Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Where is Akkad?

Expand Messages
  • Brian Colless
    A detailed study I have seen took all the encircling evidence and gradually homed in on the position of the city of Akkad. Two interesting possibilities are
    Message 1 of 38 , Dec 21, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      A detailed study I have seen took all the encircling evidence and
      gradually homed in on the position of the city of Akkad.

      Two interesting possibilities are that Akkad is under the river
      (Tigris); or it is buried beneath Baghdad (on the Tigris), directly
      north of Babylon (on the Euphrates).

      Brian Colless
      School of History
      Massey University, NZ

      On 21/12/2011, at 11:19 AM, Douglas Petrovich wrote:

      > Hello, Gene.
      >
      > This is a good question, and I know that some have taken this
      > position (Akkad was bordered with Babylon). I would like to defer to
      > those better averse with Mesopotamian geography/topography/
      > archaeology, but I can say a couple of things briefly.
      >
      > First, this would render somewhat nonsensical texts such as this one
      > by Tiglath-pileser I, who noted that Babylon�s army marched toward
      > the Assyrians, meeting one another somewhere to the north, along the
      > Tigris.
      >
      > Second, If we propose that the two cities were in fact �twin
      > cities�, then 1) there is no reason to do any marching; the
      > Assyrians already would have been upon the Babylonians, and 2) we
      > cannot explain why Babylon is on the Euphrates while the Akkad,
      > conversely, is said to be �on the Tigris�.
      >
      > There are other texts out there that give us information about
      > Akkad�s proximity to other sites, including Babylon. I just do not
      > have any in front of me. Maybe others can bail me out here.
      >
      > Doug Petrovich
      > Toronto, Canada
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Brian Colless
      A detailed study I have seen took all the encircling evidence and gradually homed in on the position of the city of Akkad. Two interesting possibilities are
      Message 38 of 38 , Dec 21, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        A detailed study I have seen took all the encircling evidence and
        gradually homed in on the position of the city of Akkad.

        Two interesting possibilities are that Akkad is under the river
        (Tigris); or it is buried beneath Baghdad (on the Tigris), directly
        north of Babylon (on the Euphrates).

        Brian Colless
        School of History
        Massey University, NZ

        On 21/12/2011, at 11:19 AM, Douglas Petrovich wrote:

        > Hello, Gene.
        >
        > This is a good question, and I know that some have taken this
        > position (Akkad was bordered with Babylon). I would like to defer to
        > those better averse with Mesopotamian geography/topography/
        > archaeology, but I can say a couple of things briefly.
        >
        > First, this would render somewhat nonsensical texts such as this one
        > by Tiglath-pileser I, who noted that Babylon�s army marched toward
        > the Assyrians, meeting one another somewhere to the north, along the
        > Tigris.
        >
        > Second, If we propose that the two cities were in fact �twin
        > cities�, then 1) there is no reason to do any marching; the
        > Assyrians already would have been upon the Babylonians, and 2) we
        > cannot explain why Babylon is on the Euphrates while the Akkad,
        > conversely, is said to be �on the Tigris�.
        >
        > There are other texts out there that give us information about
        > Akkad�s proximity to other sites, including Babylon. I just do not
        > have any in front of me. Maybe others can bail me out here.
        >
        > Doug Petrovich
        > Toronto, Canada
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.