Talk:Akkadian Empire

	Akkadian Empire was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 11, 2007 Good article nominee Listed March 7, 2011 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Iraq Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Assyria Top‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyrian articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Ancient Near East Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Archaeology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles Iran High‑importance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Turkey High‑importance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Hi all, the article on the Akkad Empire on French WP has GA status. I've looked into it and overall it is much more balanced in its treatment of historical and archaeological sources and topics. I'm thinking about translating it to incorporate it into the English article. This is obviously going to be a major rewriting of the article so I would like to know how other editors feel about that before I proceed. Best, --Zoeperkoe (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits: Hi SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits, I saw that you're planning to rewrite this entire article, mostly (again) by copying stuff from other articles. I perceive your way of editing to be quite disruptive, so that's why I've reverted your edits. Please discuss your plans for this article here first before continuing. Thank you! Best, --Zoeperkoe (talk) 07:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Zoeperkoe: Why did you revert these edits here? These edits neither necessarily added nor removed any content. I didn't really copy and paste anything from other articles to this one. I was just doing some minor clean-up edits to the infoboxes and the list of kings. — SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits: Actually you did add information in the table on kings. Information which I think is not needed here since it is too specific for this article. Why do you think it should be in this article? And would it be possible to refrain from editing this article and the other one until we get this sorted out? --Zoeperkoe (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Zoeperkoe: OK. I undid my edits. — SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Zoeperkoe: I decided to re-add that previous table after having removed some of that "unnecessary content" on there. — SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits: I've made some changes as well. Please review the edit history of the article to see why I changed specific parts; it will give insights in why some changes you make are not considered improvements by others. It has partly to do with readability - you have a tendency to spell out every detail every time it comes up. That's not necessary. It also has partly to do with information that's just not correct. I know that for example the area estimates from Taagepera pop up everywhere on Wikipedia, but it's just not reliable. The same goes for a number of names of Akkadian kings during the interregnum period. Those names come from king lists, but these lists are not true historical accounts - they are literary devices to help explain the status quo and sometimes come from later periods and historical details are changed/made up as needed (and this goes for the Sumerian King List as well!). Hopefully this helps you to understand why I made certain changes! If you have questions about content, feel free to ask! Best, --Zoeperkoe (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings all and thank you to everyone who has been working on this article. Having recently found a few sources to add, and trying to consolidate some material, the biggest issue which arose was the uncertainty of the dates. (User:Zoeperkoe will have noticed that the French are much more cautious about this issue.) Consider this review by Zettler 2003, with emphasis added:

In his historical scenario Weiss has adopted the middle chronology in Brinkman's appendix to Oppenheim's Ancient Mesopotamia (1977:335–48), which has come to be cited more out of convenience than conviction by archaeologists and historians, and the 80 years he assigned to the Gutian interregnum. Brinkman's chronology places Sargon's accession at 2334, his successors, Naram-Suen and Sharkalisharri, under whom the dynasty presumably collapsed, at 2254–2218 and 2217–2193, respectively, and the Third Dynasty of Ur at 2112–2004. however, Brinkman noted that if Hallo's 40 year Gutian interregnum is correct then the Dynasty of Akkade would have to be dated 2293–2113. The middle chronology, however, is under attack, with various scholars arguing strongly in favor of a low(er) chronology and for various reasons. Without going into detail, Boese has placed Sargon's accession at shortly after 2250 (1982), Gasche, Armstrong, Cole and Gurzadyan at 2200 (1998) and Reade at 2180 (2001), with the Third Dynasty of Ur moved according.

In other words we are dealing with a range of possible dates for Sargon's accession spanning 154 years, from 2334 to 2180. What's worse, we are currently using an extreme from the range, a figure from 1977 which Zettler says "has come to be cited more out of convenience than conviction by archaeologists and historians". Thus the starting date for the "Akkadian Empire" might be 2257 +/- 77 ... or perhaps one might write: 'around the 23rd century BC.

