Professor Finkelstein still minimising Israel’s great kings David and Solomon

 

 

“Finkelstein believes that the original city of Jerusalem must have constituted

a large tel mound located within the area today known as the Temple Mount.

It’s an interesting theory. But how much of it is “facts and data”?”

Brad Macdonald and Christopher Eames

 

Was David and Solomon’s Jerusalem a ‘Godforsaken’ Place?

What does archaeology tell us?

By Brad Macdonald and Christopher Eames

 

From the March-April 2024 Let the Stones Speak Magazine Issue

 

In a 2021 interview series hosted by the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, one of Israel’s most prominent archaeologists made some bold remarks about the Bible and its role in archaeology in Israel.

 

He explained that David and Solomon were simple, hill-country chieftains, and not the towering monarchs recorded in the Bible. He theorized that the story of David and Goliath was invented during the time of King Josiah (late seventh century b.c.e.) and was crafted to reflect his upcoming clash with Egypt’s Pharaoh Necho (Josiah was King David, Egypt was Goliath).

 

He also said King Solomon’s glorious reign was probably modeled by late biblical writers after an Assyrian king, maybe Sennacherib.

 

He also shared some bold and controversial views about biblical Jerusalem. He claimed that Judah and Jerusalem only turned from a “godforsaken” place to an important kingdom in the late eighth century b.c.e., when they were incorporated into the Assyrian economy. And he claimed that Judah only became a truly literate state—allowing for the composition of the Bible—when educated Israelites from the north fled into Judah from their own Assyrian destruction during the same century.

 

Many Jews, Christians, even Muslims would disagree with the views of Prof. Israel Finkelstein. And some might even get upset by these claims. But the more important question is, what does the evidence say?

 

In the first interview of the series, Professor Finkelstein emphasized how important it is to “speak facts and data” when talking about ancient Israel and Jerusalem.

 

And he is absolutely right. But here’s the context of that statement: “First and foremost, … the Bible does not mean to speak history. The Bible is all about theology, about ideology … and we scholars, researchers, need to speak facts and data” (emphasis added throughout).

 

Finkelstein clearly rejects the Bible as a historical source. But on what grounds? Where are the facts and data, the hard evidence—the science—proving that the Bible does not “speak history”?

 

Let’s examine Finkelstein’s claims specifically about biblical Jerusalem (Episode 15 of the series). Was Jerusalem a “godforsaken” place until the late eighth century b.c.e.? Is understanding Jerusalem of the united monarchy “a lost case,” as his interviewer concluded following Finkelstein’s comments? Is it correct for his interviewer to assert that “[e]xtensive archaeology has revealed nothing” about it?

 

Where Was Original Jerusalem?

 

The interview began with a discussion about the original location of Jerusalem. The majority opinion of scholars, archaeologists and historians is that early Jerusalem was situated in the area known today as the City of David, the ridge located south of the Temple Mount. According to the biblical text, David conquered this original city site ruled by the Canaanite Jebusites and made it his capital—and Solomon later expanded the city northward to include the temple construction.

 

According to Finkelstein, this understanding is flawed and there is “no way to clarify” where the ancient City of David really was. “We don’t really know what [these names] mean. We don’t really know what the Bible means when the Bible speaks about the City of David. There’s no place we can really pinpoint on the ridge to the south of the Temple Mount.”

 

Finkelstein believes the original city of Jerusalem was situated at the top of the Temple Mount hill, and that the city expanded southward down the ridge.

 

He gave several reasons for his theory. First, he said, the City of David does not look like a typical “tel” mound. Second, he pointed out the lack of Bronze Age remains in the area, particularly the southern part of the City of David. And third, he explained that city mounds are usually situated at the top of the highest ground. “The City of David ridge,” he explained, “is completely dominated on three sides by higher grounds,” and this would have given enemies a tactical advantage.

 

Because of these reasons, Finkelstein believes that the original city of Jerusalem must have constituted a large tel mound located within the area today known as the Temple Mount. It’s an interesting theory. But how much of it is “facts and data”?

 

Consider the claim that we cannot know what the Bible means when it speaks about the City of David. The Bible is actually quite specific in describing the location of the original Canaanite city, Jebus. First, it says explicitly that the original Jebusite fortress in Jerusalem, captured by David, was renamed the City of David. 2 Samuel 5:7 tells us “the same is the city of David.” Furthermore, this passage states that this fortress (metzudah in Hebrew) was located in a lower ridge location—“down” from the highest geographical features (verse 17).

