Tremendous frustration with Babylonian and Assyrian Research

Hey guys. It's been a while since I created a topic on ATS. Some of you may remember my stubborn study of Nimrod. Many don't believe him to have been a real ruler, though I still stick to the throught he was.. Of course Nimrod wasnt his real name. But that is another post that, in all, would go greatly unappreciated by most here. I'm okay with that, and I respect everyone's take on ancient history. He is a dodgy character at best, I do admit... But all the hours of research into Assyrian and Babylonian history have just gone to moot... (and it was already confusing enough to begin with)

All my research has been built on what I thought was a common understanding that Shinar, or Sumer, was a part of the fertile crescent in Mesopotamia. But then I ran into a another persons research that completely threw a huge wrench into everything I thought I learned... Enter Catherine Acholonu and her research regarding Sargon of Akkad's supposed grave. I am left shaking my head in shock and disbelieve, while kind of hoping she is wrong, and what she brings is just a bunch of coincidences. But part of me fears she might be right in regards to the location of Sumer / Shinar. If so true, my research and theories about Sumerian/Assyrian/Babylonian history have hit a major iceberg! Many of my theories and beliefs would have to be repaired or completely thrown out.

It has always been my understanding, that Sargon's tomb has never been discovered. Though Waddell believed him to be buried in Abydos, which is what I still believe to be true...hopefully. Catherine suggests that Sargon's grave has been discovered in the 1950's along with his city of Akkad! Where might Akkad be located? Most scholars believe it is currently undiscovered, which I still cling to. But Dr. Acholonu believes that the city of Akkad WAS found, and went under the radar for what it truly was.

Akkad, according to Dr. Acholonu, is located in Igboland in South-Eastern Nigeria! At first I laughed, but after reading some of her research, I feared she might be on to something. To sum it up, she insists that Sumer/Shinar was originally located in Africa, and Sargon's burial was discovered along with one of his "seals" in Igboland. I read through her report, which I will link at the end of the thread. I have no clue what Sargon's seal(s) really looks like, but there is a supposed picture in the report of "Sargon's seal" found in Igboland, Nigeria. Dr. Acholonu also pointed out numerous supposed similarities between the culture of the Igbo and the Mesopotamian empires. Though I do not believe the "step pyramids" found in Igboland at all resemble Ziggurats... But maybe some of you could see a similarity between cultures.

To throw more wood upon the fire, there are similar names found in the countries of Sudan and Nigeria that tilted my belief to this being at least part true. There is a city in Nigeria who has been anciently named Agades, and currently called Agadez. Furthermore, there is a city AND state in Sudan named Sennar (Shinar). This really threw me off, due to the near identical names of places. Then the whole tomb of Sargon found supposedly in Igboland containing his badly damaged skeleton, crown, and seal. I'm hoping some of the more learned Scholars here on ATS could look over this report and tell me what you think of Dr. Acholonu's research! Marduk and Byrd specifically come to mind as some of the more knowledgeable people here on Middle Eastern/Egyptian history, and I invite you both to look over and see what you think!

The main problem I see with this, is that Sumer/Shinar being located in Africa would mean that the original Babel would have to be located in Africa, too! And I am stubbornly denying that since I believe the original Babel/Babylon was Eridu in southern Iraq. This entire ordeal has rather upset me and frustrated me!

Thanks for reading


catherineacholonu.wordpress.com...

originally posted by: kef33890
Enter Catherine Acholonu and her research regarding Sargon of Akkad's supposed grave. I am left shaking my head in shock and disbelieve, while kind of hoping she is wrong, and what she brings is just a bunch of coincidences. But part of me fears she might be right in regards to the location of Sumer / Shinar. If so true, my research and theories about Sumerian/Assyrian/Babylonian history have hit a major iceberg! Many of my theories and beliefs would have to be repaired or completely thrown out.

Just because she styles herself a "doctor" and is the "Director Catherine Acholonu Research Center" and says she's "Former Special Advisor on Arts and Culture to the Nigerian President" (which president?) does not make it true. Anyone on the Internet can claim anything. That doesn't mean it's correct.

Let me address a few things:

First of all, take a look at where Igboland is en.wikipedia.org... It's nowhere close to Sumeria or Egypt and does not share any river featuers with them.

Second, I looked at the paper. From a scholarly standpoint, it's truly abysmal.

pit! The Egyptian Book of the Dead records that the Duat where the Pharaohs go for the Afterlife is an underground construction located in Heliopolis (‘City of the Sun’) in Eden

The "Book of the Dead" says no such thing (and in fact, there are many variants... there's no Official Book Of The Dead from Egypt.)

