6 ms·

It is particularly poignant with Mesopotamian civilization. Sargon II was king of Assyria, ruling from 722 BC until death in battle in 702 BC. He almost compl

by retrac 4y ago

It is particularly poignant with Mesopotamian civilization. Sargon II was king of Assyria, ruling from 722 BC until death in battle in 702 BC. He almost completely reunified Assyria in the then millennia-old tradition of grand empire-building in the region. His assumed name Sargon was appropriate; Sargon I, Sargon the Great, was the first to have created a unified empire in Mesopotamia, nearly two thousand years earlier. The records of Sargon the Great's exploits were still around to read, and people could still read them. Although he was near-mythical by then, like Gilgamesh. The subsequent wars Sargon II's empire-building led to would effectively destroy the Mesopotamian political-economic system and leave it ripe for external conquest, first by Persians, and then Greeks, effectively bringing that 3000 year old civilization to a whimpering end over the next couple hundred years. His name was actually more like Sharrukin, or Sarrukin, in the Akkadian language. We call him Sargon II because that is the Greek version of the name recorded in the Bible and transmitted in the Western canon. He is mentioned only once, in passing, in the Book of Isiah. That single passing reference to him as King of Assyria, was everything that was known of him for 2500 years, until the ruins of Dur-Sharrukin, his capital (destroyed during the mentioned wars) were excavated in the 19th century. Only the faintest echoes of the very last stages of Mesopotamia survived through the transmission of Western/Persian/Islamic civilization. Faded memories several generations old, by the time the earliest Greek and Jewish authors started writing things down. Like you say, it's a good thing clay lasts.

withoutboats2 4y ago
> That single passing reference to him as King of Assyria, was everything that was known of him for 2500 years, until the ruins of Dur-Sharrukin, his capital (destroyed during the mentioned wars) were excavated in the 19th century. I only have a layman's knowledge of this part of history, but this strikes me as unlikely. Surely something was known of him for some time in other sources, probably hundreds of years at least, before those source were also lost? The loss of knowledge is also second-order: we have lost knowledge of what was known to our predecessors.
- retrac 4y ago
  Sure, I might have overstated the case a bit. There was scattered used of Akkadian as a written language into Alexander the Great's time; there was possibly some knowledge of that time in Babylon around then. Still, the end of Mesopotamian records is abrupt. There's a written record from prehistory until the wars of around 700 BC, where the use of writing drops off but doesn't completely stop. But written records in Akkadian, the education of priests and scribes in Akkadian and Sumerian (itself dead for 2000 years by then as a purely liturgical language) basically stops after the fall of Babylon in 539 BC. I'd note that writing in antiquity was deeply tied to both administration and to religion. The Persians were Zoroastrians; they do not seem to have oppressed, but state support went to Zoroastrianism and not the traditional Mesopotamian cults (and their scribes and schools). They imposed their own administrative structure on the conquered territories. Persian became the written standard, pretty much overnight. Akkadian seems to have ceased to be spoken within a couple generations among the ruling class, and within a few hundred more years it was not only dead but basically forgotten.
  - wl 4y ago
    > Still, the end of Mesopotamian records is abrupt. There's a written record from prehistory until the wars of around 700 BC, where the use of writing drops off but doesn't completely stop. But written records in Akkadian, the education of priests and scribes in Akkadian and Sumerian (itself dead for 2000 years by then as a purely liturgical language) basically stops after the fall of Babylon in 539 BC. This probably isn't so much a move away from the use of writing, but a shift away from Akkadian cuneiform on clay tablets to Aramaic on vellum. Clay tablets, even unfired, survive a long time. Vellum doesn't in that climate.
    - oddly 4y ago
      I found these two episodes of the “Fall of civilizations” podcast to be very informative about the Sumerians and Assyrians. It’s episode 8[1] and 13[2], definitely worth a listen in my opinion. [1]: https://youtu.be/cq1g8czIBJY https://youtu.be/cq1g8czIBJY [2]: https://youtu.be/Qr4FiT0ks7I https://youtu.be/Qr4FiT0ks7I
wl 4y ago
Sargon also means "true king," an appropriate name for someone who probably killed his brother to usurp the throne and had plenty of legitimacy problems as a result. Moving the capital of the empire away from Kalhu to the newly-built fortress city of Dur-Sharrukin was in part an attempt to get away from his enemies and surround himself with loyal men. The capital Dur-Sharrukin was not destroyed in war. Rather, Sargon II died in battle and his body was not recovered, which was considered a very bad omen. This halted construction on the city and Sargon's successor, Sennacherib, moved the capitol yet again to Ninevah. It remained lightly used thereafter as an administrative center until it was abandoned at the fall of the empire. Part of the reason why Dur-Sharrukin was such a nice archeological site is because it wasn't destroyed in antiquity, but rather abandoned. (Modern war seems to have destroyed a lot there, how much is unclear.) Also, it was inhabited for about 100 years, so the stratigraphic record was really straightforward. If you find yourself in Chicago, you can see carved stone reliefs and a lamassu from the palace at Dur-Sharrukin at the Oriental Institute Museum at the University of Chicago.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  > Modern war seems to have destroyed a lot there, how much is unclear. If you’re talking about the recent Syrian war, Ive read there’s reason for optimism. Many of the ancient fortress were used by fighters, not necessarily to defend against attack. More to keep prisoner, train, etc. But what I read was about medieval Kracs, which are still functioning fortresses, not ancient Mesopotamian structures.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
ioblomov 4y ago
Calls to mind the Shelley poem Ozymandias (about Ramses II): I met a traveller from an antique land Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desart. Near them, on the sand, Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown, And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed: And on the pedestal these words appear: "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away.

