now full of images of outright rubbish, mainly because AI has been fed reception art and it shows no awareness of authentic Mesopotamian culture.

 

Identifying online misinformation about Sumer

• Beware words like - 'mysterious', 'real record', or 'hidden truth'.

• Anunnaki, Nibiru and Nefilim gods are also a give away.

• Be wary of the word Sumeria instead of the correct term - Sumer.  I am also not a fan of the use of an adjective as collective noun - 'the Ancients'. But that may be me.
  

• Flamboyant use of reception graphics/AI. Most with no connection to Sumer.

   

  Examples of SKL misinformation

King List... dammit!......   Lore Library, Youtube 02.08.24.

• The Sumerian King List does not record the Anunna (Anunnaki). Gods are absent from the SKL.
  

Above, reception image by digital artist Alexander Warda of a Neo-Assyrian king (artist's signature removed). Plus a Wiki image of the King List prism. These are astonishingly pasted over a background of Egyptian Sphinx & pyramid ... WTF ...

 

The odd choice of background indicates that either the Lore Library don't know the difference between these cultures, or they are basing their video on Zecharia Sitchin, who placed his astronaut overlords in ancient Egypt and Sumer. But 'the Anunnaki presence on Earth' also points in this direction.

 

Why an AI of Egyptian king Akhenaten.. why??? Reddit 19.05.24.

• The Sumerian King List does NOT say that Earth was ruled by human-like gods.

Human-like gods, Anunnaki deities, and humans created as slaves for mining gold are all clear indications we are viewing purveyors of Sitchin's theories.

 

Again, neither of these images is Sumerian: Neo-Assyrian relief and AI Egyptophilia. Another hallmark of frauds is their inability to differentiate between Assyrian and Sumerian art. The AI image, on the other hand, is just rubbish.

Nothing in this image is Sumerian or relates to the SKL. Reddit 25.07.24.

• The Sumerian King List does not say Gilgamesh was 2/3 god, nor that his mum is a goddess, instead his dad is described as a lilla spirit (a ghost).
  

Photoshop mish-mash of things that are not Sumerian: Akkadian head, Epic of Gilgamesh tablet and AI. Combined with bullshit text - Ancient astronaut gods mining Earth's resources again points toward Sitchin, or opportunists exploiting Sitchin's theories for profit... or both.... I'm up for both.

 

Add codswallop about the the Sumerian King List and ....viola!.... bullshit meme.

Origins of Sumerian King List pseudoscience

 

The interesting thing about these memes, apart from their indifference to accuracy, is their loose approach to their source material, the grand old men of pseudoscience: Zecharia Sitchin (1976-2010) and Erich von Däniken (1969), who used the SKL as part of their argument that astronauts had visited Earth and founded human civilisation. 

 
And both pseudoscientists appear to use the same sources to achieve this aim, but with differing results, due to them each cherry-picking the numbers that they found most suitable to their narrative. 

 

Can you spot the problem with Sitchin's numbers?

Zechariah Sitchin argued that alien astronauts, the ‘Anunnaki gods’ arrived on Earth 445,000 years ago and ruled Mesopotamia before the great flood in 11,000 BCE. For his chronology he claims to use the Sumerian King List, but he actually favours the king list in the Babylonaica of Berossus (ca. 280 BCE).

Berossus (via Eusebius) named 10 ancient kings who reigned Babylon before the flood for 120 ‘sari’. A Mesopotamian sar was 3,600 years, so according to this model the earliest kings reigned 432,000 years.

 

10 kings ruled ancient Sumer for 432.000 years?

Did Anunnaki reign as kings before the flood? Or human kings?

This is the number Sitchin used for the kings who ruled Sumer before the great flood (his 13,000 years ago). But he also tried to reconcile Berossus' version with the list on the Weld Blundell prism (by simply adding 2 kings), while proclaiming Berossus was the most reliable source (2010, 90). 

 

Nonetheless, the weakest part of his argument (and there are many weak parts) is the date Sitchin argued humans were created – 287,000 years before the flood and 145,000 years after kingship was brought down from heaven.

Erich von Däniken, on the other hand, again argued for ancient astronaut gods having artificially laid the foundation of human civilisation on Earth, but with fewer Anunnaki and much more selective cross breeding of alien gods with homo sapiens over thousands of years.

