Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedThere never was an Akkadian Empire!

 Post Reply Post Reply
sabah dara View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard

Joined: 25-Apr-2015
Location: uk
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2
Direct Link To This Post Topic: There never was an Akkadian Empire!
    Posted: 02-May-2015 at 23:01

There never was an Akkadian Empire !

By Sabah DARA




This article was written in defense of the historical patrimony of Zagros that has been vandalized, belittled, dispersed, and cannibalized over the past two centuries by racially and religiously motivated pseudo-historians.



      The so-called Akkadian Empire is a fictitious creation fabricated from the Biblical word “Accad” that is mentioned in Genesis 10.10.



1.      Introduction

2.      Origin & identity of the Akkadians according to the traditional literature

3.      Discussion

4.      Conclusion



      This article is a critical insight into the reality surrounding the Akkadian Empire that has been depicted in traditional literature in such a grandiose dimension as to over shadow all the other classical kingdoms of the fourth and third Millennium including the Sumerian.

      The reason for choosing this theme is to manifest our disbelief in the veracity of the whole issue related to the Akkadians.

      This “empire” and the people behind it were both fabricated by J. Oppert (1825-1905) who was a pseudo-historian vehemently motivated by religion and certainly instigated by theologians in order to transform a couple of Biblical words (namely Shinar & Accad) into “empires” in a way similar to that used by God when he breathed human life into pieces of clay!

      Hence Oppert imitated the ancient prophets in claiming that ancient Akkadians used to attach the following title beside their names: King of Agade & Shumeru ([1]) which he soon interpreted as king of Akkad and Sumer and “ironically” the micro-community of those working on ancient Near East i.e. the Assyriologists did not hesitate to consent to Oppert proposition and that is the end of his story and the beginning of two centuries of falsification of history of the Near East where Zagros was the primary victim since this region was the homeland that generated the Sumerian people and civilization.

is said to have he belonged to and from which h in definitely motivated by his own religion 


Origin & identity of the Akkadians in traditional literature-222

      By contrast to the dominating image of mark attributed all over the literature to the Akkadian Empire, culture, language and the impact it has been making in coercing the idea that the Sumerian civilization was in fact of Akkadian creation, any search for the identity and origin of this people will be miserably sleeveless and a great vain since the best  that can be extracted about this theme does not exceed a few lines of texts in the most fugitive manner (see below for the various way in which these few lines are expressed).

There are two possible explanation for this “timid” failure to identify the people in question: Either those pseudo-historians that are still “dancing on the Akkadian tam-tam” are feeling guilty about their “vandalistic deed” of distortion the history of the most important region in the ancient world, or that they are hopelessly short of information about the creature their predecessors fabricated two centuries earlier.

The first explanation is unlikely because all those scholars diffusing publicity about this issue are directly or indirectly instigated by religious motives! On the other hand, the second explanation seems more plausible and this will be the theme to be developed over the following pages.


Notes concerning our search for texts related to the origin of the Akkadians

·       There is not a single publication (article, essay, or book) on the origin/ identity of the Akkadians.

·       All that information found were succinct and never exceeding a few lines.

·       Almost all the Akkadian-related texts were concentrated on the Empire, Sargon the Akkadian, and Akkadian language! Avoiding the theme of the origin could be a reflection to the concern and fear of the authors from implicating themselves in the “murky water” of Akkad!   


Glimpses of the way the Akkadian people is depicted in traditional literature

“Akkadian was first attested in Sumerian texts in proper

names from around 2800 BCE.[,3]”xxxxx

Our comment:

Even upon the assumption of authenticity of this statement, it proves nothing about the identity/ origin of the Akkadians!


“...from the second half of the third millennium BCE,

texts fully written in Akkadian begin to appear.” xxxxx

Our comments:

Again assuming this statement is authentic, then we would be obliged to assume that Akkadians were using the cuneiform spontaneously with the Sumerians starting from 3400 B.C. and the discovery of writing has to be shared between Akkadians and Sumerians! If Akkdians were that advanced, what made them so discrete that nobody ever mentioned their name from 3400 B.C. till the emergence of the “prophet Oppert” in the 19th century A.D.?