 

The Bible also indicates that the site was atypically small and extremely well defensed geographically. In verses 6-8, the Canaanites boast that the city’s defense is so strong, even “the blind and the lame” could defend it. Finally, the Bible also reveals that the upper site of the future temple was part of an agricultural area outside and higher in elevation than the original city (1 Chronicles 21:18-19; 22:1).

 

Professor Finkelstein suggested that a settlement on the lower ridge would have been a strategic liability, but this view is not borne out historically. Jerusalem has been conquered numerous times. While the northern Temple Mount area is technically the highest point, this area is also a more-gradually sloped, broader area. Historically, this is the point where the city has typically been breached.

When the Romans invaded in 70 c.e., they attacked the city from north of the Temple Mount. The Babylonians attacked the same point when they conquered Jerusalem in 586 b.c.e. This was the point where Assyria’s King Sennacherib threatened Judah with his armies in the late eighth century b.c.e. (although an attack did not take place). This was also the location where part of the city wall was torn down by the attacking kingdom of Israel (2 Kings 14:13).

 

The ridge and small summit on which the City of David sits is actually an extremely difficult area to penetrate. The bedrock on the east and west sides of the ridge falls away sharply, creating narrow valleys that become a kill-zone for large forces.

 

Additionally, recent excavations of the Givati Parking Lot have revealed a massive man-made trench in the bedrock between the City of David and the Ophel mound. This moat undoubtedly served as a defensive feature protecting the city from invasion from the north. (For more information, read “The Moat of Ancient Jerusalem.”)

 

The fact that the City of David doesn’t fit the mold of a large “tel” mound, and that it has a comparatively lower elevation, may not accord with Finkelstein’s conceptualization of early Jerusalem—but it does fit with the historical accounts.

Now what about the purported lack of Bronze Age remains?

 

Where Is Bronze Age Jerusalem?

 

Archaeology in Israel and the ancient Near East is divided into several periods. The Bronze Age spans the third and second millenniums b.c.e. (put simply, Early Bronze, circa 3000–2000; Middle Bronze, 2000–1500; Late Bronze, 1500–1200 b.c.e.). Where are the remains of Jerusalem from the middle of the second millennium b.c.e.?

It is clear from Egyptian inscriptions, as Finkelstein highlighted, that Jerusalem was occupied in the Bronze Age—both the Middle and Late.

 

Where, then, are these remains on the City of David ridge? After all, as Finkelstein noted, in areas of the southern ridge there is bedrock under Iron Age remains, and we have “only a [Bronze Age] sherd here or a sherd there … we don’t have at all evidence, or almost none, for architecture, houses, any construction activity.” Due to the lack of Bronze Age remains in the City of David, Finkelstein concludes that Bronze Age Jerusalem “must have been located on the Temple Mount” (although, as he admits, this theory cannot be put to the test by excavation due to the religious and political situation).

 

Before getting into what has been found, consider what has not been found.

 

While the City of David isn’t as politically or religiously sensitive as the Temple Mount, it is still incredibly sensitive. Much of the area is situated in the densely populated Arab neighborhood of Silwan. This makes it difficult to conduct large-scale excavations that would expose large swathes of territory. Instead, archaeologists have to excavate smaller areas, building their picture slowly over time, in fits and spurts.

 

Next, recall that Jerusalem has been destroyed and rebuilt several times over the centuries. According to Eric Cline’s book Jerusalem Besieged, the city has been “besieged 23 times, attacked an additional 52 times, and captured and recaptured 44 times.” This, too, explains the lack of Bronze Age evidence: Much of it was destroyed in these attacks.

 

Finally, despite the relatively small area that has been excavated, and all of the destructions that have occurred, there is archaeological evidence for Bronze Age occupation in the City of David.

 

Archaeological excavations around the Gihon Spring—situated in the lower, northeastern corner of the City of David—have revealed part of a truly massive fortification, one that dates to the Middle Bronze Age (circa 2000–1500 b.c.e.).

This fortification wrapped around and protected the vital Gihon Spring. Its walls are massive, up to 7 meters wide at their foundations—the widest walls of any Bronze Age site in all Israel.

 

The Gihon Spring, Jerusalem’s only water source, is located on the lower ridge of the City of David, partway down into the eastern Kidron Valley. The location of this spring, and the tunnels that link it to the City of David (not the Temple Mount), are some of the greatest proofs of the location of the original site of Jerusalem—built deliberately around and protecting the vital spring.

 

Professor Finkelstein recognizes this massive Middle Bronze Age fortification in the lower City of David.