All Sumerian kings and emperors bore the proud title “King …Emperor of Eden (Edin) Land”. Their oldest creation stories are the same creation stories in Biblical Genesis, except that Sumerians preserved all the practical, astronomical and scientific details that are lacking in Genesis, as well as the names and identities of the Gods of Eden: the coming of the Biblical Nephilim, the genetic manipulation (creation) of Homo Erectus to bring about Homo Sapiens (Adam).

Notice she doesn't say the source of this information (which is incorrect.) They have an early version of the Flood story, but the Ennuma Elish is nothing at all like the Bible. And the Nephilim are not mentioned by the Sumerians.

. As unscientific as this may sound, the tails indicate that Homo Erectus was more ape than man! Yet he was intelligent enough to write on rock, as recorded in the Nigerian monoliths and in the famous Hindu Ramayan epic, where the ape Hanuman is depicted as an intelligent ape-man who could write verses on stone – a Sumerian/Nigerian story never-the-less! Hanuman was probably the Egyptian god Thoth, the leader of the Primeval Ancestors of The Book of the Dead - the Khemennu ape-men of Sumer in Eden.

How anyone who claims to be an anthropologist yet still remains so abysmally ignorant of the research is beyond me.

* Hanuman is nothing like Thoth.
* Hanuman is from a later perio
* Thoth is not the leader of the "Primeval Ancestors of the Book of the Dead"

...and so forth.

(also note the lack of references. A scholar would give their sources.)

originally posted by: kef33890But part of me fears she might be right in regards to the location of Sumer / Shinar. If so true, Many of my theories and beliefs would have to be repaired or completely thrown out.

Ok, so the new hypothesis is

originally posted by: kef33890Akkad, according to Dr. Acholonu, is located in Igboland in South-Eastern Nigeria!

Well that's good, for a minute there I was worried that you might be completely crazy

a reply to: kef33890

Heres the thing with research: One has to come to a conclusion, based on evidence, opinion and time. But, by accepting or rejecting evidence...I think one has to modify, adapt ...even completely be willing to change...their conclusions over time as more evidence and conclusions come forth.

Just as now, we are finding new evidence about everything from the cosmos to Tutmose...the Mayans to the Nazcas. Many have spent their lifetimes trying to prove or disprove something...all the while scientists, explorers and statisticians are coming to new conclusions after years of research and new discoveries...making all your hard work trying to prove something...time lost.

Just adapt and dont let it get you down.

PS And we got those assinine ISIS fools blowing up statues and tombs so we never can recover that evidence for study either....Who knows what was there?

Thank you all for your input. I believe I do have to learn to be more accepting of others research. However I want to side more with Byrd and Marduk on this one.

All of what Byrd mentioned hit it on the head. Though I do believe the coincidence in names might require Dr. Acholonu's claims to be considered.

But the main thing that doesn't sit right with me? All this stuff in her report doesn't look like anything... I mean it looks far too simple. Looks nothing like Sumerian or Akkadian culture! The supposed remains and artifacts from Sargon's tomb in Igboland are far too simplistic. I can't accept this as being Akkad let alone Sargon's tomb.

So where is Sargon really buried??? Hmm...

originally posted by: kef33890

So where is Sargon really buried??? Hmm...

In Mesopotamia, somewhere near Akkad

a reply to: kef33890
I wonder why all the clay tablets relating to these kingships and their history were taken and buried in Mesopotamia?
If you reject the old obvious explanation that they were found buried in the place where they had been written and used, you will need to come up with something else.

a reply to: DISRAELI

That too, is exactly why I have a hard time believing that. If she is right, why have all Akkadian artifacts turned up mostly in Mesopotamia and Egypt. There is no way I can accept the items found in Igboland as being remotely Akkadian!

a reply to: kef33890

The location of Akkad came up on this thread here, linking a quite comprehensive paper which indicated that everything suggested it was in the vicinity of Nigin, it may have been an extension or administrative quarter of that already existing city and was seemingly devastated by the meteor strike in that region, which effectively put Akkad out of usage, it being abandoned as the Akkadian empire collapsed

A free version of that paper here

a reply to: Kantzveldt

Thanks Kantzveldt! Will certainly read that thread.

