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

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Sargon of Akkad

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Sargon of Akkad
    Posted: 29-Jul-2018 at 00:05
The chronology of the early 2nd and 3rd millennium currently rests on the observation of the planet Venus made in the 8th year of Ammisaduqa, king of Babylon.   The most likely dates, known as the High, Middle, and Low dates, are 1702 BC1646 BC, and 1582 BC, respectively.   Combining these with the totals of the length of reign of Babylonian and Assyrian kings favor either with the Middle or Low dates.    The literature adopts either the Middle or Low chronology, hence a negligible 64 years difference in chronology for the 2nd millennium BC.   A solar eclipse observed in the 10th year of King Mursilish, king of Hatti help with the chronology of the late 2nd millenium BC.   To further detail the chronology of the early 2nd millennium, I will use the Middle Chronology.< ="text/" async="" ="/_Incapsula_Resource?SWJIYLWA=719d34d31c8e3a6e6fffd425f7e032f3&ns=3&cb=1804491434"> //

Back to Top
Arthur-Robin View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23-Feb-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 937
  Quote Arthur-Robin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jul-2018 at 00:50

Please provide ancient proof that Sargon dates to ca "2300 bc" (figure/number date). Please provide proof that Khufu/Cheops dates to ca "2500s bc" (relevance to this thread topic is Joseph/Jacob was 4th dynasty).
What real strong evidence proofs are there for the ascribed date that orthodox assert to supposedly be right?

Venus tablets are not a reliable dating method because their true value is not known for sure by anyone. (They might have a synchronism with something like Hyksos calendar change, or Joshua sun stand still, or Barak stars fought in their courses. Also see our star of Bethlehem thread.)
Ammisaduga and/or the Venus tablets date has ranged in sources from 2113/2105 to 1977/1956 to 1419 to 8th cent bc.
The "Venus" cycle number of years also varies.
There is even quite a difference between long and short dates of the Old Babylonian.
So if Mesopotamian/Egyptian chronology is based on that and other few similar then it is pretty flimsy and dubious.



Edited by Arthur-Robin - 29-Jul-2018 at 01:04
NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone.
Back to Top
Arthur-Robin View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23-Feb-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 937
  Quote Arthur-Robin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jul-2018 at 01:30
Originally posted by Sharrukin

As a matter of fact I don't see any mention of a famine during the time of Sahure.   There is one "7-year" famine during the time of Djoser and one which preceded the collapse of the Old Kingdom about 2180 BC.   The Egyptians recorded many famines during its long history.


- Djoser 7 years drought/famine (Sahel/Philae inscription)
- Unas famine scenes (beside Sekhemhet pyramid complex, who we show connected with Zaphenath/Joseph & Djoser)
- models of Granaries in Old Kingdom tombs.
- "Neferkasokar (2nd dyn) saved Egypt from a long lasting drought".
- "grain storage bins in step pyramid complex"? storage chambers in Sekhemhet complex.
There are some other evidences too from Egypt and/or other nations.

Yes there were many famines/droughts in Egyptian, but so there also are in the bible too, and there were not so many 7 years ones and world-wide ones. We show in some articles that comparing lists of the Egyptian ones and of the Biblical ones we can see which ones likely match.

I already gave an example list of many evidences for Joseph & Jacob matching the 3rd-4th dynasty. Khufu's name has same consonants and exact same meaning as Jacob and both 17 years in Egypt is stark matches between the 2 people.

Originally posted by Sharrukin


There seems to be just 3 themes which you are fixated on.   Trying to fit Biblical figures into Egyptian chronology, trying to distort Babylonian chronology to fit your Egyptian/Biblical chronology, and trying to equate Sumero/Akkadian rulers to Egyptian and biblical figures.    The first distorts biblical chronology to ridiculous lengths, the second completely ignores archaeology, and the third is totally unfounded.


I don't need to "try to fit" or  "distort" biblical and Egyptian. We have found strong/stark matches between Biblical and Egyptian. You refuse to consider the evidences merely because you assert that ascribed chronology dates are superior.

NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone.
Back to Top
Arthur-Robin View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23-Feb-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 937
  Quote Arthur-Robin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jul-2018 at 02:44
You date Solomon to the 18th Dynasty.   The 18th Dynasty was a Bronze Age regime, Solomon's Kingdom was an Iron Age kingdom.   So, YES you do ignore archaeological synchronisms!!!

You are confusing synchronisms with supposedly contemporary dates and/or with scholar's opinion/interpretation. A true synchronism is like Amarna and Middle Assyrian king and Kassite king; like 13th dyn and Babylon 1 king; they merely prove that the persons are contemporary.
I don't see any archaeological syncrhonism of Solomon with Iron Age. [On the contrary Solomon is associated with bronze/brass in traditions?] Joshua's has no match of 1200s Jericho level.
What layer/strata/level that Solomon matches at certain city sites is disputable in some cases.
It is only "archaeological" theory that Solomon matches iron age strata. Not a true synchronism like the example ones.


There is no need for me to revisit this.  I've already made the case regarding "similarities" of names.  I've noted that you are NOW trying to connect Sargon with OTHER Egyptian kings.  It only goes show how fluid your narrative gets.   You can't create an historiography like that.   I will no longer play "match-game" with you.   


I gave a list of half a dozen candidates for who Sargon might match (Djoser, Sekhemkhet, Sneferu, Israel, Sare/Sera, Userkaf, Sahure). Khufu = Jacob. I am not sure which one he might match. We merely said that there are similarities between Sargon's dynasty and Joseph and/or Moses, and this makes us look at if Sargon matches Joseph/Jacob & 3rd/4th/5th dynasty king. This is not unscholarly. We are objectively looking to see.