Unlike Sitchin he chose to use the numbers from a tablet in the Ashmolean museum, Weld Blundell (WB) 62, which also names 10 pre-flood Mesopotamian kings, but these king's have much longer reigns, adding up to 456,000 years. For some reason he did not feel the need to explain why these Sumerian kings lived for thousands of years (Däniken 1969, 25, 55).

 

Seals do not confirm the prehistorical names and coins were not invented until late.

However, if you recall, both men wrote their books over 40 years ago, so neither had access to the range of information available to us. Instead, it is reasonably clear that their source was a publication of Ashmolean Museum tablets by Langdon from 1923. Sitchin even cites this as his source.

 

Däniken and Sitchin chose their preferred kings and year numbers from Langdon's book (see image below).

It ought to go without saying that 1923 is over 100 years ago, and Assyriology has moved on since then. In particular, it has moved on from Langdon's style of argumentation, and from his translations. In fact Assyriology had already moved on 60 years ago (see Finkelstein 1963).

 

But again, the interesting thing about this backstory is that bullshit memes on social media do not use the numbers from Sitchin (10 kings/432,000 years) or Däniken (10 kings/456,000 years), but rather they use numbers from the Weld Blundell prism (8 kings/241,200 years) (top left above).

 

Nonetheless, what is consistent from these sources is the use of out of date information about the Sumerian King List to claim there is evidence for extraterrestrial gods who descended from outer space, and who then went on to create humankind and establish civilisation in ancient Mesopotamia. 

 

The entire basis of these claims is the exceptionally long years of reign of these early kings.

 

Bullshit meme with Weld Blundell prism. Facebook Aug. 2024.

 

 

So this brief overview of the woo brings us to the nitty gritty:

The SKL: What is it?

The Sumerian King List is a group of about 26-28 clay tablets that are inscribed in cuneiform with a list of kings of ancient Mesopotamia spanning from mythical time through to whichever ruling dynasty commissioned them (Gabriel 2018, 2021, Sallaberger & Schrakamp 2015, Marchesi 2010). 

These tablets have been discovered during excavations at Nippur, Susa, Ur, Tells Leilan and Harmal, Isin and Kish. There are also a few tablets with no archaeological provenience. They have been studied since the early 20th century, and every now and then a new one has been found, so the number has almost doubled since early translations were done (Jacobsen 1939, Langdon 1923). 

If an article claims there are 16 tablets they are relying on the list from Jacobsen 1939. The number was expanded to 22 by 1984 (Edzard 1984) and has now increased further to around 26, depending on criteria of inclusion (Gabriel 2018 lists 24, later 26 in 2021, but their list omits a few earlier inclusions, like WB 62).

Fragmentary SKL tablets from Nippur and Susa. © Penn Museum & Louvre.

However, not one of the different versions of the King List matches the others.

The content of these tablets is inconsistent, names are changed or spelled differently, years of reign don't match, kings and whole dynasties may be missing or rearranged. The most glaring omission would be the complete absence of the dynasties of Umma and Lagash. 

If you have even a passing knowledge of Mesopotamian history you may be shocked to discover that the SKL therefore omits famous historical kings like Gudea, Eannatum and Ur-Nanshe.

The King Lists are also misleadingly written as though kingship was a continuous process in Mesopotamia with one king following another, rather than the reality of kings often ruling at the same time in independent city-states. 

 

In addition, the lists give the impression that kingship conferred total rule over Sumer and Akkad to one king and one capital city, which was not often historical reality.

The Scheil SKL tablet, listing early Babylonian kings.

© British Museum BM 108857, no provenience.

However, the focus of these tablets is on 'Kingship' as a divine power that is solely allotted by the gods, so the point of these documents is not historical reality.

The most complete copy of the Sumerian King List is on the Weld Blundell prism and translations of this version are the most widely cited. Academic translations may use this tablet as a form of master copy, that is combined with other tablets to create a complete text.

But because no two tablets contain the same information, all translations are an artificial restoration (Gabriel 2021).

 

The Weld Blundell prism

Is a 4 sided clay prism in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (AN1923.444) that has no excavation history ('provenience') and may have been found at Larsa in Iraq in the early 20th century. It was donated to the museum by H. Weld Blundell in 1923.

The prism was written in Sumerian cuneiform for an Old Babylonian dynasty, and was commissioned at the end or immediately after the reign of king Sin-magir of Isin (ca 1820-1800 BCE). We know this because he is the last king named.

Weld Blundell prism. © Ashmolean Museum Oxford.

 

 

What is the fuss about?

