From  the  book  IN  SEARCH  OF  THE  ORIGIN  OF  NATIONS”

by Craig  White





* the identity of Assur in ancient history

* the character and nature of the Assyrians, his descendants

* where the Assyrians migrated and the probable rivalry between them and Arphaxad's descendants

* why the Asshurim, descendants of Abraham, are associated with Assur

* the curious Hittite - Assyrian relationship and how it has carried through to this day and the central part they play in prophecy


May Assur, son of Shem and grandson of Noah, a giant of Biblical history, be identified with a contemporary, prominent historical character? Let us peer into the pages of history, accepting the dating methods of historians and hypothesize on the most probable personage of that age.

Sargon The Great

The rise of powerful banking and financial centres ... big corporations ... fascisitic totalitarian governments ... super monarchies ... they all had their origins during the life of one of the most extraordinary and influential men of world history - Sargon the Great. He was the first war-lord of the Assyrian records with the name of Sharru(m)-kin, better known to us as Sargon and was regarded by the "Assyrians as the most mighty and famous of all kings". 1683 Sargon means "True King" or "the king is legitimate", and is the Akkadian equivalent of the Hebrew word Melchizedek. One of his successors was Shar-kali-sharri, meaning "king of all kings" (compare with the true King of Kings mentioned in Revelation 19:16) 1684. Today an emperor means to be a king over other kings.

Who was this controversial figure - the world's first post-flood warlord? How is it that he is critically linked to such giants in history as Napoleon ... Julius Caesar ... Hitler ... and others? More importantly, why should you, in our technologically advanced, materialistic world, care about such a seemingly remote figure in the pages of ancient history? 1685


1683. Waddell 1929:197

1684. Note also the Behistun Rock. The first panel contains 19 paragraphs and 96 lines. Each paragraph commences with the words: "I am Darius, the king of kings, the king of Persia".

1685. Riley 1968:58. One could write a good novel on this period. Here is a good beginning:

The year is approximately 2100BC. And a small bundle of human flesh, almost obscured in a straw basket, floats down the great river Euphrates, the very cradle of civilisation. And as it does so, in the early morning hours, one feels certain that the abandoned infant is doomed for a very short entrance on the stage of humanity. The child has barely the strength to cry. Cold, shivering, desperately in need of nourishment and care seemingly at death's door. Now the sun is emerging from the far hills, its golden, caressing arms awakening the earth. The child makes no sound whatsoever. Soon the sunrise is casting streaks of radiant gold glory along the waters of the mighty river and - look. A tiny baby drifts ashore in its small basket. A woman servant of great King Ur-Ilbaba rushes toward the child and snatches it from its waiting tomb and rushes it to the king's palace.

That little child became known as Sargon, a son of an official in Kish. As we have seen, we are told in 7th century BC legends, was found in a basket, floating down the Euphrates, when a woman of the household of Ur-Ilbaba, the king of Kish, rescued him (who Ur-Ilbaba is to be identified with in terms of Genesis 10 science, is not yet known). Of course, this is mere interesting addition to the historical Sargon, to give him some mysterious background, to enhance his stature. The accomplishments of him and those of his dynasty were evidently told and retold countless times over generations, becoming embellished to become the object of folklore and literature. Of course, like any history, stories become embellished over time and fact becomes mixed with fiction (Knapp 1988:83) as do many king lists.


This and other remarkable events in this man's life have led to at least one historian describing him as a man marked of destiny. 1686 Overall, however, we know little of Sargon at this time, until further information becomes known:

"Even with Sargon ..., the first and greatest of the line, we know precious little about his origins or the manner in which he reached his throne. By the end of the third millennium men still knew only that he had appeared, as it were, full-grown on the historical scene. Later on, he was given a nomad for a father and a temple votary for a mother, the latter having cast him adrift on the river in a basket of rushes, which bore him to a peasant who adopted him. Here we have a folklore motif known the world over ... as a means of filling in the obscure origins of great men." 1687

Direct evidence of the existence of Sargon of Akkad and his remarkable exploits may be found in the following:

* The Sumerian King List

* The Sargon Chronicle

* Inscriptions on Statues

* The so-called King of Battle Epic

* The so-called Legend of Sargon

* Inscriptions of successors, particularly Naram-Sin

* Nabonidus, a Babylonian king of the 6th century B.C. 

made reference to him

From the above sources we may summarise the following findings:


1686. Edwards 1975 (Vol 1, pt 2):419

1687. Bottero 1967:59

Waddell thinks that his father's name was Bargin-Ibuz-Um or Buru-u-buz, Bai-Gin, Buu or Urudu-gina who was dethroned by Lugalzaggisi.1687 However, others name his father as La'pul687 and much work needs to be done to identify him with the Biblical Shem. Also, Lloyd feels that it was Ku-Baba who adopted him as her own son in place of her own heir (then dead) 1687. That heir was Ur-Zababa.

