Talk:Akkadian Empire/Archive 1

United??

"The empire united Akkadian and Sumerian speakers under one rule."
Where did the 'united' come from? It was a straightforward occupation, suppression and terrorism for some 150 years. Yes, people did try to live with it. But there was no 'united' of anything but the hatred of the oppressors. See Notes 60: Norman Yoffee, "The Collapse of Ancient Mesopotamian States and Civilization". Finally they got rid of the Semites. As S.N. Kramer said 'It is a life and death struggle of the Semites and non Semites'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Destroyed Cities list

But no description of how this was destroyed or what evidence that it was destroyed. What happened to it's people? There's no mention in the whole article. Anyone? anything? --Duemellon 16:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Error on page

Error creating thumbnail: convert: unable to open image `/mnt/upload3/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Stele_Naram_Sim_Louvre_Sb4.jpg': No such file or directory. convert: missing an image filename `/mnt/upload3/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/67/Stele_Naram_Sim_Louvre_Sb4.jpg/200px-Stele_Naram_Sim_Louvre_Sb4.jpg'. Stele of Narâm-Sîn, king of Akkad, celebrating his victory against the Lullubi from Zagros.

Mathiastck 00:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source for early writing?

Stating that there is evidence of Akkadian writing pre-dating Sumerian is a heated claim and without citations does not belong in the article. -Nephalim 12:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title of "King of Sumer and Akkad"

"In the later Babylonian literature the name Akkad, together with Sumer, appears as part of the royal title, as in the Sumerian LUGAL KI.EN.GIRKI URUKI or Akkadian Šar māt Šumeri u Akkadi,[citation needed] translating to "king of Sumer and Akkad", which appears to have meant simply "king of all of Mesopotamia"."

When Babylonian kings referred to themselves as "king of Sumer and Akkad", they literally referred to Sumer and Akkad, and thus they did not mean "king of all of Mesopotamia", as a large part of Mesopotamia included Assyria, which was not always under direct control of the Sumero-Akkadian state.

I'm going to take out the last part of the sentence: "which appears to have meant simply 'king of all of Mesopotamia'". It's also a little bit superfluous, so it's not needed. Please let me know if there's a problem with that.Šarukinu 03:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted external links

External link or links have recently been deleted by User:Calton as "horrible Tripod pages which add little information, are full of ads, and fail WP:EL standards." No better external links were substituted. Readers may like to judge these deleted links for themselves, by opening Page history. --Wetman 15:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split?

Shouldn't the article be splitted in two: Akkadian Empire and city of Akkade, and then also Akkad (disambigation)? Like in some other wikis. --Koryakov Yuri 09:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Koryakov, since the city of Akkad has never been found it would be difficult having an article on that subject. There were originally two articles but they were largely identical so they finished up collapsing into one. John D. Croft 10:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions of the Akkadians to the world

What were the contributions of the Akkadians to the world?

They built thefirst multi-ethnic multi-national Empire in the history of the world. John D. Croft 02:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They did not do that. They run down Sumeria, suppressed and enslaved them. They destroyed their churches and forbid their religion. After some 150 or so years the KU-MAH-GARs (Sumers in Akkadien) formed an alliance with the Gutians and got rid of the Semitic overlords. Apparently they took the stones of Akkad (the city) away, plough the land and saw it with salt so that nothing can grow there again. There is a reason why it can't be found. That much about the multi-ethnic empire.

Climate change and pigs

"It has also been suggested that the rapid, climatic collapse marking the Akkadian Dark Age may have been responsible for the religiously prescribed tabu against the raising and consumption of pigs that spread the Ancient Middle East from the end of the third millennium BC[13]."

