|
Who was Sargon?
First, we have the famed Sargon of Akkad, dated to ca. 2340 BC but for whom allegedly "NO contemporary records exist" (Enc. Brit.), and this at a time when writing was in full swing in the Near East.
Second we have Sargon I of Assyria, dated to ca. 1850 BC, given an independent existence by some scholar based on only ONE tablet found in Cappadocia and allegedly dated to this era, although there are NO records in Assyrian literature anywhere about a Sargon of this period.
Third and last we have Sargon II of Assyria, dated to ca. 720 BC, who is regarded to be one of Assyria's great kings, based on records HE wrote. The scholars also think he chose his name Sargon in honor of the previous ancient Sargon of Akkad. This was quite a task, since NO records about Sargon of Akkad now exist.
What REALLY happened?
The evidence is actually clear.
Sargon II Forges Ancient Records
In the Encyclopaedia Britannica, in the article on Sargon II, written by one of world's experts on Sargon II - Jorgen Laessoe, Professor of Assyriology, University of Copenhagen, and celebrated author of People of Ancient Syria, Laessoe writes:
"When Sargon succeeded to the Assyrian throne, Marduk-apal-iddina II (Merodach-Baladan of the Old Testament), a dissident chieftain of the Chaldean tribes in the marshes of Southern Babylonia, committed the description of his victory over the invading Assyrian armies [allegedly 720 BC] to writing on a clay cylinder, which he deposited in the city of Uruk [biblical Erech; modern Tall al-Warka]."
"The presence of this record obviously did not suit Sargon. After having discharged other commitments, he uncovered it [the clay cylinder] to his own residence, then at Kalakh (modern Nimrud), substituting what has been described as an 'improved' version that was more to his liking."
Sargon II thus FORGED and REWROTE ancient documents.
It is a known fact.
Ashurbanipal.
Indeed, it is well known that Ashurbanipal [to his credit, but in the opinion of LexiLine also clearly the imposter Sargon II] in the 7th century BC ordered the scribes to collect and copy ancient tablets, today known as the "K"-collection of more than 20,000 tablets. He took much older existing ancient texts, rewrote them, and made himself the person to which ancient deeds referred. It is no wonder that contemporary records of "Sargon of Akkad" no longer exist - Sargon II took both his name and legacy.
No one in 720 BC would deposit "new" tablets in Uruk.
Why in the alleged 720 BC would anyone deposit anything as a record in the then meaningless ruins of an ancient city [Uruk, Warka] which had been in its prime 2000 years (!) before this era? If Sargon II removed these texts from Uruk (Warka) - given what archaeology knows about the dating of that city - as the possible home city of Abraham and as the main city of the Sumerians - otherwise dated to ca. 3000 BC - then you have a REAL problem with Assyriology's allegation that the "original" ancient texts only dated to 720 BC.
Tablet Language does not fit the Era
No other Evidence of a Sargon II in 720 BC
The clear fraud perpetrated here is further verified by the fact that,
as Laessoe writes:
"no personal documents have survived from Sargon's reign".
Indeed, the document language on the Sargon tablets does not fit the era (!) The [fraudulently revised] language of a war campaign letter by Sargon II to the God Ashur contains, as Laessoe writes:
"phraseologies uncommon in the inscriptions of other Assyrian kings" and "it is uncertain whether such phrases - sometimes turning into what is obviously poetry - were in fact conceived by Sargon himself or ascribed to him by his historiographers."
Referring to another passage in a letter to the god Ashur,
Laessoe writes: "The passage, like many others in this unique text, constitute an ingenious stylistic device unparalleled in Assyrian historical literature. The phraseology...is original by Mesopotamian standards.... Whether or not Sargon himself is responsible for the wording...."
Hence, there are NO personal documents of Sargon II extant. The language used in those plagiarized versions is atypical for the era and region. So, the current chronology is wrong, without question. Sargon II appropriated the ancient deeds of Sargon of Akkad.
Sargon I
It is easy to prove that Sargon I was Sargon of Akkad as well. The only evidence of a Sargon I anywhere is a tablet with a seal of Sargon found in Cappadocia. This fits perfectly with a tale about Sargon of Akkad, related in the Encyclopaedia Britannica under "Sargon of Akkad":
"Such was his fame that some merchants in an Anatolian city, probably in central Turkey, begged him to intervene in a local quarrel, and, according to the legend, Sargon, with a band of warriors, made a fabulous journey to the still-unlocated city of Burushanda (Purshahanda) [AK: this was Boghazkeui, Buyukale, ancient Hittite capital], at the end of which little more than his appearance was needed to settle the dispute."
That is how Sargon of Akkad's tablet and seal got to Cappadocia. There was no separate Sargon I. This journey may also have taken Sargon to Africa (see below.)
Sargon of Akkad
Now, what about Sargon of Akkad? What little we know of Sargon of Akkad is stated in the Encyclopaedia Britannica thus:
"It may have been...that Sargon named himself Sharru-Kin (Rightful King) [Sargon = Latvian Sargon-is "protector", is the root of Russian TSAR] in support of an accession not achieved in an old-established city through hereditary succession. Historical records are still so meagre, however, that there is a complete gap in information relating to this period."
"Sargon is known almost entirely from the legends and tales that followed his reputation through 2,000 years of cuneiform Mesopotamian history, and not from documents that were written during his lifetime".
Hence, there is no PROBATIVE evidence for current chronology, except plagiarized cuneiform tablets. The legends place Sargon of Akkad much further back in time than Sargon II and so also are the deeds of Sargon II chronologically false.
Conclusions
There was only ONE Sargon, and this was Sargon of Akkad. The real and original Sargon is identical to the king erroneously named Hammurabi, where the script HMRB has been read BACKWARDS !!!! correct being BRHM or aBRaHAM. Indeed, Abraham was buried at Machpela, which is Nineveh, for its ancient name was called Mespila by Xenophon in the Anabastis The legends relating to Abraham as Sargon were then misappropriated by or assigned erroneously to later kings.
|
