We cannot talk of nations. Nations as we know them did not exist until the second half of the third millennium, but we can talk of peoples, city-states, and lands of shared culture.

Septuagint vs. Samaritan vs. Masoretic

Biblical assumptions to dating

counted vs constructed

New anthropology vs. old anthropology vs. True Myth vs. Biblical history

...the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat. - Genesis 8:4 

There is a curious bit of argument between Isaac Asimov in AGB (1981, pg. 41):  

Notice that a specific mountain peak is not named. There is no mention of a "Mount Ararat." Instead the Bible clearly states "the mountains of Ararat," implying Ararat to be a region or nation within which there was a mountain range on which the ark came to rest. The Anchor Bible translates the phrase as "the Ararat range."

If further Biblical evidence is needed that Ararat is a region and not a mountain, it can be found in the fifty-first chapter of Jeremiah.... 

...and Isaac Asimov in ITB (1981, pg.168): 

Despite the fact that a land is named, and a mountain range, there is a general feeling that Ararat is the name of a definite mountain peak. 

Contradiction! Must be two different authors! Time to fire up the Asimovian Documentary Hypothesis!

Not really. Asimov wrote the ITB in the 1970s and the publisher originally decided not to publish it. When the 1981 edition of the AGB was slated to come out from Wings Books, Crown Publishers released the ITB to capitalize on the publicity. There are several of these discrepancies between the books, but none of them amount to more than a minor change of opinion. However, these minor differences in thought are precisely the type of "contradictions" that are used to justify the Documentary Hypothesis. 

Even pointing this out as some sort of discrepancy in Asimov's work is too much. In the ITB, he is not stating what he believes, but trying to hypothesize why other people would eventually be led to believe the ark landed on the highest peak in Turkey, a volcano with an elevation of 16,854 ft (5137 m) that was given the name Mount Ararat sometime around the 12th century AD. This of course is the archetype of an "updated" tradition and so legitimately deserves some hypothesizing as to how such a wrong idea came to be.

Mountain or Nation? 

If the Flood is a Mesopotamian story, then we should expect Hebrew words to be translated from Mesopotamian writing. While the Bible speaks of the ark landing in the "mountains of Ararat," the Sumerian Flood story - potentially the oldest story - puts Ziudsura - their Noah - disembarking in Dilmun somewhere south of Susa down to the eastern shore of the Persian Gulf. The Flood Story, Segment E (ETCSL 1.7.4)

3. More and more animals disembarked onto the earth [ki-ta]. 

4-5. Zi-ud-sura the king prostrated [giri17 ki su-ub = "nose rubbed ground"] himself before An and Enlil. 

6. An and Enlil treated Zi-ud-sura kindly ……, 

7. they granted him life like a god, 

8. they brought down to him eternal life. 

9-10 At that time, because of preserving the animals and the seed of mankind, they settled Zi-ud-sura the king 

11. in an overseas country [kur-bal], in the land [kur] Dilmun, where [ki] the sun rises. 

Remember that Dilmun represents land south and east of Sumer that was originally part of the Garden of Eden, in front of the Zagros mountains, but far away from the mountains north of Mesopotamia usually considered the resting place of the ark. Can these differences be rectified? 

Yes, they can quite easily and specifically. The word translated as 'country' and 'land' is the Sumerian Kur 𒆳 which can mean:

1. Mountain, mound, or hills.

2. Artificial mountains such as a temple platform, palace platform, or Ziggurat.

3. Palace or temple. The temple of Enlil at Nippur is called the E-kur, usually translated as "mountain house"

4. Foreign nation or city-state (ie. place with its own temple or palace). The ancient temple at Ashur - É.ḪUR.SAG.KUR.KUR.RA  𒂍𒄯𒊕𒆳𒆳𒊏 - is translated as "House of the exalted mountain of the lands." (hursag = "head mountains"; double kur = "lands/nations")

Therefore, a reference to a mountain is an anciently attested metaphor for other city-states, nations, lands, or cultures. This is an accepted metaphor known to Biblical literature long before we could decipher cuneiform as nearly every commentator sees when reading Isaiah 40:3-5.

The voice of one calling out, 

“Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness; 

Make straight in the desert a highway for our God. 