 

However, he suggests that this giant structure was simply a standalone building, an outlying tower from the Temple Mount city-hub, built to protect the distant spring. (He also postulates that the underground network of ancient tunnels beneath the City of David leading to the Gihon Spring simply gave late writers the idea to craft a story about David conquering Jerusalem using them.)

 

Consider the facts: What is the most rational explanation? Why do these Bronze Age tunnels connected to the Gihon Spring lead into the City of David and not north, into the Temple Mount? This suggests the City of David was the central habitation at this time, not the Temple Mount.

 

Consider too: Is it difficult to believe that Middle Bronze Age structures such as these continued to be used in the Late Bronze Age? And what about other Canaanite-era walls discovered on the lower eastern slopes of the City of David, better sheltered from exposure and destruction?

 

The man who interviewed Professor Finkelstein questioned his theory of a Bronze Age Jerusalem centered on the Temple Mount. The interviewer identified certain difficulties with the theory, such as the exposed bedrock at the center of the Temple Mount site. In response, Finkelstein noted that erosion down to bedrock at an elevated point of the site is not unusual (again, structures are usually better-preserved in lower, more sheltered areas of a site). He also pointed out that we shouldn’t expect to find much on the Temple Mount anyway, given Herod’s clearing and rebuilding of the site for his temple.

 

How ironic. These are the same explanations for a lack of Bronze Age remains in much of the City of David—the exposed, eroded bedrock along the upper, southern part of the ridge, as well as repeat events of destruction and rebuilding. Here’s the key difference though: The only remnants we have of Bronze Age Jerusalem are in the City of David, not on the Temple Mount. Because something can be said to the question of Bronze Age remains on the Temple Mount: Sifting and various analyses have been done on the many tons of earth illegally bulldozed out of the Temple Mount foundations by the Islamic Waqf, along with other underground surveys of the Temple Mount. As affirmed by Dr. Hillel Geva and Dr. Alon De Groot, there is no evidence of tel stratification, and only 1 percent of the material remains discovered date prior to the Iron Age—rather damning evidence against this site as the location of a strong Bronze Age city tel.

….

Genesis Flood a catastrophism differing from Grand Canyon and Mount Saint Helens

 

 

“What MSH [Mount Saint Helens] demonstrates is not that the

fossil forests at places like Yellowstone were deposited by a giant water flood,

but that they were deposited in a volcanic environment like MSH”. 

Kevin Nelstead

  

This 2020 article needed to be written:

What does Mt St Helens teach us about Noah’s flood? Almost nothing. – GeoChristian

 

What does Mt St Helens teach us about Noah’s flood? Almost nothing.

 

All I got from Mt St Helens (MSH) in the days following its May 18, 1980 eruption was a few pretty sunsets. I was an undergraduate student in my first year at the University of Utah, and most of the ash cloud passed far north of Salt Lake City. MSH became more significant for me a few years later as a geology graduate student at Washington State University, where my research project involved analysis and correlation of Cascade Range tephra (volcanic ash) layers buried at various levels in the Quaternary Palouse Loess of eastern Washington. Some of these tephra layers correlated to ancient eruptions of MSH, dated around 13,000 and 36,000 years ago.

 

Fortieth Anniversary

 

Due in part to easy accessibility, the 1980 eruptions of MSH have been studied more closely than just about any other explosive volcanic eruption in history. Geologists have learned a great deal about certain types of volcanic deposits from this natural laboratory.

 

Young-Earth creationists (YECs) claim that Mt St Helens has provided many proofs that Noah’s flood could have been responsible for Earth’s sedimentary rock layers, fossil record, landforms, and more. May 18, 2020 marks the fortieth anniversary of the 1980 eruption of MSH, and I would like to look at what some of these YEC claims are, and whether the claims are valid. Three YEC arguments I will look at are:

• Rapid formation of volcanic sediments at MSH show that Earth’s sedimentary rock record could have been deposited during Noah’s flood.
• Rapid canyon formation at MSH establishes that other canyons, such as the Grand Canyon, could have formed during Noah’s flood.
• Logs associated with Spirit Lake demonstrate that fossil forests and coal in the geologic record could have been formed by Noah’s flood.

 

It turns out that each of these arguments is of limited validity. The MSH eruptions had an impact on geological thinking at a time when geologists were becoming more aware of catastrophic events in Earth history, but this does not confirm the claims that YECs make about MSH.

 

MSH and Rapid Sedimentation

 

The May 18, 1980 eruption of MSH did not involve extrusion of fountains or rivers of lava flowing over the landscape. Instead, this was an explosive eruption, ejecting volcanic ash particles high into the atmosphere, as well as ground-hugging pyroclastic flows that blasted northwards from the volcano.

