Nimrod's Wall in Jordan

Ok guys, I'm gonna try my best to put my research together and share my information with you. First of all, let me point out that I'm just an armchair history buff... I have no qualifications whatsoever in the field of archaelogy, or sumerology, egyptology, babylology, etc. My sources come from a variety of areas on the internets. Many of the research is from other people, but using my own mind to connect the dots to form my own expanded theory.

Recently, there has been an ancient wall "discovered" in Jordan. There was a post about it here www.abovetopsecret.com...

^^^ Basically it is the ruins of a wall extending, if I'm not mistaken, North to South on the Western side of Jordan. Not too far from Modern day Israel. No one knows who built it or why this wall was built. The wall is only several feet high and runs for 150km, with "towers" along the wall. I really doubt this wall is for defensive purposes, but I think it is more or less a boundry marker. Kind of like "this is my land, this is your land...stay on your side." It was a border marker fitted with outposts to keep uninvited people from crossing into your land. Pretty much a visual marker of property dividing two groups of people. I believe I have possibly found it's original builder, whom I speculate was the notorious Sumerian/Babylonian king Enmerkar from the Sumerian Kings List. Enmerkar was the 3rd post-flood King of Sumer. David Rohl created his theory that Enmerkar is the biblical Nimrod, and I think this is certainly the truth. I did not come up with this, but it all checks out and I believe this to be fact. The biblical Nimrod was a real king of Sumer. If you are unfamiliar with this theory, read about it here: xenohistorian.wordpress.com...

Now pouring through different texts regarding the life of Enmerkar (NMRD-Nimrod), I stumbled upon a very interesting tale. In the story, LugalBanda and the Anzud Bird, 50 years into Enmerkar's reign the Martu people started to rise up all throughout Akkad and Sumer. This made it necessary for Enmerkar/Nimrod to build a wall in the desert to protect Urak. Urak was Enmerkar's capital city located sort of south-east in Modern day Iraq. Trouble was coming to the areas of Akkad and Sumer by means of the Martu people. The Mar.tu, is the Sumerian name for the Amorites, and their homeland is in Canaan. The text clearly states that Enmerkar built a wall in the desert to protect his capital Urak. It doesn't say he "built a wall around Urak", no no no. That's not what the text states! He built a wall in the desert to protect his empire from the Amorites, who were from the land of Canaan. Amorite land in Canaan directly borders modern day Jordan. When LugalBanda and the Anzud Bird was written, the writer probably meant Canaanites in general were coming into Akkad and Sumer. A wall with towers and stationed soldiers would be a great way to keep pesky Mar.tu from coming in and causing trouble.

I'm no professional archealogist, but that ancient wall found in Jordan looks old. Really, really old. It's rocks were primitively stacked which is why it's in such bad shape today. It kind of reminds me of Hadrian's wall, built to keep the barbaric other half out...




I'm 99% certain biblical Nimrod existed, and so did Semeramis. But that is a whole number of pages for a new post!

Nice dot-connecting! I just love to see the bones and stones in accord with ancient tales.

a reply to: kef33890
There would be no need for a king of Sumer in Mesopotamia to build a boundary wall so close to the Jordan.
There is a wide desert between the two areas, which would be sufficient boundary with Canaan, and any enemies of Sumer on that side would be coming in from the desert itself.

Whether boundary line or defence, the builders are going to be closer at hand.
During the Old Testament period, the land just east of the Jordan was inhabited by part of Israel, and they were troubled by tribes further to the east, north-east, and south-east.
The wall may not belong to that era, but it would surely belong to a similar social situation in that era or another. It goes with the geography of the region.

Really thought-provoking post; I enjoy how you've connected ideas with "four or five degrees of separation" so to speak, and it sounds plausible, especially considering the information in your links. Good read. I look forward to your expounding on this subject.

a reply to: kef33890

I was really enjoying your post until...

It kind of reminds me of Hadrian's wall, built to keep the barbaric other half out...

But even as part of the 'barbaric other half' (because I can assure you the Romans were no angels), I like your train of thought. Everything starts with wondering, getting some feedback, wondering a bit more and so on until your ideas make sense.

Although some have suggested it wouldn't have been built for defensive reasons, that doesn't mean to say it wasn't sited along a previous boundary.

The purpose of the wall is also a mystery. Its low height and narrowness indicate that it wasn't constructed for defensive reasons, said Kennedy and Banks. Traces of ancient agriculture are more visible to the west of the wall than to the east, suggesting the structure marked a boundary between ancient farmers and nomadic pastoralists, the researchers said. Or it may have marked a different type of boundary.