Here is an actual extract of a text written of him centuries after his death and which virtually deifies him:

"My mother was a changeling [princess in some versions], my father I knew not. My city is Azupiranu [mentioned only here in history and not as yet identified], which is situated on the banks of the Euphrates. My changeling mother conceived me, in secret she bore me."

Note that he apparently did not know his father (=Shem?). That is, Shem probably rejected him from the birthright due to his warlike nature. Hence his name which means "the legitimate one". Could Assur have changed his name to reflect his outrage at being rejected in favour of his (twin?) brother Arphaxad? More on this matter in the following chapter.


He was born of a cult princess, a "wife of the god" (and therefore a very senior person) and became cupbearer (similar to a Treasurer) to Ur-Ilbaba king of Kish. Later he deserted the king and founded the city of Akkad or Agade and ruled for about 55 years (c 2000BC) during which time he defeated Lugalzaggisi (who may have overthrown Sargon's father) 1688 and unified Sumer (the south) and Akkad (the North), thus "Sargon is noted as the first empire-builder in the annals of history". 1689 Sargon went on numerous military expeditions which took him to the Mediterranean Sea and the Taurus Mountains. Thus he was a man of war and strong leader, centralising power in himself and his descendents. He was also the first king in history to unite Mesopotamia under a single authority. 1690

Others describe him as "the first imperialist in history" 1691, ruling over a "golden age" in the Near East. So great and famous was he that for a thousand years after his reign, his exploits were remembered in the epics 1692.

His empire included many subdued nations who were crushed under his jack-boot: Sumer, Elam, Syria, Southern Anatolia fell to his troops 1693, and on into Persia and to the shores of the Mediterranean his expeditions were sent far and wide to conquer and subdue. Why was he imbued with such imperialistic zeal? Historian Jacquetta Hawkes gives us her personal assessment:

"Sargon and his empire [were] the model for many successors down to recent time ... [to] Napoleon...

It is said that Sargon's main motives for the exhausting and bloody business of carving out this first empire were economic, that he was after ... trade monopolies of all kinds ... surely the prime motive was ... psychological, a demonic energy ... that drove him on ... to conquer and subdue became irresistible." [emphasis mine] 1694

Sargon is the first Middle Eastern king we know of who has left monuments of importance — and sculptured with battle-scenes. 1695 He was certainly a man of war. Hall even labels him the "Charlemagne of the Middle East" 1696 and whose empire had two halves 1697 like the Western and Eastern divisions of the Roman Empire. Hawkes further explains:

"Sargon and his empire appear at once as the model for many successors down to recent times. He and his descendants shared many of the virtues and triumphs, the temptations, difficulties and final failure of Napoleon." 1698

Waddell concurs, stating that the severity of Sargon's revenge on his foes is more than paralleled by that of the "later 'world emperors' Alexander and Caesar, not to mention Napoleon Bonaparte …”1699


1688. ibid: 188

1689. Pfeiffer 1966:499; see Hawkes 1962:13

1690. Bibby 1962:13

1691. Starr 1974:45

1692. Childe 1964:150

1693. Pfeiffer 1966:27; Clarke 1977:83

1694. Hawkes 1973 : 69-70

1695. Hall 1924:185

1696. ibid: 186

1697. ibid: 188

1698. Hawkes 1973:69

1699. Waddell 1929:275


Let the famous "Sargon Chronicle" itself expound the above:

"Sargon, king of Agade, rose (to power) in the era of Ishtar and had neither rival nor opponent. He spread his terror — inspiring glamour over all the countries, ... he established ... a central government ... he marched against the country of Kazalla and turned Kazalla into ruin — hills and heaps (of rubble) ... Later on, Subartu rose with its multitudes, but it bowed to his military might... " 1700

Among Sargon's titles were Sakh, Saka, Saki or Sakko 1701 and 'The Great Khati' 1702 and his patron god was En-lil or Sakhar. The name of Sakh or Sakka means "the established lord or leader". 1703

Because Sargon called himself Sakh and "he who rules the Four Quarters", it indicates an assumption on his part of being a divinity as "this title has been reserved for high gods ... The Assyrian emperors took the title 'king of the Universe'." 1704 In fact, from the time of Sargon to Hammurabi, the names of the Babylonian kings were often written with the determinative dingir ('god'), used normally for gods and objects intended for worship. 1705 This foreshadowed the Caesar worship of the Roman Emperors and the coming 'Beast' so graphically illustrated in the book of Revelation. Sargon even pronounced himself to be the very protege" of the goddess Ishtar.

