Nimrod is still Narmer. That hasn't changed. I feel that he was known as Huni as well.
Sahure is an obscure figure and there doesn't seem to be a strong counterpart for him in Mesopotamia either. The name Sahure would imply "son of Horus" in addition to the direct meaning of "close to Re". Perhaps this is an indication that the main claim to fame of Sahure was that he was the son of the great king Narmer/Huni.
The Bible makes Nimrod the founder of Babylon and Agade, which archaeology attributes to Sargon. I still don't think that Nimrod could be one and the same as Sargon, but certainly there is far less separation between the two than presently believed. If Nimrod is also Huni and Sargon is Eannatum, then the gap between Narmer and Sargon is extremely small, in fact it is ridiculously small by current standards. There would also appear to be a direct lineage between them.
It would be nice if historical reality did not appear to be quite so outlandish, but it is what it is. If Sargon is Eannatum, then the dynastic period in Egypt and Sumer began as late as 1159 B.C. This date is that of the next known catastrophic event after the eruption of Thera. It does not pose a problem for me personally. All of dynastic history will fit comfortably after this date, but it dashes any remaining hope of acceptance for this model. Reality is not within socially acceptable bounds for potential solutions and therefore cannot be considered by any scholar who works within a social context, i.e., any university or proper institution!
Sargon was considered king of Assryia, but I haven't given any thought to what his Assyrian king name might have been, if in fact he had one apart from his Babylonian names. By Assur II do you mean Puzer-Assur II?
Responses To This Message
© Charles N. Pope, US Library of Congress. All rights reserved.