“Hundreds of thousands of texts and text fragments have been

excavated up to date; covering a vast textual tradition of

mythological narrative, legal texts, scientific works, correspondences

 and many other aspects.” xxxxx


If we believe this statement, then we have to admit that there never was any script belonging to the Sumerians because the total number of cuneiform script tablets does not exceed a hundred thousand!


“Akkadian is divided into several varieties based on

geography and historical period:xxxxx

·       Old Akkadian, 2500–1950 BCE

·       Old Babylonian/Old Assyrian, 1950–1530 BCE

·       Middle Babylonian/Middle Assyrian, 1530–1000 BCE

·       Neo-Babylonian/Neo-Assyrian, 1000–600 BCE

·       Late Babylonian, 600 BCE–100 CE “

Comment (1):

Pseudo-historians don’t seem to bother about the real identity of the Akkadians! Hence they have incorporated it within all the other Mesopotamian entities “like a joker playing card”

Comment (2):

The paragraph above proves that the way pseudo-historians depict the word Akkadian is not as a people but as a race which has serious implication on the whole validity of this issue since race is a virtual entity!


“The Akkadians were the earliest known people

who spoke a Semitic language”

yahoo answer xxxxx


The earliest known people by name and ethnicity were the Sumerians because it was this people that invented writing!


It is astonishing that the origin and identity of all the classical prehistoric people have been discussed and theorized apart from the Akkadians?


Discussion 333


·        Evidences refuting the existence of the Akkadian people and empire-3.1

·        The Guti campaign in Mesopotamia -

·        Reasons for the fabrication of the Akkadian issue-


Evidences refuting the existence of the akkadian people and empire-3.1

·       Funnily the founder of the “Akkadian empire” was not Akkadian:

o   He is reported to have admitted his Zagrosian ethnicity.

o   His name is clearly not Semitic owing to the presence of the letter “g”.

o   Neither Sargon, nor any of the five other presumably Akkadian kings ever mentioned the words “a-ga-de”, Agada, or Accad.

·       All those kings presumably considered Akkadians bore Sumerian (i.e. Zagrosian) names simply because they were Sumerians!

·       The first Semitic civilization in Mesopotamia was that of Babylon c. 1800 B.C., followed shortly by the Assyrians. Both these civilizations were the collateral offspring from the decline of the Sumerian civilization (3400-1940 B.C.). In another word the Akkadian civilization is the product of wishful thinkers!

·       The nearest Semitic population to Mesopotamia was the Arab tribes inhabiting the desert region west of the Euphrates and leading nomadic way of life according to Sumerian scripts.

·       If the Sumerians can be traced back culturally, linguistically, geographically, and even religiously to the proto-Sumerians (so called Ubaidians) of the 6th Millenniums, and these latter to the Zagrosians that sparked off the Farming Revolution in the 10th Millennium, whom should we link the Akkadians in order to put them side by side next to the Sumerians? Genesis 10.10?

·       Failure to provide recognizable evidence supporting the legitimacy of the Akkadian Empire, it would remain as inert as it has been as a myth to amuse its adepts! In essence, history means evidence otherwise it turns into a tale, a myth, or a fiction!

·       The trend of “amalgamation” made between the Akkadians and the other Mesopotamian entities (Sumerians, Assyrians, and Babylonians) that has become a common practice in traditional literature, is demeaning for all these four because a civilization is a comprehensive entity whose ethnic profile is strongly emphasized! This is an implicit recognition that those perpetrating these details are not taking the Akkadian story seriously!

·       Depicting the cuneiform as an Akkadian creation that belongs to this people is a desecration to the honor of the authentic inventor of this script! For information to the readers in general, the Cuneiform was not “parachuted” by extra-terrestrial creatures into Sumer, but it was the final evolutionary stage in process of development of writing that was initiated by the invention of  Seal & Token in Zagros in the 9th Millennium!