In the inscriptions, Sargon repeatedly invokes the Sun-god along with Sagg or Sakh (En-Lil) and on one occasion the wife of Sagg. He had several sons of whom Man-ishtushu (Puzur-Assur), likewise worshipped the Sun-god and dedicated a stone-mace to the queen of the Sun-god at the Sun-temple of Sippara 1706 (his other sons were Rimush, Abaish-takal and lb-arum) See chart 20 for the Royal Chart of Akkad and chart 21 for the Kings of Nineveh). 1707 Sagg had a weapon - an emblem which Sargon appropriated and when claiming victory over Uruk, vanquished his enemies and smote that city "by the battle-mace of Sagaga". 1708 Another Chronicle states that Sargon won his battles with "the weapon of Lord Sakhar Tar". 1709 Professor Waddell wrote that he felt that Tar is a rendition of Thor. He continues:

"The name of this weapon and its pictorial sign are of significance. Its sign pictures what is regarded as a thunderbolt with an arrow-head; and it appears to be the same weapon which is carried by the Sumerian Hercules, the top of which is sometimes figured as a cross” 1710


1700. Pritchard 1969:266

1701. Waddell 1929:92, 94, 97, 100, 217,603

1702. ibid:226-7,97

1703. A further clue may be that the people of the Ancient Middle East had hair and hoods like those worn later by the Scythians (Hall 1924:189).

1704. Livingston 1974:114

1705. Oppenheim 1964:98

1706. Waddell 1929:211

1707. Apparently Greek historian and physician Ktesias (sometimes spelt Ctesias) recorded the descendants of Naram-Sin who ruled Nineveh (see Chart 21). Unfortunately, historians seem to ignore this line. "None of these wrought famous deeds" wrote Ktesias (cf. his Persica and Gilmore's work Fragments of the Persica of Ctesias). He was born about 416BC century and wrote on the history of India and Persia and was the only historical writing of his time that was based on official Persian sources. He was a physician at the Persian court for 17 years under Darius II and Artaxerxes Mnemon. When he returned to Greece in 398BC, he began writing 23 books on the Assyran monarchy, the founding of Persia. His works are no longer exist with the exception of an abstract by Photius of Constantinople (c 860AD). He also wrote about India. Apparently he wrote to contradict the chronology of Herodotus.

1708. ibid:214 

1709. ibid:220 

1710. ibid:221


In a footnote he adds, that "it has the name of Bal, and is defined as 'spindle' or 'axe'." Was this a swastika? At this moment in time one cannot make a definitive statement giving concurrence to this postulation. The thunderbolt may be a symbol of Satan himself (cp Luke 10:18, Isaiah 14:2) and if Assur was worshipping the enemy of God, at least in some form, this, together with his militaristic spirit may be a reason for God's not considering his descendants for the purpose of operating as His global servants. Instead another line was chosen for this honour.

The Assyrian Succession of Akkad

As we shall see later, Sargon, who founded the Akkadian Empire, adopted the Sumerian pantheon. The Akkadians spoke a Semitic language which linguists allocate to the eastern branch of Semitic. Under Sargon the language spread, later dividing into Babylonian and Assyrian 1711 which parallels the two historical regions of Mesopotamia, which historians refer to: the fairer north and the dark-skinned Hamitic south:

"Not only was the speech and writing system of Akkad so widely spread, but so was the Sumero-Akkadian system of commerce, political government, legal custom and jurisprudence. Although political and military control changed hands from city to city and monarch to monarch through the centuries, the basic elements of these systems remained intact." 1712

Yes, the basic principle of banking, large corporations, overly centralised governments, authoritarianism and such like, may be traced back to Sargon. Here was the post flood beginning of predatory, imperialistic and militaristic fascism.