My whole casual theory in this thread can be easily resolved by just focusing on the proposed Manistusu and Manasseh/Menakure match. If a match between these two/three persons is wrong or impossible or weak for good reasons then the whole Sargon & Joseph/OldKingdom theory is unlikely because the Manasseh match is the foremost main similarity reason. So if there are details of Manishtusu's life that are unmatchable with Menkaure/Manasseh then i will have to accept that the Sargon theory has no major reason. I don't mean mere asserted differencs like their ascribed dates, because the orthodox ascribed dates are only disputable theory of modern "peers".



A-R we already KNOW the locations of these geographical names.   I remember we discussed Dilmun once and even YOU admitted ultimately that it was located NEAR Sumer.  Let's not play this game either.


Akkad city location is not known for sure last i heard.
Dilmun of the few different sources is not known for sure. It is claimed to be Bahrain but this is disputed.


And again, you are still trying to equate Sargon with yet ANOTHER Egyptian king.   This game is over.


I said Jacob matches Khufu, Joseph was 3rd-4th dynasty. Sargon has intriguing similarities with Joseph &/or Moses story, and Sargon might possibly match Joseph or Jacob and a 3rd/4th/5th dynasty king. Khufu/Jacob is thus one of the candidates. Also they are part of the same "Joseph" story so dates of Joseph and Jacob could be mingled/conflated.



A-R, the problem is that virtually nothing can be concluded with your hypothesis.   For every one of your arguments, there is a valid counter argument.   Your complete dismissal of Sothis is one of them!!!   Trying to find matches by "comparing names" is NOT a valid historiographical method when the historical figures themselves lived in different places, in different times, with different parentage,  had different careers, and had different beliefs.  And again, you keep floating Sargon around comparing him with different Egyptian kings which lived in DIFFERENT times!!!   I'm sorry, but the "orthodox" chronology is much more solid than yours.


The point is merely that the asserted "right" ascribed dates don't actually have any solid proof they are only asserted theory. You can't prove that Sargon was definitely or certainly "2300s" bc date. Yous keep claiming can't match only because theoretical ascribed dates are supposedly different, but the problem is the orthodox dates can/may be wrong.
As i said above, i can reduce this to my casual theory hinges on the Manishtusu & Manasseh similarity.
They might only be "different times" only according to orthodox ascribed dates. It depends on what their true dates are.
Orthodox is not (more) solid. They have stuff all much real concrete ancient evidences. I only accept ancient confirmations not modern methods/theories. What ancient confirmation of date of Sargon is there similar to Naramsin inscription or Venus tablets (which both are uncertain true date)?
I have been consistent in Sargon possibly being time of either Joseph & 3rd/4th/5th dyn or Moses & 6th/12th dyn.
I agree that if someone is the same then they will be same in number of ways not just name. I do not agree that you can only assume from only ascribed theoretical dates.


What is it a valid historical evidence of?


Yous reject Naramsin inscription but you accept the Venus tablets, yet they are both similarily uncertain true dates.


So, what do you get out of the inscription?   By the way the inscription isn't in hieroglyphics.   It is in cuneiform.




We have the corpus of Sumero-Babylonian chronicles and king lists to work with.   In addition to that we have the translations of historical documents from various archives from the early 2nd millenium to work with!!!!   We have the Venus tablets which anchor the chronology of the early 2nd millennium BC.   This large corpus of inscriptions is what makes the "orthodox" chronology robust.  


Prove that Sargon was "2300 bc".
Venus tablets are disputed according to orthodox sources and so they are not a reliable dating source.
"Corpus" picks and chooses what few evidences they accept or reject. The corpus confl;icts with records like the biblical but they say the ancient is wrong and their modern "corpus" is right.


Such movements are rather timeless.   At any given period one finds pastoralists and other nomads making such movements.  The ethnic names change, but the behavior is the same.


Jacob came from Canaan.   He had relatives living in "Aram Naharain" which comprehends the land immediately east of the bend of the upper Euphrates.  He went there to get his wives.


Previously you argued Ur of the Chaldees is Ur city.
Naharaim means 2 rivers.
Padan-Aram & Aram-Naharaim "Mesopotamia" both mentioned.
There are seeming possible matches of persons in Sumerian kinglist with Hebrew patriarchs like for example Abraham and Enmebaragesi.


The evidence only shows trade with coastal Canaan including Byblos as well as expeditions to the Sinai Peninsula.



While the existence of the "Dorak Treasure" is doubtful, an article of his within the assemblage may only indicate trade with Yortan Culture in the region of Troy.   Sahure did have a large fleet of ships which were depicted laden with trunks of cedars of Lebanon and in some cases Asiatics, but no such evidence that he reached "Syria". 


The fleets area of operation etc is open to question according to some?


don't see any reference to "Mountains of the East" in that "section".   What is the verse?


Sorry correction Deuteronomy 33:15 which is a similar account to Genesis 49.


No it wasn't.    

Bible says the whole world came to Joseph/Egypt.There are evidences in archaeology and in traditions/records for major extant famine/drought.

Egyptian wheat found in lake dwellings which were built on dried up lake shores?
No proof that Joseph famine was only Egypt (and Canaan).


"maybe disputable" only leads to wild speculations as to what is the case.  It only leads to wild fancies of imagination -  "maybe this", "maybe that".   Let's stick to what documentation we have, shall we?  I don't want to play another one of your games.