·       No historic people can be legitimately situated within the historical spaces without fulfilling one of the following criterias:

o   Possessing recognizable evidences about its origin

o   Having evidences depicting its past cultural, technical, artistic, or religious activities

o   Proving the use of a language by providing the corresponding scripts.

o   Proving the location of its homeland.

o   Proving the existence of their ancestors.

o   Proving the existence of a descendant people.

·       How would prehistorians justify their inert position over the past two centuries regarding the authenticity of the Akkadian issue when the corresponding profile points to anything but Akkadians! This hypothetical people used Sumerian language, worshiped in Sumerian Ziggurat, believed in Sumerian Gods, and were ruled by kings bearing Sumerian names and openly declaring their Zagrosian ancestry!

·       If the Akkadians were “real” the collapse of their empire would have left at least traces of their culture, language, religion, archaeological vestiges and artifacts! Traditional literature is clearly bringing down the curtain on the Akkadian “Saga” in 2154 B.C. as if the Guti affaire had a “Meteoritic” impact on this people to make every single individual from this “empire” vanish forever!  Ironically some pseudo-historians have tried in vain to consider the emergence of the Assyrians and Babylonians as offspring civilizations consequence to the Akkadians collapse! These authors seem to ignore that those supposed offspring civilization appeared in the 17th century B.C. i.e.  five  centuries after the disappearance of the Akkadians!

·       Some comments on AGADE:

o   The choice of this name as the original name of Accad (Akkad) was a short sighted decision because Semitic language does not have the letter “g”.

o   Agade is a coerced distortion of the Sumerian word “a-ga-dè” owing to the faint phonetic resemblance with the Biblical name “Accad”.

o   Neither a-ga-dè, nor Agade, nor even Accad has ever been found on the terrain! This fugitiveness makes the Akkadian empire unique in having a virtual capital four thousand years prior to the invention of the virtual internet space!

o   Akkadians choice of a non-Akkadian name for their capital city is another striking feature of this empire, since Agade is thought to be of Sumerian, Hurrian or Lullubean origin!


The guti campaign in Mesopotamia

      The Guti campaign was in response to a call for help from Sumerian dignitaries to save their civilization and above all their religious institution from the ruin and desecration brought about in Sumer.

      Since there are no indications to the identity of the perpetrators of those damages, then the logical explanation to choose the identity of the culprits would be the Sumerians themselves implying the existence of some sort of political or religious revolt against the existent establishment.

In fact neither the word Akkadian, nor Akkad in all its phonetic forms have been mentioned in any cuneiform scripts be it during the Sumerian era or after!

Henceforth, the fugitive nature of the Akkadian issue is ascertained once again. 


Reasons behind the fabrication of theAkkadian issue?-3.4

      Due to the complication of the answer relating to the question entitling this topic, we are obliged to present it in stages so that to avoid creation any confusion.

·       Detection of a non-Semitic language was detected from the cuneiform scripts of Mesopotamia by Rawlinson & Hink in 1851-5 A.D. that they considered Scythians and/ or Semitic.

·       Shortly after, J. Oppert suggested a Turanian origin to this fugitive language.

·       The polemic situation created above ended up with a proposition by Oppert to name the new language “Sumerian” whereby he based his argument on the phrase “King of Shumeru & Agade”!

o   Oppert claimed that this phrase was an entitlement formula attached to the name of the monarchs of that epoch!

o   He added that if Agade is a known place in Babylon, then Shumeru must have been a reference to the country in south Mesopotamia i.e. Sumer.

o   That this phrase is a convenient exit to the issue created by the existence of two languages in Mesopotamia.


·       Rawlinso, Hink, and others were convinced by Oppert’s argument, and Akkad (and hence Akkadian empire) and Sumer (and Sumerian civilization) was born!


Our comments

·       Oppert did not tell his colleagues that the location of Accad or Agade was never known, and that the description given in Genesis 10.10 is: “Agade situated along the Euphrates River” which sound funny when it is remembered that this river is over 3500 km long!

·       Oppert omitted to tell his colleagues that the phrase “king of Shumeru & Agade” is a hardly disguised imitation of the Biblical phrase used to entitle the hypothetic character Nimrod of Babylon by the phrase: King of Shinar (Accad, Babel (Babylon), Erech (Uruk), and Calneh)!