Historian Oppenheim concurs:

"Not only did the Sumerian dynasty of Ur (called Ur III) follow Sargon's example, but the Assyrian kings of the next Millennium took him as their prototype and the image on which to model their political aspirations." 1713

More than twenty years since I studied this subject, I insert the quote below from an article I read following some additional research:

"... a thousand years later [after Sargon], the kings of Assyria, claiming descent from Sargon, would adopt his name ... their eponymous ancestor".1714 [emphasis mine]

His descendants, the Akkadians, called themselves and their language after the capital of the empire, Akkad. 1715 Their royal names and tradition of empire evidently lived on in Assyria. 1716 Unfortunately, archaeologists have been unsuccessful to date in their attempts to locate Akkad or Agade but it is evidently between Kish and Babili or Babilu (= "The Gate of God" in Semitic and in the Assyrian tablet means "The city of the dispersion of the tribes". It later came to be known as Babylon), but probably close to the latter. 1717 Ah! for that discovery to be made —for then much more would be revealed about Sargon and the Akkadians.


1711. ibid: 55

1712. ibid: 502

1713. Oppenheim 1964:52

1714. ”Worldwide", Biblical Archaeology Review, Sept-Oct, 1999:80

1715. Bottero 1967:59

1716. Schedl 1973:79

1717. Trump & Bray 1982:13


The first female recorded in technical history is his daughter, En Hedu'anna. He appointed her the chief priestess of the moon goddess of Akkad (whose responsibility was to follow the stars and the cycles of the moon) which was a position of great prestige and power in the empire. For instance, only through the auspices of the high priestess could a leader achieve a legitimate claim to rule. Although no technical writings of hers have been found, translations of 48 of her poems are available.

Now notice what historians have to say concerning the very close relationship between the Akkadians and Assyrians:

"... the question arises whether the Akkadians did not have a more solid base of operations in Assyria than they had in Babylonia. In fact, in many respects the impression the Akkadians left in Assyria was deep and permanent. In so far as the language is concerned, Old Assyrian is the only Akkadian dialect which has preserved certain features typical of the Old Akkadian language. . .certain personal names are common to Old Akkadian and Old Assyrian ... The use by the Assyrians of typically Old Akkadian names is of particular significance ... the use of Old Akkadian names in the Old Assyrian period can be taken to indicate that many of the prominent Old Assyrian families proudly traced their ancestors back to Old Akkadians.

The most significant impact, however, which the Akkadians left in Assyria was ideological. Whereas in Babylonia the memory of the Sargonic kings was despised and their actions condemned as offensive to their national god, the Assyrians throughout their history cherished their memory and tried to emulate them.

Whereas in Babylonia they were remembered as foreign conquerors, the later Assyrians thought of them as their very own. Foremost among the ideas which, in the eyes of later generations, were embodied by the kings of Akkad was the creation of a universal empire, comprising what later princes used to call kissat matati, 'the totality of the countries'. Rarely was a Babylonian king interested in 'widening the bounds of his country'; with the exception of some Kassites, who were influenced by Assyrian ideas, they did not use titles such as sar kissati, 'king of the universe', sar kibrat erbettim, 'king of the four regions (of the world)', etc. The Assyrians, on the contrary, were expansion-minded throughout their history. As will be pointed out in greater detail below, the time of the empire builders Sargon and Naram-Sin was for the Assyrians a golden age, for the eventual return of which they hoped at periodic intervals; whenever computations revealed that the time was approaching when a new universal empire would materialize comprising all the lands 'from the Upper Sea where the sun sets to the Lower Sea where the sun rises', a king of Assyria chose the throne name Sargon ... The first Assyrian ruler who adopted both the title sarrum 'king' and the more ambitious and programmatic 'king of the universe' was Shamshi-Adad I, who actually assembled an empire of impressive proportions under his sceptre; the last was Nabonidus, king of Babylon, who tried to emulate his illustrious ancestor, Esarhaddon.

The Assyrian rulers showed their reverence for Sargon and Naram-Sin not only by their conquests. The Babylonians bitterly resented it when a king built his residence in a city other than Babylon; this resentment is traceable from the earliest times down to the end of their empire: in the Chronicle concerning Sargon and Naram-Sin, they blame the founder of the Akkadian dynasty for having built, near Akkad, 'a likeness of Babylon' 1718


1718 Edwards 1975:(vol.l, pt.2):734-737. See also Cornfield 1964:138.


 The Assyrians claimed succession from Akkad, but not so the Babylonians.