Initial claims as the what the Ebla archive mention was proven to be mere hype.   After more careful study of the inscriptions, the mention of Sodom and Gomorrah were shown to be false.   Let's take the context of the Sumero-Babylonian inscriptions shall we?   They were described as being near Sumer.  You yourself had already conceded the point for Dilmun sometime ago.


Dilmun's location is uncertain. At the time i was lead to "concede" it seemingly might be in the Sealands area, but my candidates have always pretty much remained still the same.

NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone.
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jul-2018 at 03:34
As stated earlier I adopted the Middle Chronology using the 1646 BC as my starting point.  As the first year of Ammisaduqa we then total the earlier reigns to Hammurabi, thus:

Hammurabi (43 years)
Samsuiluna (38 years)
Abi-Eshuh (28 years)
Ammiditana (37 years)
Ammisaduqa year 1. 1646 BC.

Hammurabi began his reign about 1792 BC.   Now Hammurabi in his 31st year conquered Larsa and "subjugated" its king Rim-Sin.  This would be about the year 1763/2 (two year allowance due to Babylonian calendar reckoning).   Now Rim-Sin who had a reign of 60 years began his reign about 1822 BC.  In his 30th year he conquered Isin bringing its dynasty to an end.  This would be about the year 1794/3.   

Now we have the totals of the length of reigns of all the kings of Isin.   From 1794/1793 working backwards the numbers of the reigns are thus:

Ishbi-Erra (33 years)
Shu-Ilishu (10 years)
Iddin-Dagan (21 years)
Ishme-Dagan (19 years)
Lipit-Ishtar (11 years)
Ur-Ninurta (28 years)
Bur-Sin (22 years)
Lipit-Enlil (5 years)
Irra-imitti (8 years)
Enlil-bani (24 years)
Zambiya (3 years)
Iter-pisha (3 years)
Urdukuga (3 years)
Sin-magir (11 years)
Damiq-ilishu (23 years)

The Dynasty of isin began about 2018/2017 BC.   This may comprehend the 14th year of Ibbi-Sin, the last king of Ur III, according to a tablet from Ur dated to that year where it is mentioned that Ishi-Erra already as already possessing Isin.  Ibbi-Sin's reign thus began about 2030 BC.  His predecessors reigns were as follows.

Ur-Nammu (18 years)
Shulgi (48 years)
Amar-Suen (9 years)
Shu-Sin (9 years)

The totals of the years of the earlier kings of Ur III from 2030 BC take us to about 2114 for the beginning of the Third Dynasty of Ur.  

Ur-Nammu, the first king, was the successor of Utu-khegal, the King of Uruk who reigned for 7 years hence Utu-khegal's reign began about 2121/0 BC

Utu-hegal defeated the Gutians about 2120 BC.  Their reign varied in the manuscripts from 91 to 125 years and even the names and number of their rulers are different.   However one of the year-names 
of Shar-kali-sharri, king of Akkad, is named as "....the year in which Shar-kali-sharri laid the foundations of the temples of the goddess Annunitum and of the god Aba in Babylon and took prisoner Sharlag(ab) the king of Gutium."   This seems to be resemble one of the rulers of Gutium listed in the Sumerian King List.   

We are now at the threshold of the chronology of the Dynasty of Akkad and the reign of Sargon.   To be continued in the next post.



Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jul-2018 at 14:03
Continuing from the last post, the end of the Guti was about 2120 BC.   In order to date the rule of the kings of Akkad thee is a chronology synchronization between Shar-kali-sharri the king of Akkad and an certain Sharlag(ab), king of Gutium.   According to the standard Sumerian King List the rules there was listed a Gutian ruler known variously as "Sarlagab", "Zarlagab", and "Iarlagab".   The reigns of the Gutian kings to Sarlagab are thus:< ="text/" async="" ="/_Incapsula_Resource?SWJIYLWA=719d34d31c8e3a6e6fffd425f7e032f3&ns=2&cb=1913572352"> //

Sarlagab (6 years)
Shulme/Yarlagash (6 years
Elulumesh/Silulumesh (6 years)
Inimabakesh (5 years)
Igeshaush/Igigi (6 years)
Yarlagab (3 years)
Ibate (3 years)
Yarla/Yarlangab (3 years)
Kurum (1 year)
Apilkin (3 years)
La-erabum (2 years)
Irarum (2 years)
Ibranum (1 year)
Hablum (2 years)
Puzur-Suen (7 years)
Yarlaganda (7 years)
<name lost>  (7 years)
Tirigan (40 days)

From 2120 to the beginning of the reign of Sarlagab is then 2190 BC.  Since according to Shar-kali-sharri's year-name says that Sarlagab was "taken prisoner" an end date for his 6 year reign would fall to about 2184/5.  The problem here now is where does this actually in the reign of Shar-kali-sharri, since all we have is his year-name but no corresponding data to match what actual year in his reign.  However we do have another datum to consider.   A later king of Akkad called Elulu matches the name of another Gutian ruler named Elulumesh, the second successor to Sarlagab.  Thus:

GUTIUM AKKAD

Sarlagab (6) Shar-kali-sharri (25)
taken prisoner 2184/5
Shulme (6)
2184/5-2178/7
Elulumesh (6) Igigi, Nanum, Imi, Elulu (3 years)
2178/7-2172/3

Assuming that 2172/3 was the last year of Elumesh (and the last year of the group of 4 Akkadian kings), the beginning of the rule of Igigi of Akkad was about 2175 BC.