 

As stated above, these texts provide a list of kings who ruled Mesopotamia. 

 

This mostly amounts to stating that kingship was given to a city and then in succession the kings of said city are named with their number of years of rule. Then the city loses the favour of the gods and kingship is handed to another city.

 

For a few kings a bit more information might be provided, like hobbies or who their dad was.  

 

The thing that gets pseudos hot and bothered is the opening lines of the tablets that list the kings who ruled at the beginning of history, before the great flood:

'After the kingship descended from heaven, the kingship was in Eridug.
In Eridug, Alulim became king; he ruled for 28800 years.
Alaljar ruled for 36000 years. 

2 kings; they ruled for 64800 years.
Then Eridug fell and the kingship was taken to Bad-tibira.

In Bad-tibira, En-men-lu-ana ruled for 43200 years.
En-men-gal-ana ruled for 28800 years. 

Dumuzid, the shepherd, ruled for 36000 years.'

and so on.... (source ETCSL)

Apparently an abstract concept of kingship descending from heaven and hyperbolic thousands of years of rule are all the proof one needs to believe that aliens came from the sky and either ruled the Earth themselves, or created immortal, or almost immortal, kings to rule Earth for them.

 

What is wrong with this picture?... History, Youtube.

For one thing that papyrus has the Egyptian King List on it.

The list of primeval kings is not original

There are however, a couple of problems - the first being that the beginning of most Sumerian King List tablets does not include the pre-flood kings. 

 

In fact, few tablets list the primeval kings, and a few tablets that do list the earliest kings do not include the sentence saying kingship descended from heaven.

 

For example, a fragmentary tablet from Ur:

 

Two kings reigned for ... years.
 ... abandoned Eridu(?)  

 ... 

The kingship was brought to Larsa.

 ... 

Ensipadziana reigned for 21,000 (/21,000+ ...?) years.
...
One king reigned for 21,000 (/21,000+ ...?) years. 

... abandoned Larak 

...

The kingship was brought to Badtibira (source CDLI: P346542)

Ur tablet, Old Babylonian. Image © cdli P346542

Because of this lack of sources (and consistency), it is really important to stress the Weld Blundell prism text if you wish to drive the alien gods argument home. Because the prism does have the most complete version and it does contain the section describing the earliest kings of Sumer that everybody cites. 

 

But the Weld Blundell is not Sumerian, it is a 2nd millennium Babylonian text. 

 

And about 21 years ago a much older SKL was identified that is the earliest example of this list (Steinkeller 2003). This King List is Neo-Sumerian, from the reign of Shulgi of Ur (Ur III) at the end of the 3rd millennium, and it is hundreds of years older than the other tablets.

 

The earliest copy of the SKL, the USKL, from Steinkeller 2003.

However, the earliest King List does not begin with the pre-flood kings, nor does it mention a flood. 

Instead, it begins with kingship handed down from heaven to the city of Kish, and it only partially matches the later versions of the SKL for before the Akkadian kings. 

In fact, in the light of this and other stylistic concerns, academic consensus considers that the pre-flood kings and flood section of the Sumerian King List were a later Babylonian addition to the original King List (Jacobsen 1939, Kraus 1952, Finkelstein 1963, Steinkeller 2003, Marchesi 2010, Sallaberger & Schrakamp 2015).

Awkward.

The earliest version begins with:

‘When kingship came down from heaven, 

(the city of) Kiš was sovereign; 

in Kiš Gušur exercised (kingship) for 2,160 years’ (source Marchesi 2010).

Pre-flood kings, Old Babylonian tablet. © Schøyen Collection.

 

The King List is arguably not Sumerian

To add insult to injury, the name is somewhat of a misnomer. 

The original Sumerian name of the text is nam-lugal - ‘Kingship’. It may also be called The Chronicle of the One Monarchy in earlier modern literature.

But in fact, 'Sumerian' is misleading, as nearly all SKL tablets were written in the Old Babylonian period (2000-1595 BCE). 

Only the one King List is earlier (USKL above). This tablet is now considered to be copied from an earlier Akkadian source (2340-2150 BCE), or from earlier sources that had copied an original Akkadian document (Steinkeller 2003).

Because these tablets were produced over hundreds of years and for different dynasties the tablets differ in content and usually end with the dynasty that commissioned them. Equally, the lists were copied by scribes over a long time, so there are errors. 

Sumerian cuneiform tablet naming king Eannatum of Lagash.