We can say with absolute certainty that Sargon and his successors conquered the land that later became known as Assur and had many descendants who dwelt there.1719 We know that both cities of Nineveh and Assur benefited greatly from the Akkadian kings' building activities. At Assur, a dagger blade has been found bearing the name of Abazu, and which was dedicated to Sargon's son, Man-ishtushu. Abazu appears as the thirteenth of seventeen early 'kings' on the Khorsabad list of Assyrian kings. Experts still don't know when to date the list (they may even represent, in part, parallel pre-flood figures).1720 After the chaos of the fall of the Akkadian Empire, the natural successors were the Assyrians whose kingdom appears about 1900 B.C. with the opening of a new line of kings bearing Akkadian names such as Sargon or Naram-Sin.1721 Of the Assyrian king list historian Roux remarks:

"... the great Assyrian king list found at Khorsabad ... gives a series of seventeen kings of Assur who, if we are to take the list at its face value, would have lived in Early Dynastic times. But here, as in the Sumerian list, dynasties recorded as successive may have been in fact parallel... names of several early Assyrian monarchs — such as Tudia, Ushpia, Sulili or Kikkia — are neither Semitic nor Sumerian, but belong to some other ethnic stratum, possibly Hurrian." 1722

We should thus realise that from Assur came the longest succesion of great conquerors in the history of any nation except Rome 1723.

Although there is little evidence at this time that Sargon was worshipped as Assur, we do know that Assur was the principle god of the Assyrians, the Assyrian kings themselves acting as the high priest of Assur. 1724 We also know that Sargon was highly revered by the Assyrians and thought of as their ancestor, particularly around the area of centre of his worship, the city Assur itself.

Relatively recently, archeologists have discovered that sharing the limelight with Akkad in the early post-flood period, we find a rival power known as Ebla whose king at that time was Ebrum (the Biblical Eber?). A closely aligned city was Mari. It appears that the early descendants of Ebla were descendants of Arphaxad (father of the Indo-Europeans), while those in the vicinity of Mari were the early Aramaeans (notice the city of Mari in north-western Russia is in the area of the Syrenians or Komi, descendants of Aram). Ebla was eventually ravished and burned by Naram-Sin (son of Man-ishtushu and grandson of Sargon) which resulted in harsh and brutal treatment in true Akkadian (and Assyrian) practice. People had to strive daily against disease and wars which in turn resulted in fire, decimation, slavery and deportation. 1725 The Gutians from the north (descendants of Aram through his son Gether) later wreaked revenge, shattering the Akkadian Empire of Shar-Kali-Sharri, son of Naram-Sin, thus allowing the neo-Sumerian revival to take place. Historians write about the Amorites invading the Akkadian Empire, but probably mean Aramaeans as they often tend to confuse the two races.


1719. see Saggs 1984:19 and Archer 1986:9

1720. see Kitchen 1977:42-43

1721. Roux 1982:177

1722. ibid

1723. Jones 1887:291

1724. Oppenheim 1964:99. "The accomplishments of the great Sargon and his successors were regarded by later Babylonian tradition as so outstanding that they overshadowed everything else in their historical memory" (Larson

1725. Sisson 1989:1,4


"The political chaos which ensued must have been considerable; for the compilers of the king-list content themselves with the rhetorical question, 'Who was king? Who was not king?' " 1726

Sargon and Race Issues

To understand how the great Sargon viewed the race question and how he treated other races, we need to turn to the outset of his reign—the genesis of his empire.

Historians acknowledge that Sargon defeated the first post-flood dictator of Mesopotamia, the King of Uruk, Lugalzaggisi, son of Ukush (= Cush?) in a surprise, blitzkrieg-type attack 1727 (lugal means a big man which was the Mesopotamian equivalent of king). Lugalzaggisi was likely to have been Nimrod, son of Cush. Cush was black and Nimrod himself appears to be of mixed descent. Indeed, historians relate that the Akkadians rose to power due to a concerted reaction to the brutal aggresions of the Sumerian/Babylonian Lugalzaggisi, whose cruel despotic power grew to include the "upper sea" (Mediterranean) and "lower sea" (Persian Gulf).

Fortunately for Lugalzaggisi, his life was spared, and he was locked in an iron collar but permitted to return to Umma. From that time commenced the racial antagonism between the fair Akkadian-speaking north and the swarthy Sumerian-speaking south. 1728 Sargon's empire was based in the north which came like a whirlwind against Lugalzaggisi's in the south.

