There never was an Akkadian Empire!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Zioneer

Banned
Apparently there never was an Achaemenid Empire either, according to this guy. And "Zagros" is really, really, important.

Amusing.
 

sabah dara

Banned
Instead of showing your sarcastic coments about one of the greatest acts of intellectual vandalism, try to show the forum that you are integrated with this type of themes.
 
So the POD is no Akkadian empire? Well, before we can speculate on what'd replace it (probably something Sumerian) we'll need to know why Akkad failed to rise.
 
Instead of showing your sarcastic coments about one of the greatest acts of intellectual vandalism, try to show the forum that you are integrated with this type of themes.

I cannot claim deep expertise on the topic or thorough firsthand familiarity with either archaeological or written primary documents, but I know a good deal of secondary literature. Your claims regarding the modern scholarship on Akkad and the Sumerian world are at odds with everything I have read on the subject and they seem, at a first glance, to be grossly mistaken.
 
I am rereading the article more attentively. I'd wish there's a kind way to say that, but that's utter crap.
Just one example.
Originally posted by sabah dara
Pseudo-historians don’t seem to bother about the real identity of the Akkadians! Hence they have incorporated it within all the other Mesopotamian entities “like a joker playing card”


Real
historians understand that such things as "real identities" are tricky, dangerous stuff. They don't "bother about the real identity" because they know they have no bloody way to analyse such a thing.
It is true that "Akkadian" is normally a modern label applied to groups that did not use it the sources. The vast majority of half-competent scholars on the subject are perfectly comfortable with this, which is by the way mentioned in every half-competently written introductory manual to the topic. It is also true that "Akkadian" is normally used a linguistic label, although the sources themesleves, as far as I know, don't use it that way. This is because while we don't have the slightest shred of evidence about such things as "real origin" and "real identity", what is real in old sources is, arguably, the language they are written in (setting aside the problems posed by decipherment). Real historians are supposed to know that language and people do not correspond. They call "Akkadian" a languages that was written by people that did not identify as "Akkadian". It is a convention, nothing more. It doesn't imply "identity" any more than saying that Mexicans speak Spanish implies they are "Spanish".

I am not even bothering with the other elementary mistakes with dates and language classification you made.

Originally posted by sabah dara
[FONT=&quot]a civilization is a comprehensive entity whose ethnic profile is strongly emphasized![/FONT]
Here your ideological underpinnings come out clearly. This is totally wrong, wrong in general and specifically wrong in the Mesopotamian context, where "ethnic profile" is an entirely unknown notion. Please do some basic reading of what real historians, anthropologists, linguists etc. have been up to since, say, the end of WWII before coming out with theories.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top