So far, the only dating information the scientists have comes from pottery found in the towers and other sites along the wall, Kennedy said. Based on the pottery found to date, the wall was likely built sometime between the Nabataean period (312 B.C.–A.D. 106) and the Umayyad period (A.D. 661–750), Kennedy said.

archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.co.uk...

They also go on to state that they need more fieldwork to ascertain it's use and builders, so who knows? I'll look forwards to your Nimrod thread.

a reply to: kef33890

Good thread....

I was actually talking about nimrod to a mate last night.... funny then, that this should pop up now.

This is very impressive and you should expound on it!

a reply to: DISRAELI

To be fair that area of desert was probably green and arible land back then, climate change is nothing new so it may not have been the border it seem's today, not only that but these ancient people were excellant at irrigating the land and slowing desertification, Iraq for instance was very green until the mongol's smashed the ancient babylonian cannals which were then still in use which caused a change in the environment of Iraq and allowed the then fertile farm lands to turn to dust and desert.

Back to Jordan though climate change about 4000 years ago which is backed up by core studies mean's that prior to that time Jordan was probably much wetter and fertile, this fertile nature of the land is how those early civilization were able to build up sizable populations and to heavily settle the land's there as well.

So he may be onto something, intriguing anyway.

a reply to: LABTECH767
Yes, the area just east of Jordan must have been fairly green, because it was occupied in the Old Testament stories.
But the bulk of the area between Canaan and Sumer would still have been desert.
Therefore historians speak of the "fertile crescent", referring to the shape of the arable territory with a western wing down the Mediterranean coast and an eastern wing down the Mesopotamian plain, joined at the centre, as today, by the populated areas of Syria and northern Iraq.
The prophets describe most of the enemies of Israel as "the north", because the armies of Assyria, Babylon, Persia, would go through Syria and approach Israel from the north, instead of following the direct east-to-west route which would have taken them straight across the desert.

That is why I think a Sumerian borderline on the edge of Jordanian lands would be far too advanced.
It would actually be incorporating the same desert-wandering tribes they were trying to protect themselves against.
I still think my "local boundary" theory makes much more sense.

I can see a huge problem that your idea needs to address:

50 years into Enmerkar's reign the Martu people started to rise up all throughout Akkad and Sumer. This made it necessary for Enmerkar/Nimrod to build a wall in the desert to protect Ura

* the length of his reign is 400 years (and his successor supposedly reigned for 1200 years)
* the Sumerian King's list puts his reign about 4500 BC
* BUT... the Amorite ("Martu") as a people and as a kingdom didn't exist until around 2200 BC
* The wars with the Amroites were around 2200-2000 BC
* that's during the third dynasty, the reign of Sargon of Uruk and the Akkadian dynasty

So the mythical king existed 2,000 years before the people he was supposed to be building a wall against.

(there are other problems but that was the first one that struck me.)

a reply to: Byrd

I tried to explain the numbers on the Kings list years ago, but you didn't know enough about how it was compiled to understand it


* the length of his reign is 400 years (and his successor supposedly reigned for 1200 years)
should read
* the length of his reign is 7 years (and his successor supposedly reigned for 20 years)

originally posted by: Marduk
a reply to: Byrd

I tried to explain the numbers on the Kings list years ago, but you didn't know enough about how it was compiled to understand it


* the length of his reign is 400 years (and his successor supposedly reigned for 1200 years)
should read
* the length of his reign is 7 years (and his successor supposedly reigned for 20 years)

It's consistent with other legendary kings lists, where vaguely remembered rulers (and deities) are given impossibly long reigns. The earliest attested king that I know of in the area is Mesannepada, about 2500 BC. - but if you have a link to scholarly papers explaining the date compression, I'd love to read it since I don't know that much about the Mesopotamian area.

In any case, the dates are still problematic.

Thank all of you for your support, and criticism! Like I said I'm no professional, just a guy who likes history and anything mysterious...

originally posted by: beansidhe
a reply to: kef33890

I was really enjoying your post until...

It kind of reminds me of Hadrian's wall, built to keep the barbaric other half out...

But even as part of the 'barbaric other half' (because I can assure you the Romans were no angels), I like your train of thought. Everything starts with wondering, getting some feedback, wondering a bit more and so on until your ideas make sense.

Although some have suggested it wouldn't have been built for defensive reasons, that doesn't mean to say it wasn't sited along a previous boundary.

The purpose of the wall is also a mystery. Its low height and narrowness indicate that it wasn't constructed for defensive reasons, said Kennedy and Banks. Traces of ancient agriculture are more visible to the west of the wall than to the east, suggesting the structure marked a boundary between ancient farmers and nomadic pastoralists, the researchers said. Or it may have marked a different type of boundary.

