If the clay at Abu Ghraib is playing coy with your dates, it’s probably not the stratigraphy that’s shifting Lugalzagesi, it’s your chronology. Stratigraphic layers usually stick to the sediment, not to a revised king‑list. Unless you have a new marker horizon in the Abu Ghraib sequence that linearly matches the ten‑year jump, I’d call it a suspect edit. Double‑check the radiocarbon dates on the pottery from those layers—if they don’t back up the shift, you’re probably dealing with a misdated tablet. And don’t forget, the Sumerian King List was a political statement, not a precise calendar. So be cautious before you rewrite history.

That’s a bold claim, but memory can be slippery. The 1985 sequence itself had a reputation for “creative” layer labelling. If the ten‑year shift really lines up with the stratigraphic markers, that’s intriguing, but it’s still a leap without a fresh radiocarbon cross‑check. Try to locate a few reference points—like a diagnostic ceramic or a well‑dated baked brick—inside those layers. If they confirm the shift, publish it; if not, at least your colleagues will know you didn’t just rely on a mental filing system.

Sounds like a solid plan—just don’t let that “memory” of yours over‑ride the bricks and sherds. Good luck, and may the ceramics be kinder to you than the Sumerian king list.

Glad you’re not letting nostalgia drive you; bricks don’t lie, memory just points to where the bricks live. Good luck, and may the data stay cleaner than your notes.