 

Pyroclastic flows consist of fast moving, hot volcanic gases mixed with blobs of molten material, volcanic glass, minerals, and rock fragments. This material may be hotter than 400°C (750°F), flowing across the landscape at hundreds of miles per hour. As the hot cloud of material slows down, grains settle out of the current, forming layers with sedimentary structures such as graded bedding and cross-bedding. This is sort of a hybrid between a volcanic and sedimentary process, producing what are known as volcaniclastic deposits. Another type of deposit from this eruption was volcanic mudflows known as lahars. Lahars form when precipitation or snowmelt mixes with loose volcanic ash to make a thick slurry of material that may flow tens of miles away from the volcano.

 

YECs have used these deposits as evidence that rapid, catastrophic processes can lay down sediments with features that are common in Earth’s sedimentary rock record. If MSH could create layers of rock complete with cross bedding and graded bedding in a short amount of time, why couldn’t the entire sedimentary rock record, many thousands of feet thick in places, have been deposited by a much larger catastrophic event, namely Noah’s flood?

 

The deposits of MSH do indeed show that volcanoes can do a lot of geologic work in a short amount of time. It did not take the 1980 eruptions of MSH to demonstrate this, and no geologists were taken by surprise. Any good volcanologist or sedimentologist will be able to recognize similar volcano-associated rocks in the rock record. Volcaniclastic rocks are common, and are thousands of feet thick in places. Rocks in some of the northern areas of Yellowstone National Park, as well as surrounding areas to the north, east, and southeast, are composed largely of volcanic rocks of the Absaroka Volcanic Supergroup.

 

These rocks are older than and unrelated to the volcanic rocks of the more recent Yellowstone Caldera. The Absaroka rocks include lahars (mudflows), andesite lava flows, pyroclastic flows, and more coarsely crystallized rocks associated with magma chambers. By studying the flows, magma chambers, and associated dikes, geologists have concluded that some of the volcanoes must have been stratovolcanoes the size of the major Cascade Range volcanoes, such as Mt Shasta or Mt Rainier.

 

Studying the products of the 1980 eruption of MSH has helped geologists understand these ancient volcanic rocks better.

 

How much contribution has the study of MSH had to the understanding other types of sedimentary rocks? Just about none. This is because most sedimentary rocks in the geologic record are quite unlike the volcaniclastic rocks produced by catastrophic processes at MSH. Most sandstones and conglomerates are nothing like the deposits of MSH. Yes, many sandstones have sedimentary structures such as cross bedding and graded bedding, but these are known to form in many non-catastrophic settings. Other sedimentary rocks have even less resemblance to anything associated with MSH. Most limestone is formed by biological processes, such as the secretion of calcium carbonate shells and other hard parts by invertebrate organisms. Most shale must have been deposited in quiet environments, as clay does not rapidly settle out from agitated water. Evaporite rocks (rock salt, gypsum, etc.) also have no analogs at MSH.

 

The conclusion is that most rocks in the sedimentary rock record were formed by processes that must have been quite different than what happened at MSH in 1980, and many layers were deposited in settings that have little to do with catastrophism. MSH tells us little about how most sedimentary rocks of the geologic rock record originated.

 

MSH and the Rapid Formation of Canyons

 

In addition to depositing pyroclastic and mudflow deposits, there are erosional features associated with eruptions of MSH. In 1982, rapid snowmelt led to severe flooding at MSH, which carved a 100-foot deep canyon north of the gaping crater in just a few days.

 

This canyon is known informally as Step Canyon, and YECs claim it is a 1/40^th scale version of the Grand Canyon in Arizona. YECs then argue that if snowmelt at MSH could lead to the rapid erosion of Step Canyon, then certainly the much larger Noah’s flood could have carved the Grand Canyon in a short period of time as well.

 

There are multiple problems with this reasoning. It sounds impressive to say that there is a 1/40^th-scale version of the Grand Canyon, but this ratio is misleading. At its deepest point, Step Canyon is a little over 100 feet deep, which is roughly 1/40^th the depth of the Grand Canyon, so perhaps that is where YECs get that ratio. For much of its length, the Grand Canyon ranges from 5 to 10, and up to about 18 miles wide. The canyon at MSH is less than 0.1 miles wide, which is about 1/50^th the width of the narrower sections of the main part of the Grand Canyon. Finally, the Grand Canyon is about 275 miles long, whereas Step Canyon at MSH is about 4 miles long from the crater to its intersection with Engineer’s Canyon. The National Park Service says that the volume of the Grand Canyon is 4.17 trillion cubic meters. I made a rough estimate that Step Canyon at MSH has a volume of about 40 million cubic meters. This means that the volume of the rapidly formed MSH canyon is about 1/100,000^th the volume of the Grand Canyon, which is not quite as impressive to readers as saying it is 1/40^th the size.