So far, the only dating information the scientists have comes from pottery found in the towers and other sites along the wall, Kennedy said. Based on the pottery found to date, the wall was likely built sometime between the Nabataean period (312 B.C.–A.D. 106) and the Umayyad period (A.D. 661–750), Kennedy said.

archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.co.uk...

They also go on to state that they need more fieldwork to ascertain it's use and builders, so who knows? I'll look forwards to your Nimrod thread.

I'm sorry for how I worded that! I'm actually of Scottish descent myself. It more or less was meant to be a quotation of the oppressive Romans who thought Scotland was full of barbarians.. But I can certainly see how it was taken the wrong way!

Yes, the area just east of Jordan must have been fairly green, because it was occupied in the Old Testament stories.
But the bulk of the area between Canaan and Sumer would still have been desert.
Therefore historians speak of the "fertile crescent", referring to the shape of the arable territory with a western wing down the Mediterranean coast and an eastern wing down the Mesopotamian plain, joined at the centre, as today, by the populated areas of Syria and northern Iraq.
The prophets describe most of the enemies of Israel as "the north", because the armies of Assyria, Babylon, Persia, would go through Syria and approach Israel from the north, instead of following the direct east-to-west route which would have taken them straight across the desert.

That is why I think a Sumerian borderline on the edge of Jordanian lands would be far too advanced.
It would actually be incorporating the same desert-wandering tribes they were trying to protect themselves against.
I still think my "local boundary" theory makes much more sense.

I understand your point completely. Yes, it would make sense for the Amorites to attack Nimrods territory via a route that isn't desert. However, that is assuming they are attacking up in northern Akkad/Sumer. The text of LugalBanda and the Anzud Bird states that Enmerkar had to build a wall in the desert to protect Urak. Urak is almost in the very South East of Sumer/Akkad. To me it would make sense for the Amorites to march eastward through Jordan to attack Enmerkar's capital, Urak... Especially considering how far South it is. The Sumerian empire didn't include much of Arabia at all. However, according to a non-biblical Persian source, Nimrod was allied with Ariaeus, King of Arabia. So by building a wall bordering Canaan, in Jordan, Nimrod is forcing them to take the Northern route....up, around, and then down to Urak. But who knows. I'm just throwing darts in the dark, so who knows if I'm connecting the dots in anywhere near the right way.

the length of his reign is 400 years (and his successor supposedly reigned for 1200 years)
* the Sumerian King's list puts his reign about 4500 BC
* BUT... the Amorite ("Martu") as a people and as a kingdom didn't exist until around 2200 BC
* The wars with the Amroites were around 2200-2000 BC
* that's during the third dynasty, the reign of Sargon of Uruk and the Akkadian dynasty

So the mythical king existed 2,000 years before the people he was supposed to be building a wall against.

(there are other problems but that was the first one that struck me.)

Thank you kindly, Byrd, for your input. When it comes to Enmerkar, no one is really certain how to interpret the recorded time on the Sumerian Kings list. But there are numerous other sources which tell Nimrods actual time of reign. The Persian royal records claim that King Ninus/Nimrod's reign ended in 2189 BC, which actually places Enmerkar perfectly with the Amorites. Proving Enmerkar and Nimrod/Ninus are the same person is a good start to hammer out the propper interpretation of the kings list, but that is a whole other thread!

All though you got me regarding the seemingly parallel rule of Sargon of Akkad... I need to research that, and how his birth and rule dates were determined, and if there is any room for error in it's interpretation. Good job!

Nice find Semeramis, Nimrod & Tammuz seem related to many later described GODS or Mythical deities stories lines. For example LUNAR?/NITE GODDESS INNANA,ISHTAR,ISIS (super fail) LILITH

related. BASTETS...


And then OSIRIS,HORUS-CHRIST, MARY, JOSEPH?
VISHNU, SHIVA GANESH?
a reply to: kef33890

NAMASTE*******

originally posted by: kef33890
Urak is almost in the very South East of Sumer/Akkad. To me it would make sense for the Amorites to march eastward through Jordan to attack Enmerkar's capital, Urak... Especially considering how far South it is. The Sumerian empire didn't include much of Arabia at all

If you check an atlas, you will see how the further south you go, the wider is the desert berween the Jordan region and Mesopotamia. Armies don't cross that desert. If they want to attack that south-east region, they go down-river.
Even God, in Ezekiel ch1, takes that route, travelling from Jerusalem but approaching his rendezvous with Ezekiel from the north.
How would the Sumerians keep a garrison supplied at that distance from their own lands?
But as a local protection/boundary for the Jordan peoples against the tribes in the adjacent territory, it would make much more sense.

originally posted by: kef33890
When it comes to Enmerkar, no one is really certain how to interpret the recorded time on the Sumerian Kings list.