Err, am I the only one who fails to see the connection? A little explanation would be welcome, here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.166.211.161 (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Finkelstein suggests that the raising of pigs was discouraged in periods in which nomadic pastoralism became an important part of the economy in the Ancient Middle East. The spread of nomaic pastoralism at the expense of peasant intensive susbsistence agriculture is associated with increasing aridity and climate change. John D. Croft (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The key word here is "suggests". Suggestion is NOT evidence. I can 'suggest' lots of things. Who cares.
Mesopotamia was an arid region even at the times. Hence the KU-MAH-GAR-s (Sumers in Akkadien) invented irrigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for a Featured Articel Status

Does anyone know how to nominate for featured article status? Is Akkad of such a standard? John D. Croft (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. You could go for peer review perhaps. PiCo (talk) 09:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed

I removed ( Akkad was the capitol of Babylonian empire ) because obviosly it was not .

--Blain Toddi (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Site of Akkad

When I served in Iraq with US Army ... I remember seeing ancient ruins west of the Euphrates near the city of Karbala close to a big lake ... the Iraqi intepreter said the name of the lake is -RAZAZA- also he said that this ruins may be the ancient city of Akkad

--Blain Toddi (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a theory (I too have heard of it.) Chaldean (talk) 06:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move this page to "Akkadian Empire"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move. Article needs now a few changes to have content conform with new title. Hús ö nd 15:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: The city of Akkad has not been located; there is little information about the city itself, and this article focuses on the Akkadian Empire and its history. Twofistedcoffeedrinker (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. The current location of the article stems from when the original Akkadian Empire article was merged with Akkad back in '07. However, since this article is primarily about the empire, the edit history should accrue to it and not the city. I would support the creation of a new article specifically about the city at Akkad (following the move of this one) or at Akkad (city) (with Akkad as a disambiguation page). Similar situations exist now at other interwikis (e.g., Spanish: Imperio Acadio, Agadé, Acad; French: Empire d'Akkad, Akkad (ville), Akkad; Polish: Imperium akadyjskie, Akad (miasto), Akad). — AjaxSmack 01:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Unverified

It is believed that Akkad was the largest city in the world from 2250 to 2075 BC.<ref></ref>

An unverified statement from the Chandler list. The location of the city is not known, let alone its population figures in the given period. --JFK 11:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with JFK. They have never been able to find the location of the capital city of Agade Akkad. It still remains to be discovered, so obviously its population estimate remains unknown. As they have never been able to identify the site and only can only guestimate where it "should be," this specific entry is irresponsible and should be removed... Stevenmitchell 01:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The size of Akkad has been estimated by the claim made in the literature that 5,000 soldiers ate nightly with Sargon. Based upon the ratio of soldiers to civilians in cities of that time the population of Akkad has been roughly established. Hope this helpd John D. Croft (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, would you be wiling to accept the claims in the Bible on that sort of evidence? ("The book of Exodus claims that 2.6 million Israelites joined Moses trekking round Sinai, therefore ..."). PiCo (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A force of 5,000 men seems fairly reasonable for the capital of such a large Empire. Naram Sin is reasonably estimated to have had an army of 360,000! But it is now thought that this included all people employed by the monarch. John D. Croft (talk) 07:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standardisation Urgently Needed

There is a need for standardisation in the name of Sargon's grandson, called Naram-Sin and Naram Suen in the document. Suen is the older, now not generally used form. I propose that Naram Sin be used. 83.191.188.34 (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What then of the other Naram-Sin/Suen kings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naram-Sin_(disambiguation)

~~ploversegg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ploversegg (talk • contribs) 17:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standardisation complete throughout to the modern form Naram-Sin. John D. Croft (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Rktect (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sargon Mask

mask "probebly" of sargon. What ever made you think that this is Sargon ??? The facial features on it are not semetic at all.