Let every valley be lifted up, 

And every mountain and hill be made low; 

And let the uneven ground become a plain, 

And the rugged terrain a broad valley; 

Then the glory of the LORD will be revealed, 

And all flesh will see it together; 

For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.” 

The 'mountains' are a common metaphor throughout Mesopotamia and the Levant for city-states and nations. The 'valleys' would be all those people of low repute on the city-states' land. Desert and wilderness refer to arid places or in some sense outside the familiar city-states and nations. 

Similarly, 'land' and 'earth' could be translations from several other words besides kur as shown in examples from Enki's first speech in Enki and the World Order ETCSL 1.1.3, lines 62-80. 

• kur(ra) - Multi-purpose term for mountain extensively used in a metaphorical way. 75: "With Enlil, looking out over the lands [kur-ra], I decree good destinies."

• kur-kur(ra) - Plural or intensifier of kur. 64-65: "My elder brother [ie. elder relation], the king of all the lands [kur-kur-ra], gathered up all the divine powers and placed them in my hand." Also 70: "I am the principal among all rulers, the father of all the foreign lands [kur-kur-ra]."

• ki 𒆠 - Place, country, ground, or earth. Reference to Enki/Ea and the mother goddess. Often used determinative for 'place' and 'city'. 62:"My father, the king of heaven and earth. [ki-ke4]" Also 76: "He has placed in my hands the decreeing of fates in the place [ki] where the sun rises."

• kalam(ma) - the familiar land, Sumer (ie. ki-en-gi). 69. "I am a great storm rising over the great earth [ki gal-la], I am the great lord of the Land [kalam].

Each of these terms provides a different nuance to understanding the meaning of the text. See the Commentary section in Chapter 4 of Book Review - The Only True God: A Study of Biblical Monotheism for a fuller exposition of Enki's speech. 

And there are other terms that might have been used:

• Mother Earth goddess: Ninhursag, Nintur, Aruru.

• Eden, Edin - Common word for plain or field. When combined with other logograms it can specify a locale, such as gu-eden - the long disputed land between the cities of Lagash and Umma - or a type of land, such as an-eden which means "high-plain" or "steppe."

• ki-šum₂(ma) 𒆠𒋧𒈠 - One of several words for a garden. The word šum₂ is a word used regarding garlic, onions, and vegetables in general. The same logogram 

Frustratingly the Sumerian flood story fragments are missing the main word used for the 'land/earth' that was flooded, except for Segment D which is a summary using kalam-ma: 

3-6 After the flood [a-ma-ru] had swept over the land [kalam-ma], and waves and windstorms had rocked the huge boat for seven days and seven nights, Utu the sun god came out, illuminating heaven and earth. *

*Though I am unqualified, this does not seem to be a faithful translation. I would prefer:

1-2. All the windstorms and gales arose together, birthing the testing and sweeping flood.

3-4. Seven days and seven nights the flood swept over the Land.

5. The boat was rocked by thick waves and a huge storm.

6. Utu the sun god came out, illuminating heaven and earth. 

If Kalam-ma is the word used throughout the flood narratives then the flood applied to Sumer in particular. In fact of all the possible "land/earth" terms above, the only ones that would get the flood out of Mesopotamia at all, let alone covering the earth as a whole, would be ki gal-la ("the great earth") or referencing the mother earth goddess. So far, the evidence from Sumerian literature is that it was a flood that affected Sumer in particular.

Urartu  or Aratta?

Urartu was the Assyrian name used for the geographical region of loosely affiliated tribes that sometimes included the Nairi - an adjacent confederation of tribes eventually absorbed into the Urartu Kingdom (8th century BC). This is an exonym as the people of Urartu called themselves the Nairi or Bianili (ie. the Kingdom of Van). The earliest firm mention is from the Middle Assyrian king Shalmaneser I (1263–1234 BC), who recorded a campaign in which he subdued the entire territory of Uruatri, described as eight countries (or tribes) located in the area around Lake Van. 