Actually, scholars have an explanation based on other kings' lists and historical records and archaeological evidence. These are later compositions and refer to earlier myths - the "evidence" is basically the culture's attempt to make a history for themselves saying "we have always been here." This is why they are in conflict with the actual archaeological data and why they're unreliable after a certain point.

Recent analysis of linguistic structure and other textual evidence suggests that the "antediluvian kings" (the legendary, impossible length rulers) was something added much later.

But there are numerous other sources which tell Nimrods actual time of reign. The Persian royal records claim that King Ninus/Nimrod's reign ended in 2189 BC, which actually places Enmerkar perfectly with the Amorites.

Could I have a citation on this? The records I have state that the earliest mention of Nimrod is in the Bible and that later mentions were from Christian and Muslim sources (both based on the Old Testament.)
en.wikipedia.org...

Proving Enmerkar and Nimrod/Ninus are the same person is a good start to hammer out the propper interpretation of the kings list, but that is a whole other thread!

How do you deal with the rulers found in the archaeological record who are known and attested rulers (such as Me-Salim)and yet are not on the kings list that you selected?

Are you going to use a single source (prism)? If so, what drove the choice of material you use? Is it just "I googled this and this is the list that came up?" Or is it "I chose these sources and put them in this order of importance?"

What about Jacobsen's research that shows the "list" was actually compiled from multiple individual sources and were heavily biased?

All though you got me regarding the seemingly parallel rule of Sargon of Akkad... I need to research that, and how his birth and rule dates were determined, and if there is any room for error in it's interpretation. Good job!

Others have made this same argument for the past 110 years or so, though none have been extremely convincing. You might like to check out the following papers and other similar resources:

Prince, J. Dyneley. "Note on Akkad." Journal of Biblical Literature 25.1 (1906): 55-57. (primarily suffers from being 100 years out of date)

Levin, Yigal. "Nimrod the mighty, king of Kish, king of Sumer and Akkad." Vetus testamentum 52.3 (2002): 350-366.

Blosser, Oliver R. "Was Nimrod-Sargon of Agade, the First King of Babylon?." It's About Time (1987): 10-13.

Freewalt, Jason, and Leda Ciraolo. "SARGON THE GREAT OF AKKAD: THE FIRST EMPIRE BUILDER OF MESOPOTAMIA." (2014). (interesting, but some weak points)

Van Der Kooij, A. "“NIMROD, A MIGHTY HUNTER BEFORE THE LORD!” ASSYRIAN ROYAL IDEOLOGY AS PERCEIVED IN THE HEBREW BIBLE." Journal for Semitics 21.1 (2012): 1-27. (this, frankly was the better one out of the bunch)

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Marduk
a reply to: Byrd

I tried to explain the numbers on the Kings list years ago, but you didn't know enough about how it was compiled to understand it


* the length of his reign is 400 years (and his successor supposedly reigned for 1200 years)
should read
* the length of his reign is 7 years (and his successor supposedly reigned for 20 years)

It's consistent with other legendary kings lists, where vaguely remembered rulers (and deities) are given impossibly long reigns. The earliest attested king that I know of in the area is Mesannepada, about 2500 BC. - but if you have a link to scholarly papers explaining the date compression, I'd love to read it since I don't know that much about the Mesopotamian area.

In any case, the dates are still problematic.

Enmebaragesi is the earliest attested from Archaeology
en.wikipedia.org...
He reigned for 900 years according to the list, in reality that translates to 15 years
Mesannepada was on the throne for 1 year 4 months

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Marduk
a reply to: Byrd

I tried to explain the numbers on the Kings list years ago, but you didn't know enough about how it was compiled to understand it


* the length of his reign is 400 years (and his successor supposedly reigned for 1200 years)
should read
* the length of his reign is 7 years (and his successor supposedly reigned for 20 years)

It's consistent with other legendary kings lists, where vaguely remembered rulers (and deities) are given impossibly long reigns. The earliest attested king that I know of in the area is Mesannepada, about 2500 BC. - but if you have a link to scholarly papers explaining the date compression, I'd love to read it since I don't know that much about the Mesopotamian area.

In any case, the dates are still problematic.

Enmebaragesi is the earliest attested from Archaeology
en.wikipedia.org...
He reigned for 900 years according to the list, in reality that translates to 15 years
Mesannepada was on the throne for 1 year 4 months

Well, it doesn't "translate" to 15 years but he was real and reigned 15 years.