·       Oppert omitted to tell his  colleague that Shumeru did not belong to the Akkadians or Sumerian kings but was the ancient name of Samaria that is considered by some as the capital of the hypothetical kingdom of Israel!

·       Oppert omitted to tell his colleagues that Agade was a coerced distortion of the Sumerian name A-ga-de chosen for its phonetic similarity with Biblical Accad!


Reasons for the fabrication of the Akkadian issue

In brief this creation is part of a strategy adopted by theologians ever since the discovery of the Sumerian civilization to reduce the impact of this latter on the existing philosophical and religious doctrine contained in the Old Testament and related writings.


Impact of Sumer on the Old Testament:

      The bulk of the philosophical issues and tales in this holly book was found to have been said and stated three thousand years earlier by the Sumerians.

      The shock created by the above discovery was immense when depicted within the 19th century mentality that was dominated by Judeo-Christian philosophy about the world and prehistory. Hence a movement of denial of the Sumer was created in 1872 leaving noxious damages on the progress of the newly practiced skill of archaeology and prehistory.

      One other consequence of the Sumerian issue was the creation of the sect like club called “the Sumerian problem” that has been exerting great effort to “tame” and “incorporate” the Sumerian issue within their own rank, but without any success!

      Failure to neutralize the impact of Sumer on the way ancient history is  written and it impact on the authenticity of religious thesis may have been  one of the reason for the creation of a second front of opposition to Sumer, that of the  Akkadian “Trojan horse”.

      By undermining the Sumerian kingdom from within, the enemies of this kingdom have been trying to excarnate the Sumerian civilization from the people that created it; hence the diffusion of dis-information aiming to prove that the cuneiform, the civilization, and the religion belonging to Sumer was in fact related to the Akkadians.



  • The Akkadian issue is concealing racist intention.
  • The Akkadian issue is concealing discriminatory deeds instigated by religious motives.

·       There are two explanation behind the unabated continuation of the Akkadian issue in traditional literature:

o   The muted position undertaken by prehistorians over the past two centuries.

o    And suspicion over the existence of a strategy based on the infamous proverb of J. Goebbels: “To turn a lie into an acceptable fact, make it very Big and continually repeated”



Other articles

·       There never was an Achaemendid Empire:

Zagros, backbone of ancient civilizations:    


·        Zagros, Backbone of Ancient Civilizations


·       Facebook:



[1] The expression “King of Sumer & Akkad” needs authentication.


sabah dara
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down

Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jun-2015 at 01:43
I wish I had the time to counter virtually every claim this guy is making. Babylonian and Assyrian languages are descendant of the Old Akkadian language, eastern Semitic languages.   Some examples of inscripions of the Akkadian kings themselves.

"Sargon, king of Agade, bailiff of the goddess Ashtar, king of Kish, anointed priest of the god Anum, lord of the land, governor for the god Enlil...."

"Sargon, king of Kish, with nine contingents from Agade, conquered the city of Uruk, was victorius in battle, captured fifty governors, and personally captured the king (of Uruk)."

"Sargon, king of Agade, conqueror of Uruk and Ur."

"Sargon king of Kish, conqueror of Elam and Parakhshum"

It is worth noting that the cuneiform insciptions use the form a-ka-de.KI to signify that Akkad (Agade) was a place.    It was located within the federal kingdom of Kish, before Sargon took over Kish, hence the reason why he uses both terms "king of Akkad" and "king of Kish". His use of the title "king of Kish' is also significant in that earlier Sumerian kings used the term to lay claim of hegemony over other Sumerian cities. Sargon claimed the conquest of not only Sumerian cities but also over other kingdoms outside Sumer, hence, "Akkadian Empire".    The title discourse makes NO MENTION of the Akkadian inscriptions. Enough said.
Back to Top
Arthur-Robin View Drop Down

Joined: 23-Feb-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 937
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jun-2015 at 22:09
There may be some truth to both sides.