 

A second difficulty for the YEC claim is that the Grand Canyon was carved through thousands of feet of solid rock, including crystalline metamorphic and igneous rocks at the bottom of the canyon. Most of the erosion at Step Canyon at MSH, on the other hand, was through unconsolidated sand and gravel. It should be obvious that comparing erosion through sand and gravel to erosion through schist and gneiss is comparing apples and oranges.

 

A final challenge is that Step Canyon at MSH developed on a steep slope, which facilitated rapid erosion. The average gradient of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon is only 8 feet per mile. Step Creek, on the other hand, drops 2300 feet in 4 miles, which is about 575 feet per mile. Erosion on a steep, unconsolidated slope is certainly going to be far more rapid than erosion along a low-gradient streambed in erosion-resistant rocks.

 

While the rapid erosion of canyons at MSH is impressive, it falls far short of providing an effective model for carving the giant canyons of the world in only a few months’ time.

 

MSH and Fossil Forests

 

 

 

The pyroclastic flows associated with the May 18^th eruption downed or burned trees up to 19 miles (31 km) from the volcano. A large number of trees ended up floating in Spirit Lake, where many continue to float on the lake surface forty years later. Some of the trees are floating in a vertical position rather than horizontally. The trees of MSH have provided a good analog for understanding fossilized trees in some ancient volcanic deposits. The Absaroka Volcanic Supergroup mentioned earlier contains abundant petrified trees in some areas, such as at Specimen Ridge in Yellowstone National Park. Many of these petrified trees are upright, which used to be interpreted as meaning that the trees were buried where they grew. Now, largely due to studies at MSH, we understand that trees can be ripped out of the ground, transported, and deposited in an upright position at a distance from where they grew.

 

[Creationists] have claimed that this is powerful evidence that a giant catastrophe like Noah’s flood could have deposited the forests at Yellowstone. This is a great overstatement. What MSH demonstrates is not that the fossil forests at places like Yellowstone were deposited by a giant water flood, but that they were deposited in a volcanic environment like MSH. The Absaroka rocks are clearly volcanic in origin, with features I described earlier. These petrified trees were transported and buried by the local catastrophes of eruptions at stratovolcanoes, just as the trees at MSH were transported and buried by the eruption of a volcano.

 

YECs also claim that dead tree material is accumulating at the bottom of Spirit Lake at MSH, and that this will turn into peat, which is a precursor to coal. Perhaps this will form peat, or a peat-like deposit, but there are plenty of other non-catastrophic environments where peat is accumulating faster than at Spirit Lake. The world’s coal deposits as a whole, however, have little in common with the floor of Spirit Lake, which is not a very large lake. Most coal is found in sequences of sandstone, siltstone, and shale that give every appearance of being swampy environments such as river floodplains or deltas. The closest thing to a catastrophe in these environments would be a normal flood or channel migration. No MSH-sized catastrophe is needed.

 

MSH and the Bible

 

As an old-Earth Christian, I accept the Bible as the trustworthy and authoritative Word of God.

 

I not only believe that God created the universe from nothing, I believe that Noah’s flood was a real, historic event. I do not accept the idea that the story of Noah is some sort of inspired myth, but that it really happened.

 

YECs claim that MSH helps “prove” that a global Noah’s flood really occurred, and that the Bible is true. I think this effort is misguided for three general reasons. The first of these is that, like many inerrancy-affirming Old Testament scholars, pastors, and scientists, I am not convinced that Genesis 6-9 even requires a global flood like the YECs envision. Entire books have been written on this subject, but the case for some sort of local (though still large) flood can be summarized as 1. The story is told from the perspective of Noah on Earth’s surface, not in orbit around spheroidal planet (which the Hebrews may have had no concept of), 2. The vocabulary in the flood account is more ambiguous in Hebrew than it is in our English-language translations, and 3. Universal language in the Old Testament is frequently hyperbolic. In other words, “all the earth” seldom literally means “all the earth” in the Old Testament.

