early part of our Dynastic List, although we may regard the latter as
equally Post-diluvian in Sumerian belief.

(1) See the brief statement he makes in the course of a
review of Dr. Poebel's volumes in the _American Journal of
Semitic Languages and Literature_, XXXI, April 1915, p. 225.
He does not compare any of the names, but he promises a
study of those preserved and a comparison of the list with
Berossus and with Gen. iv and v. It is possible that
Professor Barton has already fulfilled his promise of
further discussion, perhaps in his _Archaeology and the
Bible_, to the publication of which I have seen a reference
in another connexion (cf. _Journ. Amer. Or. Soc._, Vol.
XXXVI, p. 291); but I have not yet been able to obtain sight
of a copy.

(2) The variant form {Daos} is evidently a mere contraction,
and any claim it may have had to represent more closely the
original form of the name is to be disregarded in view of
our new equation.

This reflection, and the result already obtained, encourage us to accept
the following further equation, which is yielded by a renewed scrutiny
of the lists:

{'Ammenon} = Enmenunna.

Here Ammenon, the fourth of Berossus' Antediluvian kings, presents a
wonderfully close transcription of the Sumerian name. The _n_ of the
first syllable has been assimilated to the following consonant in