Wasn't it first "king of Kiengi(n) & Uri-ki/ki-Uri" and before the later "king of Shumer & Akkad"?
What date does the changes from Kiengin to Sumer, Uri to Akkad, Enki to Ea, Inana to Ishtar/Sakhartar, etc occur?
One source suggests Semites ascend only from Isin & Larsa period and after?

what physical evidence is there that Sargon was Semitic? Language isn't necessarily same as race. LA Waddell suggested Sargon was Sumerian not Semitic. They are not even certain that mask is
Sharru(m)kin's/"Sargon's" or "Manishtusu's" or "Naramsin's".
There were also Semites in/around Mesopotamia from prehistoric times.

The bible says Shinar not Shumer, and it is not definite they are the same? Shinar might be related to Senkereh (Larsa) [and not to Din.gir as i previously thought]?? Some think Sumer is related to (Mt/Su-)Meru of Indian.

Until they can decipher/find or prove where Akkad city is, the Indus Seals, where Ur of "Chaldees" is, where Dilmun is, etc there is still things both/all sides could be wrong about.

There seem to be both "Sumerian" and "Akkadian" in Indus/Indian/Aryan and Indoeuropean [Sin & Shiva? Nanna & Nandi? Ereshkigal / Suluhitu & Sarasvati?? Papsimnunbada & Apam Napat; etc].
It seems it is true that Sumerian/Babel was the orgin of all mythology as bible etc seemingly suggests.

(I may not be able to follow/reply so don't be too harsh on me, i just trying to be a benevolent influence between two sides.)

The forum keeps logging me out.

Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down

Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Aug-2015 at 01:45
Wasn't it first "king of Kiengi(n) & Uri-ki/ki-Uri" and before the later "king of Shumer & Akkad"?

yeah....well sort of.....before it was "lord of Kiengir" while Ki-uri was the land about Kish. Both are Sumerian.   However "king of Sumer and Akkad" was first expressed in the Akkadian, before it was expressed in Sumerian during Ur I.

[quote}What date does the changes from Kiengin to Sumer, Uri to Akkad, Enki to Ea, Inana to Ishtar/Sakhartar, etc occur?[/quote]

The Akkadian Period

One source suggests Semites ascend only from Isin & Larsa period and after?

Cuneiform experts have been able to identify Akkadian names in the inscriptional record as far back as 2600 BC.    They have even been able to discern another Semitic language now dubbed Kishite dating to about 2900 BC.   They have even been able to discern a linguistic regional divide within southern Mesopotamia, with the dividing line at Nippur.    North of Nippur, Semitic names predominated, while south of Nippur, Sumerian names predominated.

what physical evidence is there that Sargon was Semitic? Language isn't necessarily same as race. LA Waddell suggested Sargon was Sumerian not Semitic. They are not even certain that mask is
Sharru(m)kin's/"Sargon's" or "Manishtusu's" or "Naramsin's".

Sargon's name is consistent with the known corpus of Semitic names found to the north of Nippur.   Also, cuneiformists can discern the difference between Sumerian and Akkadian cuneiform.

This will suffice for now.
Back to Top
mikebis View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
book spammer

Joined: 03-Oct-2015
Location: Israel
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2015 at 15:09
The presented article is full of historical errors and is biased. It is not clear why the writer decided to fight with a scholar who lived two hundred years ago and what could be a possible reason for other historians to recognize the civilization of Akkad. 
What was Akkad? Probably the first empire which consolidated the lands of Sumer (ki-en-gi), Akkad (ki-uri), part of Elam, and regions in the Upper Mesopotamia. The origin of the Akkadian people is obscure, so is the origin of Sumerians. Semites have been part of Sumerian ciivlization, there was no "national conflict" whatsoever, except for geographical difference: most Sumerian population lived to the south of modern Baghdad, most Akkadians liver to the north. Akkadians accepted the same principals of urban civilization and even adopted cuneiform for writing in their tongue. 


They will read nothing from you in the future that was linked to this site...nor your your post has been edited to include it's title and link.

Had you approached the owner admin and sought his permission to display this info... that would have been different. didn't which merely makes you a spammer and attempted ad space thief. And now you are a banned one at that.


Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 03-Oct-2015 at 19:47
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.