The reigns of the earlier kings of Akkad are thus:

Sargon (56 years)
Rimush (9 years)
Manishtusu (15 years)
Naram-Sin (37 years)
Shar-kali-sharri (25 years)

This take us to about 2317 for the beginning of the reign of Sargon.    This is close to one of the "orthodox" dates for the beginning of the reign of Sargon at about 2334 BC.   The difference is just 17 years, so the variance is negligible.   I can adjust my chronology up to 6 years to about 2323 BC so the variance is just 11 years.  Hmmm, I wonder if I'm missing something......   Well, anyways in virtual agreement with the chronology adopted by eminent scholars, Sargon is to be dated to the late 24th and early 23rd centuries BC.  Earlier chronologies had put the beginning of the reign of Sargon at about 2370 BC assuming that the Gutians reigned their entire regime without overlapping the last rulers of Akkad.


Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jul-2018 at 15:03
Please provide ancient proof that Sargon dates to ca "2300 bc" (figure/number date).

done.  see above.

Please provide proof that Khufu/Cheops dates to ca "2500s bc" (relevance to this thread topic is Joseph/Jacob was 4th dynasty).

I will do so on another thread on the SUBJECT of the date of Khufu.   It is not relevant here.   This thread is on the date of Sargon.

What real strong evidence proofs are there for the ascribed date that orthodox assert to supposedly be right?

Upon examining all the data available to me, I am astounded as to HOW much data there actually was!!!   I had too much data to work with!!!    Not only is the regnal data nearly complete but the narrative is just very rich in details!!!!   We've come a long way!!!!   Northern Mesopotamia and Syria outside of Assyria, Babylonia, and Egypt can now tell their own story of the rise and fall of great kingdoms and how they fit into the chronology.   

Venus tablets are not a reliable dating method because their true value is not known for sure by anyone. (They might have a synchronism with something like Hyksos calendar change, or Joshua sun stand still, or Barak stars fought in their courses. Also see our star of Bethlehem thread.)
Ammisaduga and/or the Venus tablets date has ranged in sources from 2113/2105 to 1977/1956 to 1419 to 8th cent bc.
The "Venus" cycle number of years also varies.
There is even quite a difference between long and short dates of the Old Babylonian.
So if Mesopotamian/Egyptian chronology is based on that and other few similar then it is pretty flimsy and dubious.
< ="text/" async="" ="/_Incapsula_Resource?SWJIYLWA=719d34d31c8e3a6e6fffd425f7e032f3&ns=3&cb=1330968673"> //

Sorry A-R, but we DO have much chronological info to justify the inclusion of the Venus tablets.  On my next post, I will use the 1646 date to track Babylonian chronology into the 1st millenium BC.


Edited by Sharrukin - 29-Jul-2018 at 15:06
Back to Top
Arthur-Robin View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23-Feb-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 937
  Quote Arthur-Robin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jul-2018 at 02:20

Before i reply to your reply I have this update from today.

I have revised this topic and as far as i can see the only better biblical match for Sargon is maybe Seir the Horite.
I differ to you Sharrukin in that i don't see that it is so unlikely for Sargon  to have a match in the bible as you have implied it is. Sargon was/is a major historical figure in the time and area covered by the bible, and surely he must be known/found in the bible somewhere (or else he at least certainly seems to come in time somwhere between Joseph and Moses/Joshua in the bible). My considered bibical candidates for Sargon have included: Cain, Ashkenazi/Ashkuz, Cush (Nimrod similarity), Serug, Joseph/Israel (Manasseh similarity), Seir, Arba, or pharaoh Senusert (Moses similarity). Despite the intriguing similarities of Sargon('s sons) with Joseph and Moses, it looks like our previous tentative theoretical match of Sargon with Joseph story and a 3rd/4th/5th dynasty of Egypt doesn't seem to be very likely now. The most likely biblical candidate for Sargon instead now seems to maybe be Seir? (My past candidates for Seir the Horite have included Scorpion king (Horus race), Sargon of Akkad, or Sinuhe.)

Possible match(es) between Sargon/Sharru-kin and Seir "the Horite" of Genesis 36 & Chronicles 1:

- The names Seir/Dusares and Sargon/Sharru-kin could possibly be related, and the possible names match is less able to be linuistically disputed. (Compare Sharuhen? Compare 1st Hyksos king name? Compare Saracen?? Sarku??)
The -Kin "established/just" might be extra title, or it might be similar to Seir's "(the) Horite" surname? (There was an n/r interchange in Sumer-Akkadian. Bible scholars have said Horite might be same as Hivite. Esau also had a son named Kenaz.)

- Sargons brother/brothers were "in the mountains".
Seir was in the mountains according to Genesis 36.
Meskiaggaseir was in mountains in Sumerian king list.

- "Sargon didn't know his father"? Seir's ancestry is not known/given in Genesis/Chronciles.

- Sargon / Akkadian was "Semitic". Seir is associated with Edomites (Shemite).
(Also compare the Admu of  Sumer-Akkad with Edom of bible? Sargon ruled over the "black-headed people" 'nisi zalmat kakkadi' who are also called Admu?)
- Sargon was in (north & west) Iraq/Mesopotamia. Seir/Edom is in between Israel/Palestine and Iraq.
- Amalek "first of the nations". Akkadian the "first world empire"?