Do you have any heavier evidence than what you deem to be semitic? Like sources or somthing? Thanatosimii 09:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In actual fact, they are Semitic, if you change the hair and beard style, his facial features are not untypical of many Iraqis today. Fine aquiline nose, almond shaped eyes, wide forehead, dolicephalic, gracile Mediterranean, full-lips, tick eyebrows almost meeting in the centre. John D. Croft 15:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, Mr Croft. One surmises that OP believes that Semitic = Jewish (and Jewish as in antisemitic propaganda, at that). 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:5D2F:B51B:BB78:D221 (talk) 10:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The craftsmanship suggests it portrays a ruler, but we don't know which one. It is definitely Semetic in style at that time, because Sumerians shaved their heads. Sumerophile (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shaving of heads was attested in the earliest period, but it was a fashion statement, not an ethnic marker. There is evidence that the Kings of Kish (Dynasty 1) were also completely shaven, and it is known from their names that they were Semitic Akkadian and not Sumerian. It appears that the fashion changed during the Akkadian period with elaborate hairstyles (Wigs?) and a plaited (and dyed?) beard. The belief that the fashions were markers of the difference between Sumerian and Akkadians is an old theory now discarded. It is a little like assuming that China is currently ruled by Europeans because the Chinese leadership wear western suites. John D. Croft (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why has the so called Sargon mask been deleted from the article? It is public domain, dated to the period and is a good example of artistic work of the Akkadians.John D. Croft (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like somebody deleted it. Is it public domain? could you re-upload it? I agree that it's essential to have it in the article. \//\ - 03:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armenians?

The statement that there were already Armenians in this region at the time of Naram Sin needs to be disputed. Armenian is an Indo-Eropean language with an Iranian adstratum, and possibly a Hurro-Urartuan substratum. It is considered by comparative historical linguists to be most closely related to Greek. Greek is considered to have developed as a separate language in the period between 1900 and 1700 BCE, and this gives a date ante to the separation of the two languages, from a "proto-Greco-Armenian, along with poorly attested Macedonian and Phrygian. Armenians are supposed to have developed after the formation of the Hayasa-Azzi, a small state around Lake Van first mentioned in Hittite records during the reign of Tudhaliyas III, about 1400 BCE, from which they derive their name. It is thought that this may have been, at that time a Hurrian state. The arrival of Armen tribes from the West as a part of the ethnic movements during the Bronze Age collapse, led to the appearance of modern Armenians. Herodotus specified that the Armen were a people closely affiliated with the Phrygians, giving a date of about 700 BCE. Unless citations can be given to this section, I propose that it be removed. John D. Croft 02:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur completely. Armani are not Armenians. Not even close. And the Assyrians are not direct descendants of the Akkadian either. This should go away.Ploversegg (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)ploversegg[reply]

And me. I've removed that note. Some "Assyrians" are going around spreading a fallacy that they're the [only] indigenous people of Iraq [Mesopotamia] and either implying or claiming that Iraqis are not indigenous. Shameful disinformation. Ironically, genetic testing shows the "Assyrians" are closer to indigenous Jordanians, so it would appear that they [Aramean migrants] have actually usurped the northern Iraqi heritage, and actively strive to disenfranchise Iraq from it. They know very well that the southern Akkadians have called the country "Iraq" since a few centuries after Babylon was destroyed. Or, possibly much earlier (Uruk). \//\ - 03:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant old history

Some page history that used to be at the title "Akkadian Empire" can now be found at Talk:Akkadian Empire/Old history. Graham87 16:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Akkadian Empire/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I submit this article for review because:

I suspect it has never been reviewed for GA in the first place (the GA template was added here; I can't find a review report).
The article pays undue attention to texts (especially the Sumerian King List). There is very little mentioning of archaeology.
Many texts seem to be treated as if they are historical, even though mainstream science dismisses that idea.
The text needs some major re-editing to correct and remove redundant wikilinks, and to improve coherence of argument and style.
The article completely fails to mention important events like the Great Revolt against Naram-Sin.
The collapse of the Akkadian Empire is linked with climate change as if that is an established fact. It is not.
Large parts of the article are completely uncited.
The lead does not concisely summarize the article contents.