Eannatum: king of Sumer and Akkad. Early Dynastic IIIb, ca. 2450-2425 BCE.

No kings of Lagash are listed in the SKL. Image © Louvre.

There is no Sumerian version of the King List (Early Dynastic, 2900-2340 BCE), and it ought to be emphasised that the Sumerians only left us complex recording systems from the second half of this period. Before the Early Dynastic cuneiform writing was a work in progress.

To sum up: there is only one version of the SKL from the very end of the 3rd millennium, the rest of the tablets are 2nd millennium.

In fact, it would be more accurate to call it the Babylonian King List, since most tablets were commissioned by Babylonian kings. Except that this name is already taken.

Sumerian Early Dynastic plaques naming kings Enannatum and Ur-Nanshe of Lagash.

No kings of Lagash are listed in the SKL. Images  © Trustees of the British Museum & Louvre.

 

Sumer ≠ Mesopotamia

From a misnomer that is based on assumptions about the antiquity of these documents, it is important to stress another problem - the word 'Sumerian'. 

Sumerian cuneiform survived for writing religious and royal literature for nearly 2000 years after Sumer as a culture had been swallowed up by Akkadian and the language was no longer spoken in Mesopotamia (after about 2000 BCE). 

In the same way that Latin outlasted Rome as the language of religion and power in Europe.

A cuneiform text written in Sumerian during the Akkadian or Old Babylonian periods is not actually a Sumerian text. However, the problem for clarity is that it is still correctly called Sumerian, because it is written in Sumerian. 

The casual conflation of Assyrian and Sumerian art does my head in.

This ambiguity is particularly convenient for pseudos like Däniken and Sitchin, who, either intentionally or through ignorance, are able to identify any Mesopotamian text or artwork as Sumerian and then claim the authority of great antiquity (pimping up the early dates), not unlike the kings of Akkad and Babylon did. 

Although why ‘Sumer’ is considered cooler and more authentic than these cultures is entirely beyond me. 

Especially when their artworks are often representative of ancient Mesopotamian art.

How reliable is the Sumerian King List as an historical document?

It isn't.

When these tablets were first studied in the early 20th century the historical accuracy was taken at face value and, like Manetho for Egypt, used as a baseline for creating chronologies by scholars.

Nonetheless, the extraordinarily long reigns of the earlier kings were always considered to be mythical, aided by the fact that a few kings are gods or mythical heroes, like Dumuzi, Etana, Gilgamesh and Lugalbanda. 

And it didn’t take long for scholars to begin finding inconsistencies, because the defining feature of academia is that it continuously builds upon and adjusts its knowledge base.

Therefore, doubts were already being raised by the 1930s.

In the past 60 years the historical reliability of the SKL has been repeatedly challenged with experts now considering the hypothetical original should be dated among kings of the Akkadian period. And that this text was created with the purpose of legitimising Akkadian rule by the Sargonic kings.

Sargon of Akkad unified Mesopotamia and conquered Sumer ca. 2324 BCE.

Because of this and other concerns, the SKL is considered to be mythological for the kings who are listed before the ‘kings of Agade’ (Akkad). And as support for this most pre-Akkadian kings have mythically long periods of rule, whereas Sargonic and post-Akkadian kings have sensible length reigns that can often be confirmed by other historical sources.

Basically, Assyriologists now believe the Sumerian King List was created as propaganda to make the Akkadian kings look like they had cool (and legitimate) origins, a hobby that many ancient Near Eastern kings dabbled in (Edzard 1984, Michalowski 1983, Marchesi 2010. Sallaberger & Schrakamp 2015).

The same motive applies to the Old Babylonian versions of the text, with the added embellishment of even older historical connections, by adding ancient pre-flood kings who ruled Mesopotamia for thousands of years.

This means the SKL is not accurate for the Sumerian period proper, and named kings are really only useful historically if there is other evidence confirming their existence. Currently that amounts to only 7 of the approximately 87 pre-Sargonic kings who can be attested from other Mesopotamian king lists and historical records (Marchesi 2010). 

 

None of the pre-flood kings can be matched to historical kings (Sallaberger & Schrakamp 2015).

The extraordinary lengths of reign for these primeval kings are naturally to be taken with a pinch of salt. This is another classic literary device intended to justify a later king’s VERY ancient right to wear a special hat and invade other city-states.

 

  

Where does that leave us?

Well firstly, it leaves us with a lot of misinformation built from reinterpeting an ancient propaganda text. 