- The 2 persons daughters names are similar?
Sargon's daughter Enheduanna (modern rendering might have variants?)
Seir's daughter Timna.
Enheduanna was prominent/famous for her literary work. Timna was famous enough to be mentioned in Genesis 36.
- Their sons/sucessors/sheikhs/dukes names might possibly be similar:
Sargon's sons/sucessors: Alusharshid/Rimush/Uru-mush/Mush; Manish-tu(su); Anum-muttabbi? Naramenzu/Naramsin; Shu-enlil/Ibarum; Ilaba'is-takal/Abaish-takal.
Seir's sons/sheikhs: Lotan; Shobal; Zibeon; Anah; Dishon; Ezer; Dishan.
Anah is similar to Manish or Anum?
Dishon similar to tusu?
Lotan is  maybe similar to Alusharshid?
Amalek similar to Naram, plus Agu (Sin/Enzu) possibly like Eriaku/Rimsin?
Enzu similar to Ezer?
Rimush/Uru-mush/Alusharshid similar to Lotan or Hori?
Manish-tusu similar to Anah & Dishon, or Hemam, or Manahath?
Hori & Hemam similar to Uru-mush/Rimush & Manish-tusu?
Alvan son of Shobal similar to Ali-ahum son of Ibarum/Shuenlil (Enlil was also called Bel).
Oholibamah is maybe similar to Lippushjaum?
- Amalek might be Naramsin who is a giant in his stele picture?

- Sargon comes in time in orthodox chronology around about the time of the 6th dynasty (which matches our "between the 4th [Joseph] and 6th/12th [Moses] dynasty").
Seir comes in the bible somewhere between after Canaan/Hivite or Esau or Moses, and before Moses or Saul.

(- Anakki/Akki who found baby Sargon resembles Anak(im) of Joshua?)
(- Azupiranu on the Euphrates might resemble Rehoboth(-Ir) on the great river Euphrates in Edomite king list?)

Although the casual tentative Sargon & Joseph/pharaoh correspondence seems to have probably been wrong/not-workable, it doesn't mean my biblical & Egyptian matches are wrong (i can provide stark evidences for some of the matches); and it doesn't mean i am wrong (or they are right) about the orthodox Egyptian/Mesopotamian dynasties/periods ascribed dates being too old/long.

Btw I was also interested to see that Manishtusu had a "pyramidical" stele. Can't really blame me for having had the first  casual (and i did treat it as only casual tentative provisional not certain) theory because there were a few very intriguing similarities.

I find things because i keep looking and checking until i am satisfied we found the true matches. I don't just accept what the "peers" assert to be better.



Edited by Arthur-Robin - 30-Jul-2018 at 03:03
NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone.
Back to Top
Arthur-Robin View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23-Feb-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 937
  Quote Arthur-Robin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jul-2018 at 02:52
replying to the Sargon date:

Thanks for the time and effort in presenting the Sargon date info. Though i am sorry  to say that i can't agree it is proven.

The one main place where i majorly disagree with your Sargon "2300 bc" date "proof"  is  your starting point is based on Venus Tablets. I myself refuse to accept your insistence that the Venus Tablets are not an unreliable dating source. Even orthodox "peer" sources admit they are unreliable because the  true accuracy of the Venus Tablets dating info is uncertain.  There is also no other confirmations (excepting supposed Egyptian) of the Babylonian 1 dynasty's supposed  date. Moreover i am positive that the dynasty does not date to "1646 bc" (half way between Joseph and Moses in biblical) because i know for sure that this does not match but goes against  the biblical while our own dates do fit both the Mesopotamian/Egyptian and biblical. Not only do the Venus Tablets info have ucertainties but also we know that there have been changes in astronomical movements in ancient times (eg Joshua sun stand still, eg Barak stars fought in their courses, eg Hezekiah sun go back 10 steps, eg Hyksos calendar year days number change, eg Herodotus said priests said sun had changed direction of travel 2 x 2 times in ancient Egyptian history).
 So i do not agree that you have proven Sargon dates to "2300s bc" because it all hinges on the Venus Tablets are reliable or not (and because i know from other evidences that the dates are not right because not match biblical).
I guess you/they will refuse to admit that the Venus Tablets date is unreliable unless someone can prove what the true date of them is or more forcefully disprove their reliability (orthodox sources do admit they have uncertainty).

Minor other places where i differ:

Difference in long, middle and short chronology date for starting point.

The Guti length "varied in the manuscripts from 91 to 125 years" shows that the Guti dynasty/period duration could have quite an uncertain length varying duration.

Adding up reigns of many kings of dynasties is flawed because (1) we can't prove that all the dynasties and kings were really all consecutive and that there were not any additions or omissions. (2) Some individual kings reigns may have different length of reigns according to some different lists or different scholars/sources. (Not so much in Mesopotamian but especially in Egyptian.)

Sargon's reign length is variously either 37 or 40 or 54/55/56 yrs. (Hammurabi's reign also has different figure in some sources?)

The words "began his reign about". "About" illustrates uncertainties?



Edited by Arthur-Robin - 30-Jul-2018 at 03:09
NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone.
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Aug-2018 at 00:10
As I have already demonstration there is a complete continuity of documentation from the first year of Ammisaduqa of Babylonia backwards to Sargon of Akkad.   I shall now deal with the chronology DOWNWARD of the Venus Tablet established date of 1646 (Middle Chronology) which is the 1st year of Ammisaduqa

Ammisaduqa (21)
Samsuditana (31)

Subtracting the total of their reigns takes us to 1595/4 which is the date of the Fall of Babylon by the Hittites.   Now we have a "dark age" because the chronological data is scanty.    The inscriptions of many of the kings after the Fall of Babylon have been hopelessly worn off, but, fortunately we not only have one kinglist for this period but multiple kinglists of not just one kingdom but three kingdoms which we can synchronize.  In some cases the length of reign has been preserved and so the length of time can be checked for a fair amount of certainty until 1440 BC when the documentation is complete enough to bring the chronology of Babylonia and Assyria into the 1st millennium!!!