BTW. I'm just an amateur history buff so I have no credentials.. But for some reasons I suspect that Akkad is possibly located along the Mediterranean. If I were to state my opinion, I would place it in upper Egypt along the Mediterranean. My reasons are probably going to be shot out of the water though...Due to my belief that Akkadian's were indeed both rulers of Mesopotamia and at least the first dynasty of Egypt. Bag away! Lol.

originally posted by: Kantzveldt
a reply to: kef33890

The location of Akkad came up on this thread here, linking a quite comprehensive paper which indicated that everything suggested it was in the vicinity of Nigin, it may have been an extension or administrative quarter of that already existing city and was seemingly devastated by the meteor strike in that region, which effectively put Akkad out of usage, it being abandoned as the Akkadian empire collapsed

A free version of that paper here

What does Akkad mean?

a reply to: Marduk

It seems uncertain but could relate to Hurrian influence in the North Western region of Akkad, the proposed location of the City of Akkad in the region of Nigin as a new administrative and religious centre to serve the Akkadian empire would likely in my opinion have been an extension of the pre-existing infra-structure of that region.

The name is spelled logographically as URI KI, or phonetically as a-ga-dè KI, variously transcribed into English as Akkad, Akkade or Agade. The etymology of the name is unclear, but not of Akkadian (Semitic) origin. Various suggestions have proposed Sumerian, Hurrian or Lullubean etymologies

As a centre it was simply abandoned;

Not even five or ten days had passed and Ninurta brought the jewels of rulership, the royal crown, the emblem and the royal throne bestowed on Agade, back into his E-cumeca. Utu took away the eloquence of the city. Enki took away its wisdom. An took up (some mss. have instead: out) (1 ms. has instead: away) into the midst of heaven its fearsomeness that reaches heaven. Enki tore out its well-anchored holy mooring pole from the abzu. Inana took away its weapons.

The life of Agade's sanctuary was brought to an end as if it had been only the life of a tiny carp in the deep waters, and all the cities were watching it.

The cursing of Agade

originally posted by: kef33890
a reply to: Kantzveldt

Thanks Kantzveldt! Will certainly read that thread.

BTW. I'm just an amateur history buff so I have no credentials.. But for some reasons I suspect that Akkad is possibly located along the Mediterranean. If I were to state my opinion, I would place it in upper Egypt along the Mediterranean. My reasons are probably going to be shot out of the water though...Due to my belief that Akkadian's were indeed both rulers of Mesopotamia and at least the first dynasty of Egypt. Bag away! Lol.

The two cultures were somewhat similar but are very distinct.

Egypt's first dynasty, by the way, was situated at Abydos, which is about 800 miles from the Mediterranean. It moves to Memphis at a much later time.

...and "Upper Egypt" refers to the highlands, which are in the South, in the area of Sudan, very far away from the Med. "Lower Egypt" is the area of the lowlands near the delta in the North (the Levant; the Mediterranean area)

a reply to: Byrd

Thank you Byrd! I never would of thought upper and lower Egypt were reversed. I just used the names to figure their location.

originally posted by: kef33890
a reply to: Byrd

Thank you Byrd! I never would of thought upper and lower Egypt were reversed. I just used the names to figure their location.

It was terribly confusing to me, too! After a couple of years of coursework, I've gotten a bit better at the geography of the area.

The wealth of knowledge within ATS membership often makes my little ant brain smile with admiration.

originally posted by: kef33890Due to my belief that Akkadian's were indeed both rulers of Mesopotamia and at least the first dynasty of Egypt. Bag away! Lol.

Akkadian founder, Sargon of Akkad ruled 2340–2284 BC
First dynasty of Egypt 3100 BCE

So my question to you is where did the Akkadians get time travel ?

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: kef33890Due to my belief that Akkadian's were indeed both rulers of Mesopotamia and at least the first dynasty of Egypt. Bag away! Lol.

Akkadian founder, Sargon of Akkad ruled 2340–2284 BC
First dynasty of Egypt 3100 BCE

So my question to you is where did the Akkadians get time travel ?

From the Anunnaki, obviously.

Harte

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: kef33890Due to my belief that Akkadian's were indeed both rulers of Mesopotamia and at least the first dynasty of Egypt. Bag away! Lol.

Akkadian founder, Sargon of Akkad ruled 2340–2284 BC
First dynasty of Egypt 3100 BCE

So my question to you is where did the Akkadians get time travel ?

Hehe. Well the Egyptian timeline is full of problems. It's inaccurate and based upon an inflated timeline.

Sorry, no Annunaki here lol. It's a rather human reason.

And by no means is that from me. I'm just agreeing with scholars who have not accepted the coolade drinking Egyptology. It's much easier for me to be open minded since I'm a layman who has no dog in this fight.