Urartu at least designates the highlands and mountains North of Assyria - often referred to as Transcaucasia - but might have also designated much of or all of the Zagros mountain range to the East in earlier centuries. Sometime before 3500 BC a fairly uniform material culture - pottery, architecture, and physical organization - spread out from the Kura and Araxes river valleys reaching its greatest extent around 2900 BC. At its greatest extent, the highly conservative Kura-Araxes material culture has been observed from the Taurus mountains and the Levant in the west through Transcaucasia to Northern Iran, down the Zagros range at least to Godin Tepe and the northern area of Lorestan, a region North of Susa. 

While the Sumerians have been shown to embrace idolatry very early on in the 4th millennium, the unified culture of the mountainous areas surrounding the plains of Sumer has confounded many researchers for their very late acceptance of idolatry despite having lots of contact with Sumer.

Pots are not people, but the very slow rate of change in the material culture coupled with the lack of major cities is a mark against big ethnic changes occurring within the homeland of Kura-Araxes culture. 

However, the picture is not clear in large part because of the ideological sway of Marxist and Soviet partisan archaeology in the 20th century. The result was an actively anti-religious archeology so limited in scope as to neither report nor build the collection of artifacts that present-day archaeologists so desire to answer open questions (Rothman 2016, pgs. 223-225, Sagona 2014). 

A series of four hero tales were set to writing around the 21st century BC starting with Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta that places the kingdom of Aratta in a hard-to-reach area of the Zagros mountains somewhere roughly eastward of Susa. The stories put Aratta in the early 3rd millennium just after the peak of the Kura-Araxes culture. Aratta could easily be a cognate of Ararat. It might also be the name the Sumerians gave to the Kura Araxes as a people. The later Kingdom of Urartu may be the name Aratta handed down through the Millienia. 

What about Armenia?

Asimov will cause some confusion here in discussing Armenia. Asimov seems to be making the point in the AGB that after Ararat's (ie. Urartu's) final demise in 612 BC, writings coming to a final form during the exile, such as the book of 2 Kings will have "Armenia" instead of "Ararat" in the Hebrew. That is not true. The Hebrew says "Ararat" in 2 Kings 19:37. The King James translation has the geographically correct, but anachronistic Armenia. This is an example of the King James translators giving a dynamic equivalent to the reader. People in 1611 knew where to find Armenia, but nothing about the land of Ararat. 

Incidentally, the Scythians and the Medes invaded Urartu and also Assyria with Nabopolassar of Babylon. The Medes took over Urartu's capital Van in 590 BC. Within the century it became known as Armenia. Ayrarat was a name for a province in the kingdom of Armenia. 

Mt. Judi? 

Most people still don't know anything about Ararat as so many have believed and more than a few risked their lives on the error that the ark landed somewhere on the presently named Mt. Ararat. 

The Flood Before The Flood

In order to do Noah's Flood justice, we must first ask what we mean by 'flood'. It is not that we can't recognize one when we see it, but for special events, what are the limits to 'flooding'? How fast does the water have to come in? How long can it last? How much of the land needs to reappear once things are back to 'normal'? What if things don't go back to 'normal'? 

Two Sources?

In ITB (pgs. 146-175), Asimov takes the common Documentary Hypothesis (DH) view that there are at least two intertwined sources in the flood account going through chapters 6 to 8 - the J account and the P account. If these two sources are taken on their own, they tell two different stories with conflicting details. Finding multiple sources or authors within the text is fine if the evidence supports it, but there are four key reasons why the evidence does not support it, at least not in the way the DH is asserting. 

Who Wrote the Flood Story? by Richard Elliot Friedman - pbs.org - Similar to Asimov's version of the DH.  

1. Character of Repetition 

Sumerian and Akkadian literature is filled with repetition. This occurs in at least two forms. The first form is the almost absurd repetition of full paragraphs or sections of writing, often with the only difference being a change of dialect or point-of-view, such as that seen in unabridged copies of Gilgamec, Enkidu and the Nether World. This has been a huge benefit when reconstructing fragmented texts as one can easily predict the text of a missing area, correcting for dialect and point-of-view (Kramer 1961, pgs. 30-32). 