An inscription of Gulkishar, king of the Sealand shows that he was "King of Babylon" after the Fall of Babylon.   24 years after the Fall of Babylon, Agum II Kakrime, the Kassite king, "King of the... Land of Babylon" saw the return of the statues of Marduk and his wife back to Babylon so about 1571 BC.   So sometime before, Agum was able to supplant Gulkishar from Babylon.   Agum's successor, Burn-buriash I came to terms with Puzur-Ashur III on their mutual border.   Three Kassite reigns later, Ulamburiash conquered the Sealand endng the reign of Eagamil, its last king.  Four Kassite reigns later, Kara-Indash had another agreement regarding the border with Ashur-bel-nisheshu of Assyria.  Thus, we have the following sychronisms (in bold):

ASSYRIA SEALAND KASSITES
Gulkishar (55 years) c. 1595-1575 at Babylon
Peshgaldaramesh (50 years) Agum III c. 1575 BC
Puzur-Ashur III (14/24 years) Burna-Buriash I
Ayadaragalama (28 years) <a missing king>
Enlil-nasir I (13 years) Akurduanna (26 years) 
Nur-ili (12 years) Melamkurkurra (7 years) Kashtiliash III
Ashur-shaduni (1 month) Eagamil (9 years)   Ulamburiash
Ashur-rabi I                                   Agum III c. 1455
Ashur-nadin-ahe 
Enlil-nasir II (6 years) <a missing king>
Ashur-nirari II (7 years)
Ashur-bel-nisheshu (9 years) Kadashman-harbe I
Ashur-rim-nisheshu (8 years)   Karaindash c. 1410
1408-1401

From about 1575 or presumably the end of the reign of Gulkishar to the end of the reign of Eagamil was a space of 120 years ending about 1455 BC.   Since it was Agum III who finished the conquest of the Sealand, he can be dated to this date.   The next datum we have is the reign of Ashur-rim-nishsehu who reigned from 1408 to 1401 hence dating Kara-Indash from about 1410 BC.

Beginning with Enlil-Nasir II in about 1430 BC or three reigns before Ashur-rim-nisheshu in the Assyrian kinglists, we have a continuous list of Assyrian kings with totals of the length of their reigns all the way to the end of the Assyrian kingdom in 609 BC.
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Aug-2018 at 01:44
I have revised this topic and as far as i can see the only better biblical match for Sargon is maybe Seir the Horite. 
I differ to you Sharrukin in that i don't see that it is so unlikely for Sargon  to have a match in the bible as you have implied it is. Sargon was/is a major historical figure in the time and area covered by the bible, and surely he must be known/found in the bible somewhere (or else he at least certainly seems to come in time somwhere between Joseph and Moses/Joshua in the bible). My considered bibical candidates for Sargon have included: Cain, Ashkenazi/Ashkuz, Cush (Nimrod similarity), Serug, Joseph/Israel (Manasseh similarity), Seir, Arba, or pharaoh Senusert (Moses similarity). Despite the intriguing similarities of Sargon('s sons) with Joseph and Moses, it looks like our previous tentative theoretical match of Sargon with Joseph story and a 3rd/4th/5th dynasty of Egypt doesn't seem to be very likely now. The most likely biblical candidate for Sargon instead now seems to maybe be Seir? (My past candidates for Seir the Horite have included Scorpion king (Horus race), Sargon of Akkad, or Sinuhe.)

Possible match(es) between Sargon/Sharru-kin and Seir "the Horite" of Genesis 36 & Chronicles 1:

- The names Seir/Dusares and Sargon/Sharru-kin could possibly be related, and the possible names match is less able to be linuistically disputed. (Compare Sharuhen? Compare 1st Hyksos king name? Compare Saracen?? Sarku??)
The -Kin "established/just" might be extra title, or it might be similar to Seir's "(the) Horite" surname? (There was an n/r interchange in Sumer-Akkadian. Bible scholars have said Horite might be same as Hivite. Esau also had a son named Kenaz.)
< ="text/" async="" ="/_Incapsula_Resource?SWJIYLWA=719d34d31c8e3a6e6fffd425f7e032f3&ns=3&cb=1047426228"> //

Here is the problem with Seir according to the Biblical data.:

Esau married Oholibamah who was the daughter of Anah, who was the son of Zibeon (Gen. 36:2)

Oholibamah was the daughter of Anah, who was the son of Zibeon who was the son of Sier (Genesis 36:20-25).   

This is was it looks like graphically:

      Seir
        |
Abraham             Zibeon
      |                         |
  Isaac              Anah
      |                         |
  Esau       =       Oholibamah

If Seir was Sargon, and Seir was in the generation before Abraham, then Sargon was before Abraham.

But, since there is no connection between Sargon and the land of Seir (Edom) this exercise is moot.   I don't think you can now accept the idea that Seir is Sargon, now since Seir can no longer fit into your scheme of Sargon being after the Patriarchs.
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Aug-2018 at 02:35
Thanks for the time and effort in presenting the Sargon date info. Though i am sorry  to say that i can't agree it is proven.