The infobox template seems to demand year numbers. Honestly, I would recommend scrapping it and using the map with an informative caption instead. The categories of information presented therein are really not very helpful for this time period—they work better for better-understood countries with clearer lines of succession.

Throughout the article the issue of dates must be considered. In the body of the French article they're giving one date, followed by another one 50 years later. Sometimes they give just a century. The fact is, these events can be organized relative to each other in an ordinal chronology, but the absolute dates are uncertain, and the article should reflect that.

Also undetermined seems to be the geographical extent of the Akkadian Empire, an issue which the article should probably address head-on. In general I don't think we should be afraid to acknowledge uncertainty where it exists. Aloha ÷ groupuscule (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback: Nice chapter that can be added - Akkad in popular culture.

Anonymous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.34.111 (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it pronounced /əˈkeɪdiən/ instead of /ˈækædiən/ ? CielProfond (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"third syllable from the end" rule (which has no real historical basis but which is just how we pronounce Ancient Greek in English and the habit has spread out from there) 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:5D2F:B51B:BB78:D221 (talk) 10:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a source^[1] which says Sargon's empire was founded in 3800 BC while on this article the empire's founding date is 2334 BC. Shahanshah5 (talk) 09:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with the differences between the

@Dimadick:, no. Shahanshah5 (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The Bible refers to Akkad in Genesis 10:10[11], which states that the beginning of Nimrod's kingdom was in the land of Akkad. Nimrod's historical identity is unknown, but some have compared him with the legendary Gilgamesh, founder of Uruk." First, this shouldn't be the lead of the history section. Second, this should go in to its own "Biblical" section. Unlike the mythologized Gilgamesh, there is no evidence for Nimrod ever existing, and the Mesopotamian's themselves never mentioned such a person ever existing, in their histories or mythology. JanderVK (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does Tal Banat have anything to do with the Tell Banat Complex? --Slashme (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone recently changed the intro from saying that the Akkadian Empire was the "First Empire of Ancient Mesopotamia" to the "Second Empire of Mesopotamia". The Sumerians how ever were not really an Empire, but a collection of city-states right? Is there a candidate for a Sumerian Empire founded by one of the cities, or should it be changed back?NDV135 (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

somewhere during? "somewhere between the 3rd and the 2nd millennia BC" would be the year 2000 BC, which is pretty precise and probably not what is meant. or "somewhere between the 2500 and the 1500 millennia BC" perhaps? 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:5D2F:B51B:BB78:D221 (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Corrected पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the status of former country, because when you look up Akkadian Empire it says Country in the top right. Beardogloveraaaa (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The British Museum says the original head is copper, not bronze. Philgoetz (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article (which is linked in the footnote in the image caption), the head is made of bronze, athough with some uncertainty. In this case, I would think that the article is more reliable than the object entry in the British Museum catalogue. Zoeperkoe (talk) 09:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A big mistake! The article is from 1916, by Agatha Christie's husband (later), and says "The metal has not yet been analysed, but it would appear to be bronze ...". Like many museums the BM no longer uses "bronze" but "copper alloy", as bronze is such a slippery term. They are in any case far more likely to have the best and most up to date info. Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mallowan does say "appears to be bronze" but the later paper "Westenholz, Joan Goodnick. “The Old Akkadian Presence in Nineveh: Fact or Fiction.” Iraq, vol. 66, 2004, pp. 7–18" says it is hollow cast copper based on analysis done in the 1980s referencing "Strommenger, E. [1985-6]. Early Metal Figures from Assur and the Technology of Metal Casting. Sumer 42: 114-15." and "Moorey, P. R. S. 1982. The Archaeological Evidence for Metallurgy and Related Technologies in Mesopotamia, ca. 5500-2100 BC. Iraq 44: 13-38". The Sumer paper at least in available on the Internet.Ploversegg (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]