The other form matches the kind of repetition or 'doublets' we see in the biblical flood account as demonstrated by Nanna-Suen's journey to Nibru, a story about the Sumerian moon god sourcing materials and building a barge in which he takes an offering of over 1800 animals from Ur up the Euphrates to Nippur (ie. Nibru). Some samplings from the text:

1-8. The heroic Nanna-Suen fixed his mind on the city of his mother. Suen Ašimbabbar fixed his mind on the city of his mother. Nanna-Suen fixed his mind on the city of his mother and his father. Ašimbabbar fixed his mind on the city of Enlil and Ninlil:

9-16. "I, the hero, will set off for my city. I will set off for my city, I will set off to my father. I, Suen, will set off for my city. I will set off for my city, I will set off to my father. I will set off to my father Enlil. I will set off for my city, I will set off to my mother. I will set off to my mother Ninlil. I will set off to my father." 

....

28-36. "My Nibru, where black birch trees grow in a good place, my sanctuary Nibru, where white birch trees grow in a pure place -- my Nibru's shrine is built in a good place. The sanctuary Nibru's name is a good name. My Nibru's shrine is built in a good place. The sanctuary Nibru's name is a good name. Before Dilmun existed, palm trees grew in my city. Before Dilmun existed, palm trees grew in Nibru and the great mother Ninlil was clothed in fine linen." 

37-38. Suen set about constructing (?) a barge. He set about constructing (?) a barge and sent for reed matting.

....

253-257. Nibru lay ahead of the offerings, Tummal lay behind them. At the Shining Quay, the quay of Enlil, Nanna-Suen finally docked the boat. At the White Quay, the quay of Enlil, Ašimbabbar finally docked the boat.

258-264. He stood at the grand stairway of his father who begot him and called out to the porter of his father who begot him: "Open the house, porter, open the house! Open the house, Kalkal, open the house! Kalkal, doorkeeper, open the house! Doorman, doorkeeper, open the house! Porter, open the house! Kalkal, open the house!"

265-274. "I, Nanna-Suen, have gathered bulls for the cow-pen for the house of Enlil; porter, open the house. I, Ašimbabbar, have collected (?) fattened sheep for the house of Enlil; porter, open the house. I, Nanna-Suen, shall purify the cow-pen for the house of Enlil; porter, open the house. I, Ašimbabbar, shall feed meal to the goats for the house of Enlil; porter, open the house. I, Nanna-Suen, have …… porcupines for the house of Enlil; porter, open the house."

As can be seen in the samples above, each phrase slowly builds detail into the story, much like the flood account in Genesis. However, if you came to the text above with the prejudice that repeated phrasing, differences in word choice, and alternative names correlated with different authors, you would find at least 4 unique authors within this text, including an accountant-like priestly author. That means you could divide up the text into at least 4 separate coherent stories, each with its own unique details. You could then compare those details between "sources" and find "contradictions" confirming your prejudice. And yet, through reading the whole text and many others like it, it is obvious that this text is a single unified whole and this repetitious kind of writing is an identifying characteristic of Sumerian literature.

The earliest written Akkadian literature came as copies of Sumerian texts. Therefore, Akkadian literature imported a less tedious form of this kind of repetition. If the Genesis text has any Akkadian or Sumerian lineage at all, then the least one can say is that its division into J, E, and P documents "is the work of clever scholars who divided up the text to come out this way" and that a "scholar is clever enough to make all of this come out so consistently." (cf. Friedman, 2008)

2. Chiastic Structure

3. Flood Hydrograph

The flood account observes a valid flood hydrograph as several people have noticed, but only if you read the account as one unified whole starting at least from Genesis 7:11. 

A hydrograph is a way of describing and predicting water levels in a particular place by graphing the rate of flow (ie. discharge) or the height of the water in a flowing stream versus time. Discharge or water heights can be correlated with rainfall, snowfall or other sources of water in a drainage to create an accurate predictive model. 

 BBC Bitesize: Interpretation of Hydrographs - bbc.co.uk 

As an example, the graph below shows the hydrograph for Wabasha Minnesota on the Mississippi river during the Spring of 1965. Snow-melt along with other unique conditions caused a record flood to last almost a month and remain above the "Action Stage" for another 2 months. Given the conditions, hydrologists were able to accurately predict the flood a month before it reached its peak allowing some quick preparations to be made to reduce its impact.