The one main place where i majorly disagree with your Sargon "2300 bc" date "proof"  is  your starting point is based on Venus Tablets. I myself refuse to accept your insistence that the Venus Tablets are not an unreliable dating source. Even orthodox "peer" sources admit they are unreliable because the  true accuracy of the Venus Tablets dating info is uncertain.  There is also no other confirmations (excepting supposed Egyptian) of the Babylonian 1 dynasty's supposed  date. Moreover i am positive that the dynasty does not date to "1646 bc" (half way between Joseph and Moses in biblical) because i know for sure that this does not match but goes against  the biblical while our own dates do fit both the Mesopotamian/Egyptian and biblical. Not only do the Venus Tablets info have ucertainties but also we know that there have been changes in astronomical movements in ancient times (eg Joshua sun stand still, eg Barak stars fought in their courses, eg Hezekiah sun go back 10 steps, eg Hyksos calendar year days number change, eg Herodotus said priests said sun had changed direction of travel 2 x 2 times in ancient Egyptian history).
 So i do not agree that you have proven Sargon dates to "2300s bc" because it all hinges on the Venus Tablets are reliable or not (and because i know from other evidences that the dates are not right because not match biblical).
I guess you/they will refuse to admit that the Venus Tablets date is unreliable unless someone can prove what the true date of them is or more forcefully disprove their reliability (orthodox sources do admit they have uncertainty).

The Middle Chronology from the Venus Tablets does fit well with the available data.   Please see the chronology after 1646 BC.   While there are gaps, we have enough synchronisms from betweeen the fall of Babylon, 1595 BC to 1430 BC to fill in the gap.   After 1430 BC, the Assyrian king lists and eponym lists fill in for the period afterwards into the 1st millennium BC.

Minor other places where i differ:

Difference in long, middle and short chronology date for starting point.

The Guti length "varied in the manuscripts from 91 to 125 years" shows that the Guti dynasty/period duration could have quite an uncertain length varying duration.

A variance of 34 years.   Not enough to move Sargon's date appreciably downwards.   I'm actually allowing for an overlap making the Guti period even smaller considering those two synchronisms.  Otherwise, Sargon's reign would have been even more ancient.   So, no complaints!!!!

Adding up reigns of many kings of dynasties is flawed because (1) we can't prove that all the dynasties and kings were really all consecutive and that there were not any additions or omissions.

But we do!!!   And I did account for those overlaps!!!  The documentation for all those synchronisms are there!!!   You just won't recognize them!!!   The narratives and the year-names mention ALL the essential synchronisms!!!   And then, you don't want 'additions" for they would only put Sargon into a more ancient period.    And then, there is very little evidence of omissions, the Gutian rulers being the most obvious one.   However, there had been such a consistancy in documentation of dynasties after the Gutians that the supposed "omissions" would have been inconsequential in the altering of the chronology.

(2) Some individual kings reigns may have different length of reigns according to some different lists or different scholars/sources. (Not so much in Mesopotamian but especially in Egyptian.)

Sargon's reign length is variously either 37 or 40 or 54/55/56 yrs. (Hammurabi's reign also has different figure in some sources?)

The variations are few and far in between.   And then they don't alter appreciably the chronology.  I've thrown out, for example the 'long" reign of Naram-Sin, otherwise that would have made Sargon's reign even more ancient.   So, again, no complaining!!!!

The words "began his reign about". "About" illustrates uncertainties?
< ="text/" async="" ="/_Incapsula_Resource?SWJIYLWA=719d34d31c8e3a6e6fffd425f7e032f3&ns=3&cb=1656102772"> //

"About" means "give or take a few years".    Uncertainties arise because of the Mesopotamian calendar.    Because it was a traditionally mixed (i.e. solar/lunar) calendar, there will be a variance of a few years which need to be corrected.   Regardless of this "uncertainty" it does NOT alter appreciably the chronology.


Back to Top
Arthur-Robin View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23-Feb-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 937
  Quote Arthur-Robin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Aug-2018 at 03:07

Sorry I was not able to view the forum all the last 24 hours due to some sort of problem. If i am not able to reply any more in future it may be because i have again lost access to view/visit forum.

Probably the one main area where the biggest problem presumably is with their/your chronology between Sargon "2300s" to Ammisaduga "1600s" to Assyrians c 601 bc is probably the Assyrian (and/or Babylonian) king list between "1440/1430/1410/1408/1401" and 601 bc. (I am justified to use words "presumably/probably" because they/you have not given the data for all the Assyrian/Babylonian dynasties/kings involved between "1400s" and 601 for analysis.)

The Assyrian king lists are disputable as regards possible contemporary dynasties/cities being supposedly consecutive.
"At that time did king Ahaz send unto the kings [plural] of Assyria to help him" (II Chronicles 28:16).
Assur and Calah and Nineveh dynasties were not necessarily all consecutive, there may be overlaps.
Assyrians power variously stated to have lasted for either:
1013/1240/1280/1300/1306/1500 yrs from Bel/Semiramis to Medes 816/700 bc (Ctesias); or
1995 yrs Ninus to Philip 197 bc; or
"30/33 generations/descents from Belus/Ninus/Ninyas to Sardanapalus"; or
520 yrs duration of Assyrians until Medes (Herodotus); or
Semiramis 5 generations before Nitocris; or
Bel 322 yrs before Trojan war 1229 bc (Thallus/Theoph.)
(Kutirnahunte 1635/1850 yrs before Ashurbanipal 650 bc.)
(Assyrians had periods of 1805 yrs with the last one ending in 712 bc.)

