by
Damien F. Mackey
Previously I wrote:
I may have located the lost city of Akkad (Sumerian: Agade).
Is that significant?
Well, it is only if I have actually located it. But I think that I have – not with the spade, though, of course, but via keyboard.
Archaeologists have been searching for it in Sumer (southern Iraq) since the C19th AD.
And they have never managed to find Akkad.
Why haven’t they found it after all of this time?
Because it was never there.
Since it was expected to have been in the approximate region of “Babel” (Genesis 10:9; cf. 11:8-9), Akkad has been sought for near Babylon in Sumer. ….
More recently, though, I have gone so far as to shift Sumer right out of southern Mesopotamia:
“The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia
(3) “The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Akkad, which has been searched for in southern Iraq, but never found, was expected there because it is where Babylon (Babel) is thought to have been. But see also my:
Correction for Babylon (Babel). Carchemish preferable to Byblos
(3) Correction for Babylon (Babel). Carchemish preferable to Byblos | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Moreover (and this is probably where I got started), one of Nimrod's 4 cities was Calneh (or Calno). And that is paired with Carchemish in Isaiah 10:9:
Is not Calno as Carchemish? is not Hamath as Arpad? is not Samaria as Damascus?
Carchemish (see first map) is hundreds of km NW of southern Iraq.
Moreover, the Septuagint Isaiah 10:9 has the Tower approximately in the Carchemish-Calneh region: “The LXX. version, which instead of naming Carchemish, gives "Calane [Calneh], where the tower was built," seems to imply a tradition identifying that city with the Tower of Babel of Genesis 11:4”.
To thicken the plot, the word “Carchemish” is replaced here by “Babylon”.
What it all seems to indicate most clearly to me is that Nimrod's cities were way over in the north west, and not down SE in southern Mesopotamia.
OK. But what about Akkad?
I think that I may have found it.
It is a fairly simple concept. Akkad has not been found in southern Mesopotamia because it never was there, and this southern region was not the biblical Shinar.
Calneh in the north west, approximately in relation to Carchemish (cf. Isaiah 10:9), absolutely necessitates that Nimrod’s realm be re-located hundreds of km NW from the usual estimate.
As G. K. Chesterton averred, ‘the missing link is still missing’, and so was Akkad.
But hopefully no more.
Akkad must be somewhat in the geographical vicinity of Calneh, which we know to have been somewhat in the vicinity of Carchemish.
What do we know about Akkad? Well, the mighty Sargon of Akkad (who some of us think has to be Nimrod himself) tells in an Inscription that ships (read reed boats) from Magan and Meluhha docked in the Quay of Akkad:
‘The ships from Meluhha the ships from Magan the ships
from Dilmun he made tie-up alongside the quay of Akkad’.
Magan and Meluhha in the Assyrian records are, respectively, Egypt and Ethiopia. But, in Akkadian times, historians foolishly (due to wrong geography and other things) identify them differently, as, say, Oman, in the Persian Gulf (the Sumer region).
Egypt’s maritime trade with NW Syria was on the Mediterranean. So I looked around the area and found, roughly in line with Carchemish, the famous port city of Ugarit.
Nimrod would have needed a port city if he were to embark upon important Mediterranean trade.
And here may be the clincher.
Another name for Ugarit was IKAT (very close to Akkad).
Vowels are interchangeable in these languages, as are t's and d's.
Thus Ugarit could be abbreviated to Aga[ri]d (Agade, Sumerian for Akkad).
....
Sargon’s testimony could almost, on its very own, pinpoint for us the true location of the long-lost capital city of Akkad, Nimrod’s city.
For ‘ships’ (reed boats) from Magan and Meluḫḫa to be putting in at the quay of Akkad must necessitate that Akkad was (i) a port city, (ii) on the Mediterranean sea-coast.
Why?
Because Magan and Meluhha are in the region of, respectively, Egypt and Ethiopia. That is confirmed by a statement of the neo-Assyrian king Ashurbanipal: “In my first campaign I marched against Magan, Meluhha, Tarka, king of Egypt and Ethiopia …”.
We know from Genesis 10:10 that there were other cities of the hunter Nimrod: “The first centres of his kingdom were Babylon, Uruk, Akkad and Calneh, in Shinar”.
Thus Akkad, the Mediterranean port in the approximate region of Carchemish, can only be Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra). “The ruler of Carchemish sent troops to assist Ugarit, but Ugarit had been sacked”: https://placeandsee.com/wiki/ugarit
Conclusion: Ugarit is Akkad.
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/ugar/hd_ugar.htm
Although the name of the city was known from Egyptian and Hittite sources, its location and history were a mystery until the accidental discovery in 1928 of an ancient tomb at the small Arab village of Ras Shamra. A French archaeological mission under the direction of Claude F.-A. Schaeffer (1898–1982) began excavations in 1929. This was followed by a series of digs through 1939. Limited work was undertaken in 1948, but full-scale work did not resume until 1950.
The city’s location ensured its importance through trade. To the west lay a good harbor (the bay of Minet el-Beida), while to the east a pass led to the heart of Syria and northern Mesopotamia through the mountain range that lies parallel with the coast. The city also sat astride an important north-south coastal trade route linking Anatolia and Egypt.
It is clear from excavations that Ugarit was first settled in the Neolithic period (about 6500 B.C.) [sic] and had grown into a substantial town by the early third millennium B.C. Ugarit is mentioned in cuneiform documents discovered at Mari on the Euphrates dating to the Middle Bronze Age (ca. 2000–1600 B.C.). ….
The Egyptian name for Ugarit is believed to have been IKAT:
https://www.academia.edu/41484046/Further_Observations_on_Ugarit_and_Egypt_in_the_Early_New_Kingdom
“This new observation of both old and new transcription systems in the Amenhotep II texts fully supports the reading of IkAT as Ugarit …”.
The name IKAT is as close to Akkad as one could possibly want.
Claude F. A. Schaeffer believed that Sargon, Naram-Sin, of Akkad had used the port of Ugarit for conquest of the lands ‘beyond the Upper Sea’ (CRAI, 1962, p. 202).
Passion of Saint John the Baptist
29th August, 2022
‘He must increase, but I must decrease’
John 3:30
Comments