There
never was an Akkadian Empire !
By Sabah DARA
2/5/2015
Attention:
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.
Abstract
The
so-called Akkadian Empire is a fictitious creation fabricated from the Biblical
word “Accad” that is mentioned in Genesis 10.10.
Content
1. Introduction
2. Origin & identity
of the Akkadians according to the traditional literature
3. Discussion
4. Conclusion
Introduction-111
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
Comment:
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
Comment:
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.
o
·
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.
Conclusion-444
- 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: http://historum.com/ancient-history/89634-there-never-achaemenid-empire.html
Zagros, backbone
of ancient civilizations: http://historum.com/middle-eastern-african-history/89563-zagros-backbone-ancient-civilizations.html
·
Zagros, Backbone of
Ancient Civilizations
· gobekliteppe@gmail.com
·
Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100006580414523
[1] The
expression “King of Sumer & Akkad” needs authentication.