How like the historical ongoing tensions between the King of the North and King of the South described in Daniel chapter 11. Could this be the commencement of the tensions between the Caucasian north and the Cushitic south which later evolved into the King of the North and the King of the South prophecy? 1729 The Caucasian Assyrians and Cushitic peoples are no longer in Mesopotamia, so for us to understand these prophecies, we must locate these peoples' modem locations. Also, texts from that period have been found which may be translated as "the King is my Fortess", "the King is my God" and "Sargon is my God" which began a perception by the Akkadians that Sargon and his successors were messiahs of some sort. 1730 In fact, up to that period, the Akkadian word for "king" was an epithet or predicate of gods. Therefore it should come as no surprise to realise that he was called: "The King is my Fortress" (which the God of the Bible is called), "The King is my God" and "Sargon is my God". How similar to Goebbels publically announcing Hitler as "mein Fuhrer und mein Gott".

Sargon thence commenced the process of making his people the dominant race in Babylonia. 1731 Who were the previously dominant people in Babylonia? According to Orr 1732 evidence suggests that the founders of Babylonia were dark Hamites. In fact, after conquering Lugalzaggisi, his followers and descendants, Sargon stated: "For forty-five years the kingdom I have ruled, and the black heads [euphemism for the black race] I have governed." 1733


1726. Lloyd 1984:139

1727. Edwards 1975 (vol.1, pt.2):421

1728. Hallo & Simpson 1971:59

1729. ”Lugalzagesi had no trouble in finding allies. Practically all the Sumerian cities came to his aid and had to be conquered at least once, and their fortifications were dismantled" (Larson 1979: 111)

1730. ibid: 110

1731. Hall 1924:186

1732. Orr 1906:41

1733. quoted in Ragozin 1887:205-207


On another occasion he declared: "Ishtar loved me ... years exercised dominion ... years I have commanded the black-headed people ... and ruled them." 1734 This equates with 'Ethiopia' which transliterated means 'people with black faces'. In other words, the original Ethiopia after the flood was in southern Sumeria, which, as we saw in an earlier chapter.

Professor Sayce states: There are "light enamelled bricks of the Elamite period on which a black race of mankind is portrayed, it may mean that the primitive population of Chaldea was black skinned." 1735

The above-mentioned statement is simply self-explanatory: Black peoples were, of course, extant in Mesopotamia soon after Noah's flood. Regarding the neo-Sumerians in the south (comprising the earliest Micronesians, Aboriginals, Dravidians and White Hungarians) and the Akkadians to the north (earliest Assyrians), researchers ask both themselves and their readers "how did these peoples get on?" 1736 Sometimes we find complete denial of anything except idyllic relations between these racial neighbours, while at the other times "rabid national antagonism" is stressed clearly in the historical record. 1737

Sargon did his best to appease the swarthy peoples of the south and left most of the defeated leaders in their old positions, interfering only slightly in internal local affairs. He did his best to convince them of his inheritance to their 'Great King' and even made offerings to Enlil, their god. 1738

Archeologist Lloyd in the excellent work The Archaeology of Mesopotamia supports this view:

"Culturally, the most conspicuous distinction between the two ethnic groups was a linguistic one.

One notices that ... there is some evidence of discrimination in favour of the Akkadian element among Sargon's supporters. Akkadian governors were installed in the other Sumerian cities and the Sumerian language ceased to be used for administrative purposes."1739, 1740

As Sargon's power and influence waxed great, white Aramaeans moved into the region and seemed to aid in solidifying his reign. 1741 Sargon commenced to build a new seat "and this housed his own warriors and their families, not a mixed multitude from Kish ...". Notice, Sargon believed in segregation. Edwards claims that such a development can have been effected "only by a new population conscious of its difference and even of hostility to the old." 1742

Sargon's grandson, Naram-sin, continued Sargon's racial policy whereby "he found equally high clerical or civil posts for his numerous progeny."1743  Close to the end of Sargon's life, it was the


1734. Williams 1908 (vol.2): 360

1735. Sayce 1887:185

1736. Bottero 1967: 63

1737. ibid

1738. This indicates that the Assyrians were more interested in the economic/commercial, political and racial aspects of their ideology than the religious. See Larson 1979:301. They were also more interested in enterprise and merchandising than state monopoly (page 206).

