> thought the link usefull for those reading allong
> Its possible that for this period Waddell opines
> Sargon and Menes....
> That the reach of their influence was from Egypt
> to Indus.
> This would also support the mesoptamian and levant
> which mainstream admits [Christine
> Hobson]....present in
> Egypt from Naqada period forward.
Akkad is not Sumer. Its Akkad. The transition from one to the other is well attested on several levels. There are several thousand cuneiform texts that have been discovered from the Akkadian Dynasty alone which began with Sargon conquering Sumer. Not to mention later Babylonian texts extending to late BC times that continue to regale Sargon. Many speak of Sargon's deeds and battles and the lands he conquered, like Sumer, yet none refer to him or his son Manishtushu conquering or occupying Egypt. Sargon was a very notable historical figure to the peoples of this region for nearly 2,000yrs after his death. There's no evidence of anything Akkadian in either Egypt, Minoa, or the Indus Valley remotely close to the time claimed by Waddell, if at all, and what has been found that is Mesopotamian in Egypt has no direct correlation with anything Akkadian. Its not even directly relatable to Sumer either. The reason for nothing Akkadian found in Egypt at or before the formation of the Dynastic state is that there was no such thing as "Akkad" in 3,000BC or earlier. No Sargon, no Manishtushu. Ironically, there is almost no evidence there was ever a first ruler named "Menes" either. Don't you think it's kind of strange that if the Akkadian Menes, ruler of Egypt, were really Akkadian that they would be writing in Akkadian and not hieroglyphs or Egyptian archaic script? Or even Sumerian which was also used by the Akkadians? Or how about Minoa or the Indus Valley for that matter?
For example, here is the Manishtushu "obelisk", a border marker:
It gives the gripping accounts of various land purchases by Manishtushu:
Egypt, the Indus Valley, and Minoa are not on here.Does talk alot about places in Akkad though.
One of the hallmarks of fresh-thinking is the obfuscation of reality in favor of maintaining a self-consistent narrative. Continuing to quote Waddell in lieu of verifiable scholarship and common sense derived from such I believe qualifies. Other than Waddell's own fresh-thinking relating the Greek/English names of Menes>Manishtushu>Minos because they sound alike, can anyone provide any evidence whatsoever outside of Waddell that actually links these figures in time or with each other? Any evidence that Akkadians ruled over Egypt, Minoa, and the Indus Valley during the time of the formation of the Egyptian Dynastic state? If Waddell is right there has to be something we can point to to validate his claims except for everything pointing to the exact opposite. Right?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 28-Jul-15 06:33 by Thanos5150.