Accad, accadians (Hastings' Dictionary)

Accad (or Akkad), with Babel, Erech, and Calneh, was one of the chief cities in the land of Shinar. These four con- stituted the beginning of the kingdom of Nimrod (Gn 10'"). The LXX tesAs' AniS. The Bab.-Assyr. inscriptions are the source of aU our information on this name. It was at first supposed that Akkadu, occurring so frequently in tne inscriptions in connexion with Sumer, referred only to a district or province.

But it is now known that there was a city of that name (Hilprecht, Freibrief Neb. i. col. u. L 50). lU form is "^^ ^^^H^^ and is read al Akkad [or 'non-Sem.' Aqade), city of Accad, the name under which the city was for long centuries known. It was the residence of the first historical ruler of all Babylonia, Sargon I., whose activity dates from 3800 B.C., according to the statement of Nabonidus (555-538 B.C.), an inscrip- tion discovered in 1881 on the site of Sippar.

Frequent references to two Sippars, ' Sippar of the Sun-god' and 'Sippar of Anunit,' indicate some strange fortunes in connexion with this site. The worship of Ishtar of Accad was replaced by that of Anunit of Sijipar. In very early times Sippar was the chief seat of sun-worship, and Accad of Ishtar worship.

Gradually there was a political absorption, and all references seem to justify the assumption that of those two cities lying close together, Siiipar with its Sun-god became the more powerful, and practically absorbed Accad. The worship of Ishtar, however, did not lose its identity, but was continued under the name of Sippar of Anunit (McCurdy, Hist. Prophecy and the Monuments, § 94).

It is possible, but still unproved, tliat the city of Accad lay opposite to Sippar on the left bank of the Euphrates. Ita exact site is a matter of doubt, but it is thou|;ht to have been located near Abu-habba, about fifteen aCCAD. ACCADIANS ACCEPT, ACCEPTABLE 21 milea west of Baghdad. Delitzsch conjectures that it may have been one of the two cities which ixjre the name of Sepharvaim, but McCurdy locates this double city in N. Syria (§ 349). The Wolfe expedi- tion to Babylonia in 1884-85 (cf.

Report, pp. 24, 25) located it at Anbar, on the Euphrates, N. W. of the ruins of Babylon. It was probably the cajutal city of mAt Akkatli. (Consult for greater fulness the literature named below.) From ancient times the kings of Babylonia, and the kinfre of Assyria who ruled over this territory, appended to their names Sar SumSri u Akkadi, king of Sumer and Akkad. Now, what was the orifjin of this double title? It was probably not indicative of the two regions of Babylonia, b. and N.

, as kings who ruled only over S. Babylonia claimed it. It was also claimed by conquerors who had not advanced farther S. than Nippur (cf. Winckler, Untersuch. z. altorient. Ga. 6511'.) It seems, then, that ' Sumer and Accad,' in the titles of kings, may have been no more than a claim to the ancient territory and city of Accad, with additional territory (cf. McCurdy, § 110). (For other yiewa of the question, cf. Schrader, Keilinsrhriftcn u. Geschichtaf. p. 533 f. ; I)elitz.sch, Parodies, p.

198 ; Tiele, Gesch. Babyl.-Assijriens, part L p. 76 1.) Upon the identification of these names with specific localities ha.s been built up the theory of the so-called Siunerians and Accadians. To the consideration of this theory we will now turn our attention. It is maintained by a certain school of Oriental historians and linguists, that the lower Mesopo- tamian valley was at an early day populated oy the Accadians, who were originally related to the Sumerians.

They epoko, it is said, an agglutina- tive language. In the midst of these peoples Sem. tribes settled down, and adopted the language and customs of their foresettlers. Step by step the Sem. language gained ascendency, ana about 1200 B.C. tlie native tongue died out, except as a sacred and literary vehicle, in which capacity it served until a late date. It is claimed that those early nonSem.

peoples reached a high degree of civilisa- tion, that they left many traces of their culture in their monuments of art and language, and that we can readily interpret them. '1 his supposed pre- historic people and their language are termed among Eng. Assyriologists, 'Accadians,' among French and German ' Sumerians,' derived from the supposedly most important localities where the most ancient inscrijitions are found.

On the other hand, there is a growing school which maintains that the Semites, whom we know as pos-iessing the cuneiform characters, were the inventors of these last and the developers of Sem. culture, and that the so-called 'Sumerians' and ' Accadians ' are but figments of an over-zealous scientific sinrit. A few only of the points can be noticed. We find in the inscriptions of Assyria and Babylonia word-lists which give a twofold, and sometimes a threefold, explanation of cuneiform ideograms.