1739. Lloyd 1984:137. See also Larsen 1979:109-113 for similar references.

1740. Waddell speculates that these peoples under Sargon's leadership civilized many of the conquered black peoples of Chaldea. (Waddell 1929:xv)

1741. Edwards 1971 (vol.1, pt.2):447

1742. ibid

1743. Hallo 1971:61


southern cities of Sumer which revolted against his reign, not the northern Akkadians. These dark inhabitants were crushed in the most cruel, hate-filled fighting imagineable 1744 after which many tribes were driven out of the region and ended up in southern Asia and southern Arabia.

The aftermath of the Sargonic collapse, after Shar-Kali-Sharri's reign was a greatly reduced Akkad and a resurgent dynasty of Ur, represented in the Neo-Sumerian revival.

"The dynasty of Ur represents a very definite Sumerian reaction against the Semites [i.e. followers of Sargon]...Orthodox Babylonian scribes in later times could not forgive him for the insult offered to the shrine of Bel Marduk ..." 1745

So closed the great Sargonic period which brought so many benefits in technology to Mesopotamia and paradoxically, such cruelty and suffering to other races. After the Sargonic Empire's collapse, a brief interlude of confusion and anarchy arose. A tribe from the mountains (the Gutians -descendants of Aram, through Gether - the earliest Goths) took advantage of the situation and occupied large parts of the region. They may even have contributed to the downfall of the empire out of revenge for what Sargon did to the Aramaic nation centred around Ebla. Here is a hint of the inter-family conflicts and wars of the earliest descendants of the offspring of Noah listed in Genesis 10. 1746 Archaeology and history may provide us with further information over the years to come.

Further, after the southern ethnic groups gained independence from the northern foreigners,

"It is difficult to escape the impression that there was a conscious seeking back to the Sumerian roots, a conscious stressing of Sumerian cultural identity in reaction against the Akkadians". 1747

Thus continued the tensions and conflicts between the 'King of the North' and 'King of the South' systems which exist to this very day (Daniel 11).


We might succinctly summarise this chapter by listing the basic arguments for identifying Sargon with Assur. These arguments are listed in point form below:

* Sargon lived at the very time when Assur would have been extant, after Noah's Flood.

* He had very similar characteristics one would expect Assur, forefather of the Assyrians, to have had. In particular his imperialism, military prowess, organizational skills and government centralism.

* The Assyrians followed his lead, modelling their own system upon his.

* Many of the kings of Assyria were named after Sargon or his successors. In fact, the Assyrians made common use of Old Akkadian names.

* The Assyrian language is the only one which reflects the original Akkadian tongue.

* Sargon was revered and his time was regarded as a golden-age by the Assyrians.


1744. ibid

1745. Hall 1924:190

1746. Woolley writes of the Martu (Amuru or Amaraeans): "To the north and east of them [the Assyrians], in the Zagros hills and across the plain to the Tigris, there lived a very different stock, fair-haired and speaking a 'Caucasian' tongue, a hill-people akin to the Guti... they failed to gain a footing in the new delta and remained in what was afterwards, Assyria, the neighbour land of Akkad." (Woolley 1929:5)

1747. Larson 1979:113


* Abazu, possibly an early Assyrian tribal chief, is thought to have paid homage to Sargon's son, Man-ishtushu. Could this have been a practice of a brother bowing to the firstborn?

* Neither Sargon nor Assur are listed as number one on the Assyrian king lists. Might one then ask whether the 17 early tribal chiefs of Assyria were Sargon's descendants or descendants of another grandson of Noah.

* Sargon despised other races.

The above summarises the major pointers towards arguing for an Assur/Sargon identity. Perhaps with future archaeological discoveries, further light will be shed to reinforce this position. Should proofs arise for another individual to be identified with Assur, then I will certainly have a look at such a theory.


Bottero, J. (et. Al.)(eds)(1967) The Near East, Delacorte Press, New York.

Edwards, I.E.S. (ed.)(1975) Cambridge Ancient History, (Vol. 1, Pt. 2), Cambridge at th University Press.

Gelb, I. J. (1954) "Two Assyrian King Lists", Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 13:209-30.

Hawkes, J. (1973) The First Great Civilizations, Hutchinson of London.

Livingston, G. (1974) The Pentateuch in its Cultural Environment, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Poebel, A. (1942) "The Assyrian King List from Khorsabad", Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol 1: 247-306.

Pritchard, J.B. (1969) Ancient Near Eastern Texts, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.