 

A second reason why I do not think all these YEC attempts to explain Earth history are valid is that the flood account in Genesis tells us nothing about the geological work of Noah’s flood. The Bible makes no claims about the origin of sedimentary, igneous, or metamorphic rocks. It makes no claims about the origin of the fossil record. It makes no claims about the eruptions of stratovolcanoes, the carving of canyons large or small, or the deposition of fossil forests. The entire YEC flood geology story, exemplified by their claims about MSH or the Grand Canyon, is built on extrapolations from the text of Genesis, rather than on actual exegesis of the text.

 

Finally, YEC flood geology does not provide a credible model for explaining the origin of features of Earth’s crust. I have shown that the eruption of MSH tells us little or nothing about the origin of sedimentary rock layers, canyons, or fossil forests. Most sedimentary rocks are nothing like deposits formed by volcanic eruptions, the canyons at MSH do not demonstrate that Earth’s large canyons could have formed quickly, and MSH provides a model for petrified forests in volcaniclastic rocks, but not much else.

 

What claims does the Bible make about the work of Noah’s flood? None, really. The truthfulness of the Bible does not depend on whether or not MSH provides a model for Noah’s flood. In reality, MSH provides a model for understanding certain ancient volcanic eruptions, but not much else. YEC claims about MSH and the Noah’s flood are based on unwarranted extrapolations from the text of Genesis rather than exegesis of the text of Genesis.

 

Grace and Peace

 

©2020 Kevin Nelstead, GeoChristian.com

 

 

 

 

 

“The two Sargons may have had very different backgrounds, but they both

came to the throne violently, one through a coup and the other by military conquest. Once each man settled into his new role as king, he also embarked

on impressive building projects to legitimize his rule”.

 Jared Krebsbach

 

  

What Did Sargon of Akkad and Sargon of Assyria Have in Common?

 

Although they were unrelated, two of the greatest leaders of the ancient Near East were named Sargon. Both rulers were builders, warriors, and cultural influencers.

 

Published: Jul 31, 2025 written by Jared Krebsbach, PhD History

Krebsbach, Jared. "What Did Sargon of Akkad and Sargon of Assyria Have in Common?" TheCollector.com, July 31, 2025, https://www.thecollector.com/jared-krebsbach/

 

Sargon of Akkad (ruled c. 2334-2279 BCE) and Sargon II of Assyria (ruled 721-705 BCE) were two of the greatest rulers in ancient Near Eastern history.

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: The dates for Sargon of Akkad as given here are about 400 years too large. He, as Naram-Sin, was a contemporary of Abram in late Chalcolithic En-geddi; Ghassul IV; Gerzean; and Naqada (Egypt). See e.g. my article:

 

Dr. W.F. Albright’s game-changing chronological shift

 

(5) Dr. W.F. Albright's game-changing chronological shift

 

Jared Krebsbach continues:

 

Despite sharing the same name, the two men were from different dynasties and lived more than 1,500 years and hundreds of miles apart. With that said, both kings left an indelible mark on the ancient world through numerous military campaigns, ambitious building projects, and efforts that changed Near Eastern culture. When several kings in the same culture have the same name, it is historical tradition to name the one with the greatest accomplishments “the Great.” Sargon of Akkad is sometimes referred to as “the Great,” but a compelling case can be made for Sargon of Assyria’s greatness.

 

They Were Young Men Destined to Rule 

 

Although the primary source documents about the early lives of both Sargons are scant, there is enough to piece together a general outline.

 

An Akkadian language text mentions Sargon of Akkad’s birthplace as along the Euphrates River near the important city of Kish. Perhaps the most interesting detail of the text states: “My mother was a high priestess, my father I knew not.” Definitely an inauspicious beginning for a man who would later rule most of Mesopotamia.

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: But see my greatly revised ancient geography: 

 

“The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia

 

(5) “The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia

 

Jared Krebsbach continues:

 

Sargon’s less than noble origins is also probably why he took the name that he did, which means “the legitimate king.” The obvious question then is, how did this man from a questionable background become king of an empire? The answer to that question can be found in another Akkadian cuneiform text dated to the time of Sargon.

 

….

According to the text, Sargon overthrew King Lugalzagesi (ruled c. late 2300s BCE) of the Uruk Dynasty. At the time, Mesopotamia consisted of several city-states, with most of the political power and cultural influence centered in the Sumerian dominated south [sic]. The background of the battle is not related in the text, only the aftermath.

 

“Sargon, king of Agade, overseer of Ishtar, king of Kish, anointed priest of Anu, king of the country, great ensi of Enlil; he defeated Uruk and tore down its wall; in the battle with the inhabitants of Uruk he was victorious. Lugalzaggisi, king of Uruk, he captured in (this) battle, he brought him in a (dog) collar to the gate of Enlil. Sargon, king of Agade, was victorious in the battle with the inhabitants of Ur, the(ir) town he defeated and tore down its wall.”