These ideograms are found in all stages of the Bab.-As-syr. language. In these lists one column of explanations gives us regular Sem. words, and another, words somewhat unfamiliar In sound, which are supposed to be of nonSem. origin. But careful scrutiny shows that these •trange words yield to Sem. roots, and that even the most unfamiliar are simply made up of possible word-forms of the same idiom, disguised according to regular ascertainable methods.

Again, what can be said of so-called bilingual or unilingual texts ? In both ca-ses we meet with an abundance of these disguised Sem. words, and of Sem. gram- matical constructions and modes of thought. The evidence of the slight remains of prehistoric art in Babylon is not decisive. Again, the Sem. Baby- lonians never in any way speak of or allude to any such people as the supposed Sumerians or Accadians.

Still, the same language was used in Babylon dowr to the latest period of its history, with no name, nor even a tradition, of that supposed great and inlluential nation whose heritage fell to the Semites. Other peoples who came into contact with the Babylonians, and who exercised consider- able influence on them, e.g. the Elamites, receive frequent mention, but there is not the slightest allusion to an Accadian race.

It is not impossible that new discoveries may remedy this defect, but it is certainly amazing that what is assumed to have been the most influential factor in early Bab. civilisation is entirely unmentioned. When we find that Sera, documents date from as early a period as the earliest so-called 'Accadian,' and that this hypothetical language was used along- side of the regular Sem. for nearly 3000 years, we are inclined to ask, ' What does this mean !

' In an examination of the language, we find many Sem. words and values which at first sight do not admit of such an explanation. But it is a fact that the number which do admit of it is con- tinually increasing. Out of 395 phonetic values, Prof. Delitzsch names 106 which he regards as demonstrably Sem. {Assyrische Grammatik, § 25). Prof. McCurdy adds more than 40 others, running up the list to about 150 values.

It is not impos- siule that further investigation may greatly in- crease the number. But do not the inscriptions from Telloh, which are plainly ideographic, furnish conclusive proof of the soundness of the Accadian theory ? So one might expect ; but we are already finding in them actual Sem. words, disguised under the forms which are found in later bilingual texts. Besides, it is found that the oldest kings of ' Ur of the Chaldees,' the founders of the first Bab. kingdom, knew how to write Sem.

as well as ' Accadian ' inscriptions. [Note by Editor. — Professor Price has been permitted to state his view of this question unre- servedly. For he is himself an accompiislied student of As.syriology, and he has the support of some eminent scholars (see especially McCurdy, Huitory, Prophecy, and the Monuments, i. 87 tf.)

But the Editor thinks it necessary to say that the weight of authority is undoubtedly on the other side, lead- ing Assyriologists everywhere having come to the conclusion that the view which Professor Price com- bats is substantially true. Tlie reader should, how- ever, consult the literature which Professor Price has given below, representing both sides of the ques- tion, and the articles As.svuia and Babylonia.] LmRATTB*.— Schrader, Zur Fragi nach d. Urtpr. d. altbab. Kuitur, 1883; HAXipt.

Akkadisehe und .'<u7nfruche Enitchr\ft- UxU, 16811.; Die SumeriMch-Akkadische Sprache, VerK. bten Or. C&ng. tl. pp. 249-287 ; Die SumerUchen FamiXimgttetu, 1879 ; Hommcl, Zeittch./. KtiUchr\ftJor$chung, vol 1. p. 2U f. : Zimmern, Babylonitch liuttjimttrwn, 1886, p. 71 1.; Hommel, Om. Bah.-A: 1885, 240 II. ; Tiele, Bab.Ai. Get. 188fif., 68; lial6vy, Aper^ grammaticat <U CAlUt^jraphie oj.-bab. 1HS3 ; Milatujet de critique «t d'hittoirf retatyft aux pniplr »fmit\qxif4, 1883: Delitzsch, At.

(framrtuUiJc, 1880, 1 26 ■ McCurdy, Pretb. and Kc/- Beviev. J»n. 181(1, pp. 68-81 ; Hist. Proph. and Hon. 1894. I. H 7»-8.'i ; llomiml, Sumeritche Letettiielu, 1804 ; several articles Id Znitehryft Jtir Attyriotogi*, by UalAvy, Ouyard, and otliers. Ira M. Prick.