In short, I think the article fails on 1A, 1B, 2B, 3A and 3B of the Good Article criteria and should therefore be demoted. -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: already did some major clean up work; still don't think it can make GA. -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if this is a GA or not, but once again your cavalier approach to Ancient history show up clearly in your choice of words, and seems way overly simplistic. No cautious historian in the field ever tosses off comments like "mainstream science dismisses that idea". (Whatever "that idea" happens to be.) We haven't exactly reduced this to an exact science yet, and we try to keep our minds open, because truth is, there are many competing hypotheses, schools of thought, dating schemes, and overall views of history about any given aspect, and there is not a central, monolithic politburo or a vatican that issues forth officially approved "mainstream science" and separates it from "heresy". And our neutral role is to carefully describe and source all the significant competing camps exactly where they currently lay, not push for one POV or the other, or give it the "seal of approval". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to get offensive and rude; please stay civil. We have different approaches to ANE; that's acceptable (even though you again seem to misunderstand and misrepresent my position). If you are interested in this debate, please state whether you support or oppose delisting, and give your arguments. If you have specific problems with my style of editing or reasoning, you can discuss that on my talkpage. This discussion is about the Akkadian Empire GAR. -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article delisted; no attempt whatsoever made to address the issues raised here. -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Little change to the map caption

Before, it said "Map of the Akkadian Empire, showing Sargon of Akkad's conquests." To me it didn't sound very much like a title. Made me confused a little bit until I realized Sargon was a person. I changed it to "Map of the Akkadian Empire, showing Sargon's conquests." In my opinion it's just more understandable for people that aren't familiar with Akkadia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djaked (talk • contribs) 04:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zoeperkoe's edits

Zoeperkoe, while I can agree with many of your edits, some of them I find strange and perplexing. You have eliminated many cross references for no apparent reason, and the fact that the Akkadian language was related to Eblaite is important, as until the discovery of the Eblaite archive it was assumed Akkadian was the only example of NE Semitic. I propose reversing some of these unnecessary changes.John D. Croft (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to do so, but note that this page is not about the Akkadian language and ask yourself if such details add anything about the actual topic of this page, the Akkadian Empire.--Zoeperkoe (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Size of the Empire

The infobox currently says that the Akkadian Empire was about 800,000 square kilometres in area. That's bigger then the modern-day countries of Iraq and Syria put together (that would be only about 624,000 sqr.km), yet the map shows the Empire only encompassing an area along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, not even the whole of that area (not the deserts, etc). If that map is accurate then if you try to draw those borders onto Google Earth/Maps (with this tool) you get an area of about 270,000 sqr.km. Now I don't know if this 800,000 also includes vassal states or something, but it seems way too big to be correct. It's also completely uncited. --Hibernian (talk) 06:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody have any comment on this? Does the person who added 800,000 square kilometres into the article wish to show any verification for this claim? I'm thinking I'll just go ahead and remove that number and replace it with something like "~270,000 sqr.km" or "about one quarter of a million square kilometres", if no one can give a good reason to keep 800,000. --Hibernian (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cited claim. You should probably interact with the source if you're going to take issue with it. What probably is going on here is that the source is using older measurements of the scope of the Akkadian Empire, which did include all of Syria and Iraq, plus bits of Anatolia, Urartu, Persia, etc. Recent work, particularly that which established Ebla as a strong and independent hegemon of Syria during the period Akkad purportedly exercised suzerainity over it, have caused us to shrink our estimates considerably. Thanatosimii (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected error

It was not the first time Sumerian and Akkadian speakers were united under one rule. They had been present from ancient times, for example at Sippar. John D. Croft (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A millennium turns at a single point, and is referred to by the new one that begins at the turn.

"Akkadian gradually replaced Sumerian as a spoken language somewhere around the turn of the 3rd and the 2nd millennia BC" - Really? It gradually replaced it on two occasions a thousand years apart? I suspect you mean "around the turn of the 2nd millennium BC". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.136.199 (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "you"; "around 2000 BC" is obviously simpler, so better. Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was changed to "somewhere between" but that means 2000 BC exactly. Best would be to indicate the spread of uncertainty as in "somewhere between 2500 and 1500 BC" 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:5D2F:B51B:BB78:D221 (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]