by retrac 4y ago

withoutboats2 4y ago

> That single passing reference to him as King of Assyria, was everything that was known of him for 2500 years, until the ruins of Dur-Sharrukin, his capital (destroyed during the mentioned wars) were excavated in the 19th century. I only have a layman's knowledge of this part of history, but this strikes me as unlikely. Surely something was known of him for some time in other sources, probably hundreds of years at least, before those source were also lost? The loss of knowledge is also second-order: we have lost knowledge of what was known to our predecessors.

retrac 4y ago
Sure, I might have overstated the case a bit. There was scattered used of Akkadian as a written language into Alexander the Great's time; there was possibly some knowledge of that time in Babylon around then. Still, the end of Mesopotamian records is abrupt. There's a written record from prehistory until the wars of around 700 BC, where the use of writing drops off but doesn't completely stop. But written records in Akkadian, the education of priests and scribes in Akkadian and Sumerian (itself dead for 2000 years by then as a purely liturgical language) basically stops after the fall of Babylon in 539 BC. I'd note that writing in antiquity was deeply tied to both administration and to religion. The Persians were Zoroastrians; they do not seem to have oppressed, but state support went to Zoroastrianism and not the traditional Mesopotamian cults (and their scribes and schools). They imposed their own administrative structure on the conquered territories. Persian became the written standard, pretty much overnight. Akkadian seems to have ceased to be spoken within a couple generations among the ruling class, and within a few hundred more years it was not only dead but basically forgotten.
- wl 4y ago
  > Still, the end of Mesopotamian records is abrupt. There's a written record from prehistory until the wars of around 700 BC, where the use of writing drops off but doesn't completely stop. But written records in Akkadian, the education of priests and scribes in Akkadian and Sumerian (itself dead for 2000 years by then as a purely liturgical language) basically stops after the fall of Babylon in 539 BC. This probably isn't so much a move away from the use of writing, but a shift away from Akkadian cuneiform on clay tablets to Aramaic on vellum. Clay tablets, even unfired, survive a long time. Vellum doesn't in that climate.
  - oddly 4y ago
    I found these two episodes of the “Fall of civilizations” podcast to be very informative about the Sumerians and Assyrians. It’s episode 8[1] and 13[2], definitely worth a listen in my opinion. [1]: https://youtu.be/cq1g8czIBJY https://youtu.be/cq1g8czIBJY [2]: https://youtu.be/Qr4FiT0ks7I https://youtu.be/Qr4FiT0ks7I

wl 4y ago

Sargon also means "true king," an appropriate name for someone who probably killed his brother to usurp the throne and had plenty of legitimacy problems as a result. Moving the capital of the empire away from Kalhu to the newly-built fortress city of Dur-Sharrukin was in part an attempt to get away from his enemies and surround himself with loyal men. The capital Dur-Sharrukin was not destroyed in war. Rather, Sargon II died in battle and his body was not recovered, which was considered a very bad omen. This halted construction on the city and Sargon's successor, Sennacherib, moved the capitol yet again to Ninevah. It remained lightly used thereafter as an administrative center until it was abandoned at the fall of the empire. Part of the reason why Dur-Sharrukin was such a nice archeological site is because it wasn't destroyed in antiquity, but rather abandoned. (Modern war seems to have destroyed a lot there, how much is unclear.) Also, it was inhabited for about 100 years, so the stratigraphic record was really straightforward. If you find yourself in Chicago, you can see carved stone reliefs and a lamassu from the palace at Dur-Sharrukin at the Oriental Institute Museum at the University of Chicago.

pyuser583 4y ago
> Modern war seems to have destroyed a lot there, how much is unclear. If you’re talking about the recent Syrian war, Ive read there’s reason for optimism. Many of the ancient fortress were used by fighters, not necessarily to defend against attack. More to keep prisoner, train, etc. But what I read was about medieval Kracs, which are still functioning fortresses, not ancient Mesopotamian structures.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

ioblomov 4y ago

Calls to mind the Shelley poem Ozymandias (about Ramses II): I met a traveller from an antique land Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desart. Near them, on the sand, Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown, And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed: And on the pedestal these words appear: "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away.