 

How Sargon became the commander of what was likely a large and well-trained and equipped army remains a mystery. The Sumerian King List adds few details, so one must assume that Sargon was quite charismatic, intelligent, and could also probably handle weapons quite well. Sargon of Akkad likely learned his knowledge of ancient warfare hands-on in the military. The victory gave Sargon dominion over southern Mesopotamian and allowed him to start a new political dynasty.

 

Unlike Sargon of Akkad, Sargon II of Assyria was born into royalty. Sargon of Assyria was actually the second Assyrian king named Sargon. The first Sargon ruled in the late third millennium BCE, and little is known about him. [???] Therefore, Sargon II will be referred to here as “Sargon of Assyria” as he was the greater of the two Assyrian Sargons and to differentiate him from Sargon of Akkad. Sargon of Assyria was one of the sons of King Tiglath-Pileser III (ruled 744-727 BCE), and based on what is known about the family, he was probably born in the royal palace in Kalhu/Nimrud.

 

Modern historians believe that Sargon usurped the royal throne from his brother, Shalmaneser V (ruled 726-722 BC), and started a new dynasty, although the details are unclear.

Damien Mackey’s comment: Tiglath-pileser and Shalmaneser were one and the same:  

 

Book of Tobit a guide to neo-Assyrian succession

 

(5) “The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia

 

Jared Krebsbach continues:

 

The two Sargons may have had very different backgrounds, but they both came to the throne violently, one through a coup and the other by military conquest. Once each man settled into his new role as king, he also embarked on impressive building projects to legitimize his rule.

 

They Built Cities

 

Perhaps one of the more unique aspects that both Sargons shared was their construction of entirely new capital cities. There are a number of reasons why the Sargons built these new cities, with the most important and obvious being to legitimize their rules. Because Sargon of Akkad was not of the royalty and Sargon of Assyria was a usurper, a large construction project was vital.

 

The construction of the new project would placate the gods and keep the people busy, not thinking of how their new king came to power.

 

Sargon of Akkad’s new city was named Akkad, sometimes written as “Agade.”

 

Modern archaeologists have not yet located Akkad, but it is believed to have been on the Euphrates River, near Sargon’s hometown of Kish.

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: For the correct location of ancient Akkad, see my “Sumer” article above.

 

Jared Krebsbach continues:

 

Not to be outdone by his namesake, Sargon of Assyria also built a new city.

 

Located north of the Assyrian city of Nineveh, high on a citadel, Sargon of Assyria built his new capital city, Dur-Sharrukin/Khorsabad, in 717 BCE. The name of the city is translated into English as “fortress of Sargon,” and archaeological work at the site has revealed how impressive it was. The city was surrounded by a nearly four-and-a-half-mile wall and encompassed 740 acres of space. Curiously, Dur Sharrukin was not located on the Tigris River as all of the other major Assyrian cities were.

 

Until Akkad is located and excavated it is impossible to determine which city was the greatest. One interesting thing that both cities had in common, though, was that they were promptly abandoned by the Sargons’ successors.

 

They Fought Wars and Ruled People

 

Sargon of Akkad unified central and southern Mesopotamia under his rule through warfare. He pushed against the conventions of the era by building a standing army and a large personal guard of 5,400 men.

 

It is believed that Sargon made the big military push late in his reign, when he had made alliances throughout Mesopotamia [sic] and had trained his army. The same historical text cited above that related Sargon’s rise to power also details part of his conquest of Mesopotamia.

 

“Sargon, king of Kish, was victorious in 34 campaigns and dismantled (all) the cities, as far as the shore of the sea… Enlil did not let anybody oppose Sargon.”

 

In order to control such a large standing army, Sargon needed to revamp Mesopotamia’s bureaucratic culture. Instead of eliminating the kings of the numerous city-states, Sargon made the kings regional governors. Although the government was unified under the rule of one king, the nature of the system prevented competing dynasties from forming. The regional governors had more land that they theoretically ruled, but they were less tied to their former cities, which was where power emanated from in ancient Mesopotamia.

 

Sargon of Assyria’s reign was also marked by several successful military campaigns. As an Assyrian, Sargon was expected to live up to the martial deeds of his father and other illustrious ancestors, and warfare also had a religious component for the Assyrians.

