I wonder why the Sumerians deviated on the last two lengths from the rule they had on the first six. The first six reign lengths (and the total sum of all eight reign lengths) are all n * 60 * 60, where n is an integer. The last two are not, but they could’ve been. If instead you use 18000 years and 21600 years instead of 18600 and 21000, they fit the same formula as the other numbers and the sum remains the same. They used base 60, and apparently got a kick out of multiplying 60 by itself and another integer.
I noticed the deviation because there are mechanical watch movements that run at 18000 and 21600 beats per hour.
The next 28 kings after the flood all have unfeasibly long reigns too. Then there's some believable ones, but even much later on there's Hadanish (360 years, 6*60) and Lugal-kinishe-dudu (120 years, 2*60).
There's a lot to 'guess' with very old text with uncertain translation and no longer spoken or written original forms.
Are these individual human kings, or dynastic reigns, such as the Tudors, Windsors, etc.
They seem to be accompanied by commentary like "son of" or "the fisherman", or nicknames that apply to individuals. Dumuzid "the shepherd", 36,000 years. Kug-Bau, "the woman tavern-keeper, who made firm the foundations of Kish" reigned for 100 years, which is just possible but pretty good going. You have to wonder at what point in her ~120 year life she did her tavern-keeping. Perhaps while ruling?
So, OK, maybe it really means "Kug-Bau, the woman tavern-keeper, and her descendents, not mentioned here".
Maybe they just transposed a few digits? It happens. Somebody should try swapping them in and see if the pattern fits better.
The Sumerians used a sexagesimal notation system; the two lengths would be 5.10.0 and 5.50.0 (which together add up to 11.0.0, FWIW), while all of the other king lengths are 8.0.0, 10.0.0, or 12.0.0.
Yeah. I had Fable run through every version of it I could think of and it explained the numbering system was the root of everything being divisible by 60.
I did find a pattern though. If you look at ALL the kings, rather than just those 8 it becomes obvious. The recent numbers are realistic and drift further apart, becoming less and less accurate, the further back you go.
Interestingly it also compared some other clay tablets and they were close. So it seems that they were probably written down based on a verbal history that had already drifted wildly well before it was written down .
Positional notation with no zero is awkward.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexagesimal#Babylonian_mathema...
"For example, the symbols for 1 and 60 are identical."
I ran it through the provided program and the alignment was worse if anything.