From this shaky start more misinfomation is constructed by relying on the theories of a late 20th century pseudoscientists, like Erich von Däniken and Zecharia Sitchin, who both cherry picked out of date research to argue that astronaut gods colonised Earth. 

‘After kingship came down from heaven’ is a sentence that may be easily interpreted to infer that aliens literally flew down from heaven, when, to be pedantic, it is 'Kingship' that is passed down. 

 

Mesopotamian kingship was conferred on a king and a city by the supreme god (who happened to dwell in heaven). This stock phrasing was used in royal records from the Akkadian to Old Babylonian periods.

It means Kingship was given to a city and its king, and it is worth noting that kingship was usually granted to humankind by either Enlil (who decreed fate) or by An (the sky/heaven god). 

No spaceships, just supreme gods doing what gods do. 

Conclusion

To sum up: The Sumerian King List as we know it is not an accurate historical document for the Sumerian period, nor to be purist, is it Sumerian. It is at best a later propaganda text that attempts to hang on the coattails of Sumerian royal coolness. 

In addition, the introductory list of primeval kings ending with a great flood has been considered to be an Old Babylonian insertion since the mid 20th century. It is not original to the text and appears to have been added by Babylonian kings to beef up their claims of right to rule.

Finally, and somewhat obviously, none of the versions of the Sumerian King List mentions biblical Nefilim, Anunnaki, secrets of immortality, spaceships or aliens of any species. These claims are fraudulent speculation largely designed to generate profit for unscrupulous individuals.

I hope you learned something new, I know I certainly did.

Andrea Sinclair

August 2024

Irrelevant AI graphics - Eat the Fruit Inc - Facebook 26.08.24

Don't just trust me, read some of these

Web links

Explanation of the Anunna/Anunnaki at ORACC - https://oracc.museum.upenn.edu//amgg/listofdeities/anunna/index.html

CDLI: Sumerian King List at Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative - https://cdli.ox.ac.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=the_sumerian_king_list_skl 

          Weld Blundell prism at CDLI - https://cdli.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cdli-tablet/129
ETCSL: Sumerian King List English/Sumerian text at Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature - https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section2/tr211.htm - 

Eusebius Chronikon/Babylonaica of Berossus online at Attalus - https://www.attalus.org/translate/eusebius4.html

Weld Blundell prism at the Ashmolean Museum - https://www.ashmolean.org/collections-online#/item/ash-object-462921. 

  Overview at Ashmolean: https://www.ashmolean.org/sumerian-king-list#/

Sources and Further Reading

Edzard, DO. 1984. 'Königsliste und Chroniken: A. Sumerisch.' RlA 6, 77-86.

Finkelstein, JJ. 1963, 'The Antediluvian Kings: A University of California Tablet.' JCS 17: 39-51. 

Gabriel, G. 2018. 'The Sumerian King List as Educational Artefact.' In Implimenting Meanings: The Power of the Copy between Past. Present, and Future, S. Di Paolo ed., 71-131.
Gabriel, G. 2021. 'The "Prehistory" of the Sumerian King List and its Narrative Residue.' In The Shape of Stories: Narrative Structures in Cuneiform Literature, G. Konstantopoulos & S. Helle eds., 234-57. Brill.

Jacobsen, T. 1939. The Sumerian King List. Oriental Institute, University of Chicago.

Kraus, FR. 1952. 'Zur Liste der Älteren Könige Babyloniens.' ZAVA 50: 29-60.
Mallowan, MEL. 1936. 'The Bronze Head of the Akkadian Period from Nineveh.' Iraq 3(1): 104-110.

Marchesi, G. 2010. 'The Sumerian King List and the Early History of Mesopotamia.' In Ana turri gimilli: studi dedicati al padre Werner R. Mayer, MG. Biga & M. Liverani eds., 231-48.

Michalowski, P. 1983. 'History as Charter: Some Observations on the Sumerian King List.' JAOS 103(1): 237-48.

Sallaberger, W. & I. Schrakamp 2015. 'The Sumerian King List.' In Arcane III: History and Theology, W. Sallaberger & I. Schrakamp eds. 13-22. Brepols.
Steinkeller, P. 2003. 'An Ur III Manuscript of the Sumerian King List.' In Sonderdruck aus Literatur, Politik, und Recht in Mesopotamien, W. Sallaberger, K. Volk & A. Zgoll, 267-91. Harrassowitz.