So i do not see that there is proof for that Sargon was 2300s bc, you have only shown that they/you can cleverly claim some seeming supposed supports reasons, but it doesn't mean or prove it is right. There are problems and assumptions involved with so many kings reigns lengths figures data, and there is no strong external confirmation of the long periods dates, and it conflicts with some other evidences like biblical and some other sources (like Herodotus). I think it it seems cunningly deceptive.

Do these kings lists say/show whether part years are counted as full years for preceding and succeeding kings? If you have more than about a 100 kings  involved and if each king has only one extra year added then one would already have a misleading difference of a 100 years in alleged dates.

Some of the dynasties have differing claimed durations in different king lists versions:
Akkad 161/177/181/197 yrs
Uruk 4 dyn 26/30/43/47 yrs
Guti 25/99/124 yrs
Uruk 5 dyn (42)7 yrs
Ur 3 dyn 108/117 / 120 + x / 123 yrs
Isin 159/203/225 yrs.

I assume that you/they will claim that theirs/yours is reliable despite my criticisms, so i will have to re-study the Assyrians (and Babylonian) kings lists and find more forceful proofs exactly where the king list is not really consecutive/reliable.

Replying to bits in the second and third posts:

Just because the Venus Tablets theoretical calculation supposedly "fits well with" the Assyrian king lists data calucaltions doesn't mean it is right. History knows many proven cases of misleading coincidences, there are quite a few cases of where dates supposedly coincide but they turn out to be false coincidences (eg Mayan start date and orthodox Menes date).
 
Synchronisms don't fill gaps, they don't prove the length of time between, they only prove the two persons are contemporary (though it might be true that alignments chances require consistent length in both lists). Your dates conflict with some sources like the Bible so yous are picking and choosing to accept some and reject or distort other sychronisms (i mean like yous claim "synchronisms" support your chronology, but yous have don't have synchronisms with biblical, you have anti-synchronisms with biblical, your dates don't synchronise with biblical).

Their/your chronology is cunningly deceptive, it all hinges on all many the kings and dynasties lengths being correct and consecutive. (The more number of data you have the more possible problems.) I admit you have made a point that you/they do at least have some support reasons for their/your case, but i do not agree that it is honest reliable truth.

The Edomite/Seirite/Horite genealogical information in Genesis and Chronicles is not necessarily as clear cut as what your diagram showed. There are contradictions in different Genesis/Chronciles sections/chapters.
However, after my last post the last time i visited 1-2 days ago i was re-reading info on Sargon and Manishtusu and Naramsin and i am not so sure now that my previous Sargon and Joseph (or Moses) connection was not possibly right after all, because i again saw some very intriguing similarities, and i also saw that the second Seir correspondence doesn't necessarily seem so likely after all. So i am still looking into whether the possible Joseph correspondence is or is not right.

I am withdrawiing because in my opinion i detect in all the replies above unfair cunning tactics that falsely make me look all-wrong and not right about anything all the time, and falsely making the other side out to be all right and not wrong about anything all the time. Some day in the future someone will prove that the ascribed dates of Sargon and other early events are not so old as they keep "authoritatively/expertly" asserting. But until then it always seems to be cunningness not truth that wins.



Edited by Arthur-Robin - 01-Aug-2018 at 05:24
NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone.
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2018 at 00:44
I lost my entire message to all your assertions so I will just make this into an essay.   To say that arguments, which you say, are "cunningly deceptive" only demonstrate how ignorant you are about ancient documents and their usefulness.   You underestimate how much scholarship has gone into creating the Mesopotamian chronology.   In some periods, the documentation is so embarrassingly complete, that even many medievel sources are inferior in comparison.    For many reigns the year-names or eponyms for the reigns of various kings are COMPLETE!!!!  The Ur III kings chronology is virtually COMPLETE for instance.  The Neo-Assyrian eponym lists are nearly COMPLETE for the 1st millennium BC!!!!  You do underestimate the usefulness of synchronisms as well.  These augment the regnal years of the kings AND are a check on the chronology.   And then your rejection of the usefulness of the Venus tablets because of the variety of solutions only shows your disregard of various chronological sources which have allowed scholars to choose from either the Low or Middle Chronology above ALL others......and they are only a insignificant 64 years apart!!!   This only shows how near agreement these scholars are for the chronology AFTER the period of those two dates for the Venus tablets.  Even after your objection for some variances in the rule of kings, those variances are insignificant to the over all chronology.

By comparison your methodology is chaotic!!!!!    Not only do you try to match names with rulers with totally different careers, cultures, pedigrees, and belief systems, (come on, the Patriachs were NOT kings!!!), but with names of rulers disregarding any chronology!!!    After playing that "match name game" with you, I realize that you have NO idea who to match Sargon with.    And then I have to question WHY you choose classical legendary sources for your history in favor of more ancient and more detailed sources of information.   The scribes who compiled the more ancient sources had sources of documentation at their disposal that the classical sources didn't have, otherwise there would have been more agreement.  The only possible exception are the late native Babylonian chronicles which do reflect the more ancient sources.  For the most part the classical sources just recorded half-remembered legends, which barely match their more ancient documented counterparts.

I'm sorry, but it is going to take a lot more than your "match name game" to be taken seriously.  Until new sources of information come to light with the spade, the best available information shows that Sargon reigned in the late 24th century/early 23rd century BC.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

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 0.094 seconds.