Akkadian conquests more Syrian-based than Iranian

by Damien F. Mackey “In the east [the Akkadian kings] encountered a number of states or cities, such as Elam, Parahshum, and Simurrum …”. Marc van de Mieroop Marc van de Mieroop, following the standard geography, tells us of the vast extent of Naram-Sin’s mighty reach, though typically understated without the inclusion of Egypt and Ethiopia (A History of the Ancient Near East. Ca. 3000-323 BC, Blackwell, 2004, p. 63): The statements of Sargon and Naram-Sin stand out, however, because of their wide geographical range: these were certainly the greatest military men of the time. Yet, as Naram-Sin had to repeat [sic?] many of his grandfather’s campaigns, it seems these often amounted to no more than raids. The Akkadian kings focused their military attention on the regions of western Iran and northern Syria. In the east they encountered a number of states or cities, such as Elam, Parahshum, and Simurrum …. In the north they entered the upper Euphrates area, reaching the city of Tuttul at the confluence with the Balikh river, the cult center of Dagan that acted as a central focus of northern and western Syria. Mari and Ebla, the most prominent political centers of the region up till then, were destroyed. These places, which had been so close to northern Babylonia in cultural terms during the Early Dynastic period, were now considered to be major enemies. The accounts mention many places even more remote, such as the cedar forests in Lebanon, the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in eastern Turkey, Marhashi, east of Elam, and areas across the "Lower Sea," i.e., the Persian Gulf. These were reached in far-flung forays for the procurement of rare goods, hard stone, wood, or silver. Booty from these areas was brought to Babylonia. Several stone vessels excavated at Ur and Nippur were inscribed with the statement that they were booty from Magan, for instance. It seems unlikely, however, that these areas were subsequently controlled by Akkad. Rather, the raids aimed at monopolizing access to trade routes. Ships from overseas areas, such as Dilmun (Bahrain), Magan … and Meluhha … are said to have moored in Akkad's harbor. So when Naram-Sin claims that he conquered Magan, it seems more likely that he used his military might to guarantee access to its resources. Local circumstances determined to a great extent how Akkadian presence was maintained in this wide region. We observe a variety of interactions. At Susa in western Iran, for instance, the language of bureaucracy became Akkadian and the local rulers were referred to with Sumerian titles, such as governor (ensi) or general (shagina), which imply a full dependence on the kings of Akkad. On the other hand, the rulers of Susa retained some degree of authority. Naram-Sin concluded a treaty with an unnamed ruler or high official of Susa, a document written in the Elamite language. The agreement specified no submission to Akkad, only a promise by the Elamite to regard Naram-Sin's enemies as his own. The autonomy of Elam should not be underestimated. In Syria the Akkadians established footholds in certain existing centers, indicated by the presence of military garrisons or trade representatives there. At … modern Tell Brak … a monumental building was erected with bricks stamped with the name of Naram-Sin. …. [End of quote] In earlier days I would not have queried very much at all of this geography. Except that I have always wondered why Magan and Meluhha, meaning, respectively, Egypt and Ethiopia in neo-Assyrian times, are differently thought to refer to, in Akkadian times, respectively, Oman and the Indus Valley. But then I read of the geographical revolution proposed by Royce (Richard) Erickson, about which I wrote in e.g. my article: More geographical ‘tsunamis’: lands of Elam and Chaldea (3) More geographical ‘tsunamis’: lands of Elam and Chaldea | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu convincingly re-locating Elam and Chaldea hundreds of miles far to the NW of SE Mesopotamia. And, too, with Magan and Meluhha properly identified as Egypt and Ethiopia, then the geographical scenario for the Akkadian conquests, as set my Marc van de Mieroop, is found to lie much too far SE-wards. Simurrum, linked here to Elam and Parahshum, now almost certainly needs to be re-identified as Simyra, or Sumur, near the Mediterranean coast, north of the port of Byblos. It, rather than, southern Mesopotamia, may be the famous Sumer: A new location proposed for Sumer (4) A new location proposed for Sumer | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu After that, we are situated comfortably in Syrian territory: “In the north they entered the upper Euphrates area, reaching the city of Tuttul at the confluence with the Balikh river, the cult center of Dagan that acted as a central focus of northern and western Syria. Mari and Ebla, the most prominent political centers of the region up till then, were destroyed”.