 

Sargon also had to keep his critics and potential usurpers at bay, so he personally led major military campaigns in every year of his rule. The Assyrian king defeated the state of Uratu and then went north to Cilicia and south to the border of Egypt. He then retook the important city of Babylon after ten years of Elamite interference. Several texts discovered in the ruins of Dur-Sharrukin detail how Sargon dealt with his enemies.

 

“The people and their possessions I carried off. Those cities I destroyed, I devastated, I burned with fire.

 

[The people] of the cities of Sukka, Bala and Abitikna, conceived a wicked plan of tearing up the roots of (their) land and with Ursâ, of Urarut (Armenia), they came to terms. Because of the sin which they had committed, I tore them away from their homes and settled them in Hatti of Amurru.”

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: I’d like to throw this in here:

 

Sennacherib depicted facing Sargon II, or is he facing his co-regent son, Nadin?

 

(7) Sennacherib depicted facing Sargon II, or is he facing his co-regent son, Nadin?

 

Jared Krebsbach continues:

 

Sargon of Assyria’s most notable military campaign was against the Kingdom of Israel in 722 BCE, as related in 2 Kings 18:9-11 of the Old Testament. The siege and destruction of Israel’s capital city of Samaria is also related in Assyrian texts. The Old Testament states that Shalmaneser led the siege, but many modern historians believe that Sargon finished the job after assassinating his brother [sic].

 

Like his much earlier namesake, Sargon of Assyria also overhauled the Assyrian state. When Sargon came to power, 25 provinces were ruled by semi-autonomous governors. Their power varied widely, with some of the governors being quite powerful and a potential threat to Sargon. So, to counter the potential of recalcitrant governors, Sargon reduced the number of provinces to just 12. The restructuring was successful because Sargon died, as most Assyrian kings would have wanted, on the battlefield and not at an assassin’s hands.

 

Sargon of Akkad and Sargon of Assyria: Two Culture Warriors 

 

It is arguable that Sargon of Akkad’s greatest legacy was the influence he had on ancient Mesopotamian culture. His very name was revered for centuries, as demonstrated by two [sic?]  Assyrian kings taking it, but his greatest impact was on the language of the region. Before Sargon, the Sumerian language was the dominant written and spoken language in Mesopotamia. After Sargon came to power, the Akkadian language began to be written in the cuneiform script, which was originally used for the Sumerian language. The Semitic Akkadian language quickly overtook Sumerian as the lingua franca of Mesopotamia and all later major dynasties used it. The 1st dynasty of Babylon, the Kassites, the Assyrians, and the Neo-Babylonians all wrote their texts exclusively in Akkadian cuneiform, although some native languages were probably still spoken.

 

Even the Hittites, who were based in Anatolia and spoke an Indo-European language, wrote Hittite-Akkadian bilingual texts. Akkadian became so widely spoken and written that by the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550-1200 BC), Akkadian was the lingua franca of the entire Near East.

 

Akkadian was the default diplomatic language used in the letters of correspondence between kings of the Great Powers: Egypt, Hatti, Babylon, Assyria, Mitanni, and Alashiya. A cache of more than 300 of these letters were discovered in the Egyptian village of Amarna in 1887. In addition to the Amarna cache, Akkadian literature was discovered in other cities outside of Mesopotamia, including Hattusa, Ugarit, and Megiddo.

 

Sargon of Assyria also had an impact on the culture of the Near East, but it was not as apparent. Although, as noted earlier, Sargon was not mentioned as the Assyrian king who destroyed the Kingdom of Israel, he is mentioned in Isaiah 20:1. As modern Biblical historians have corroborated the fall of Samaria/Israel with Assyrian texts, Sargon’s role in one of the most important events in the Bible has come into focus. The result is that Sargon of Assyria has become famous, or infamous, in the eyes of millions of Christians around the world.

 

It is difficult to compare any two leaders in order to gauge which one is “greater,” especially when they lived in the ancient world. When comparing Sargon of Akkad and Sargon of Assyria, it is clear they were both great in their own right. Both Sargons were warrior kings, with Sargon of Assyria even dying in battle [sic]. The two Sargons also initiated government reforms and built new cities, which were later abandoned.

 

One could argue that Sargon of Akkad had a greater impact on the culture of the ancient Near East. Yet Sargon of Assyria’s name may be better known to modern people through his impact on Biblical history. Ultimately, both Sargons were impactful leaders who could be named “the great,” so it is your choice to decide which one is the greatest.

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: See also my related article:

 

Sargon II aspiring to be the new Nimrod whom we know as Sargon I of Akkad

 

(4) Sargon II aspiring to be the new Nimrod whom we know as Sargon I of Akkad