of Akkad Sargon
I & Sargon II
Who Was The Real
The Real Sargon
Sargon I = Sargon
II = Sargon of Akkad
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.
The evidence is
Sargon II Forges
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:
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.
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
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.
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:
documents have survived from Sargon's reign".
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:
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."
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.
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
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.
Note that term sarg- in Indo-European e.g Latvian means "guard, protector", which will be
the root of the name Sargon as a royal title.
Donate to the ISandIS Network
of blogs and websites
to help sustain our research and writing.
search words for LexiLine are: Aegean, Akkad, Anatolia, ancient,
astronomy, ancient Britain, ancient Europe, Ancient Greece, ancient
languages, ancient Near East, ancient signs, ancient
world, anthropology, archaeology, archaeoastronomy, art
history, artefacts, artifacts, astronomy, barrows, Biblical Studies,
paintings, celestial, civilization, Crete, cultural astronomy, Cyprus,
decipherment, dolmens, Egyptology, Elam, Fertile Crescent, geodetics,
heavens, hieroglyphs, history of art,
history of astronomy, history of civilization, history of mankind,
of science, history of technology, history of Western Civilization,
land survey, languages, linguistics, logograms, Luvian, Luwian,
megaliths, megalithic, Minoan, Mycenae, Neolithic, Neolithic
art, Oriental Studies, origins, origins of writing, Phaistos,
pictographs, planisphere, prehistoric, prehistoric art, Pyramids, rock
art, rock drawings, standing
stones, stars, stellar constellations, stone circles, stone rings,
Age, stone rows, Sumer, surveyors, tumuli, Andis, Andis Kaulins,