The improbably high estimate of Nabonidus for the date of Narâm-Sin has long been the subject of criticism.[6] It is an entirely isolated statement, unsupported by any other reference in early or late texts; and the scribes who were responsible for it were clearly not anxious to diminish the antiquity of the foundation-record, which had been found at such a depth below the later temple's foundations, and after so prolonged a search. To accept it as accurate entailed the leaving of enormous gaps in the chronological schemes, even when postulating the highest possible dates for the dynasties of Ur and Babylon. An alternative device of partially filling the gaps by the invention of kings and even dynasties[7] was not a success, as their existence has since been definitely disproved. Moreover, the recent reduction in the date of the First Dynasty of Babylon, necessitated by the proof that the first three dynasties of the Kings' List were partly contemporaneous, made its discrepancy with Nabonidus's figures still more glaring, while at the same time it furnished a possible explanation of so high a figure resulting from his calculations. For his scribes in all good faith may have reckoned as consecutive a number of early dynasties which had been contemporaneous.[8] The final disproof of the figure is furnished by evidence of an archaeological and epigraphic character. No such long interval as twelve or thirteen hundred years can have separated the art of Gudea's period from that of Narâm-Sin; and the clay tablets of the two epochs differ so little in shape, and in the forms of the characters with which they are inscribed, that we must regard the two ages as immediately following one another without any considerable break.