Now... I am NOT an Assyriologist (nor do I play one on television) but I suspect that the "He ruled for 900 years" is from a much later date and by a king who wanted to legitimize his rule. We see this in Egypt (and elsewhere) when someone has taken power and wants to make it appear to be legitimate - the "natural, ordained by the gods" process. So the Abydos Kings List cuts out Akhenaten and his family and skips Hatshepsut to show an "Approved List of Rulers" that leads to Seti I and his dear son Rameses II.

So this is something to keep in mind when looking at kings lists with unusual claims... that often they're done for the purpose of announcing that the current ruler is a justified choice of the gods and reigns with the approval of his or her ancestors. So it's actually political rather than truly historical.

a reply to: Byrd

Thanks Byrd for the info. My source on his rule ending in 2189 BC is a bit newer than the Genesis account, but comes from Royal Persian Records which were originally written by the Babylonian Berossus on the rule of Nimrod. Though the only surviving account of Berossus is written by more contemporary historians like Ctesias. Numerous other writers quote from Berossus, like Heroduttus. But I find Ctesias more trustworthy.

I don't know how the date 2189 BC is calculated because the texts dont mention anything besides Ninus's reign lasting 52 years.

Regarding which Kings List I use, I think all of them are talking about the same kings with different names from different times. The story about one kingship passing to the other city typically was added at a later date.. By people who didn't understand each list was talking about some of the same Kings... As matter of fact, I will post a source that in my eyes proves with no doubt all this.

As for Sargon of Akkad, he ruled much, much later than the 25th century bc. Sargon of Akkad is Sargon I, and he ruled between 1600 bc and 1900 bc. Our mainstream view of the time line of ancient civilizations is quite a bit off. Modern scholars are far too stuck in old ways, and I also believe our ancient ancestors aren't given nearly enough credit. People think they were incapable of recording history without embellishing it with fantasy.

Berossus

I will update with sources in a little bit. Thank you.

Chronology Adjusted Correctly

originally posted by: kef33890
a reply to: Byrd

Thanks Byrd for the info. My source on his rule ending in 2189 BC is a bit newer than the Genesis account, but comes from Royal Persian Records which were originally written by the Babylonian Berossus on the rule of Nimrod. Though the only surviving account of Berossus is written by more contemporary historians like Ctesias. Numerous other writers quote from Berossus, like Heroduttus. But I find Ctesias more trustworthy.

What is your opinion of the statement (in Wikipedia but seen elsewhere) that Ctesias' account does not match the cuneiform kings lists?

(and the corollary that Ctesias' errors make Herodotus look far more trustworthy?)

I don't know how the date 2189 BC is calculated because the texts dont mention anything besides Ninus's reign lasting 52 years.

If it's from a scholarly source (or from the summarized Wikipedia list) it's done by finding a known date in a reign, finding out what year of that king it was (because they counted years as "year 3 of King Sargon" rather than "the year 2185"), then confirming who the previous king was and looking for items that had the highest year of that king's reign (usually found in proclamations or in grave goods of royals and elites)... and that would be an estimated length for that king's reign... and laboriously working their way backward. In this case, they do have artifacts from Sargon's sons (Rimush and Manishtusu) and grandson and so forth, including interactions with the Egyptians. So they can match king against king to help firm up the timelines.

If it's from another source, I have no clue how they'd derive the date.

Regarding which Kings List I use, I think all of them are talking about the same kings with different names from different times.

Artifacts such as royal seals, letters, documents, and so forth indicate that they are different kings...and that the lists on prisms are somewhat biased.

As for Sargon of Akkad, he ruled much, much later than the 25th century bc. Sargon of Akkad is Sargon I, and he ruled between 1600 bc and 1900 bc. Our mainstream view of the time line of ancient civilizations is quite a bit off. Modern scholars are far too stuck in old ways, and I also believe our ancient ancestors aren't given nearly enough credit. People think they were incapable of recording history without embellishing it with fantasy.

You might want to be very careful with your research if you're starting with Rohl. His revised Egyptian history is incorrect. He ignores evidence such as the names and periods of service of officials (who often served under multiple kings and recorded this in their tombs) and wine jar labels and letters and so forth to attempt to force history onto his version of the Bible time line. If this is what he's doing, you should check other sources.

And actually, Egyptologists (and I'm sure Assyriologists and other -ologists) generally assume that people are relating the truth in things like tomb inscriptions that tell about their own careers and so forth. And even Herodotus and others have value, though deciding which bits to accept and which to reject take a lot of thoughtful consideration and study.