A Detailed Look at the Mississippi River Flood of 1965 - weather.gov  

The graph above shows various models for a hydrograph had the the ark stayed in the same place (ie. static). From the two assumptions above we can see where the straight-line rising water level from the first 40 days crosses with the straight-line falling level from day 150 to 225 to get a weak estimation of water height for the flood. Four and six degree polynomials were fit to various conceptions of the data to produce more realistic curves. It is the shape of these curves rather than the values that show a valid hydrograph. 

To get a sense of the true scope of the flood being described number-wise we would need information about the elevation change between data points as the ark moves North (or East). The absolute minimum elevation change between Sharuppak and Nineveh (modern day Mosel) is 700 ft. More likely for the borders of Urartu would be modern day Cizre at 1200 ft. Between Sharuppak and Mt. Judi - 6480 feet! These massive elevation changes and the obvious effects a flood of this magnitude would have outside of the region suggest that either Sharuppak is not the starting place for the ark or more likely the original author intended Ararat to be Aratta putting the landing point in the Zagros foothills or the coastal area of Iran (see above).

The strong observational character of the flood account from 7:11 to 8:15 makes it an almost ideal nonsense detector:

• The dating of flood events is about as tight as you will get from any ancient account as the text combines realistic counted and astronomically determined dates to tell the story through a lunar year and 10 days. Twelve lunar cycles and 10 days = 29.53 x 12 + 10 = 364 or 365 days = one solar year! It is nigh impossible for a full year flood to be anything but the conclusion that the author intended for the reader.

• Observationally, the text accurately reflects a real flood including giving empirically realistic data within a practicable and measurable precision. 

• There are methodical and practical means of determining when it is best to leave the safety of the ark for the animals sake. The animals are not just let go as soon as the ground is dry. Rather time is given for conditions to be more ideal.

Any commentary that tries to put these three facts in contradiction to one another has misconstrued the story or manufactured difficulties due to prejudice towards the text. Unless it is asserted that the flood account was written by a brilliant science fiction writer of Asimov's caliber who could see readers in the future analyzing the hydrograph of Noah's flood, they can be discarded out of hand.

4. Toledot of 6:9a

Genesis 6:9 is the end of one cuneiform clay tablet and the beginning of another. This is where the most textually persuasive division between J and P sources is found. The type of repetition of content here is obviously different than the Sumerian/Akkadian repetition types seen above. 

What is really going on is that Genesis 6:5-8 is a conclusion of the genealogy of Noah, while Genesis 6:9b-13 is the introductory verses of the next tablet. Although the tablet break is obvious (see below), it is also notable that verse 9a is the third Toledot verse in Genesis, forming the colophon to the lineage of Noah - the end of the third identifiable tablet.

To be clear, we might still have two or more different sources involved in the text. It is reasonable to hypothesize different writers for different tablets especially when they show differences in genre and style. However, the impotence of the methods of the Documentary Hypothesis to determine multiple authors has been laid bare. The text is most truthfully understood without that prejudice.

Evidence of Tablets in the Text of Genesis (pdf) - bcresources.net

The ruling class of the last group of Sumerians called themselves the gigga sag "the black-headed people." 

The Genesis 10 Table of Nations and Y-Chromosomal DNA

mtDNA Haplogroup J ratio to population

The beginning of his kingdom was Babel [ie. Babylon] and Erech [ie. Uruk] and Accad [ie. Akkad, Agade, Uri] - all of them in the land of Shinar. - Genesis 10:10

As with all the names used in the Table of Nations, Nimrod is not a person, but a people. The people represented in this eponym are the Akkadians who first moved southeast into Mesopotamia from the highlands (see Urartu or Aratta?) around 3500 BC to where the Sumerians, Elamites and other related people were already well established. 

The first dynasty of Akkad (c. 2334-2150) begins with the famous usurper Sargon the Great (c. 2334-2279 BC) who made his capital at Akkad. After establishing himself in the region of Akkad, he then went southeast and defeated the accomplished Lugalzagesi. Lugalzagesi was the king of Umma who conquered Uruk and Lagash and with that all of Sumer before falling to Sargon. 

With the South secure, Sargon could then go North conquering the land of Subartu (ie. Assyria) including Nineveh, Calah and the city-state of Assur. Extending his reign from the Mediterranean Sea to the Persian Gulf and taking the title "King of Sumer and Akkad", Sargon is often credited with the first empire. He promoted the East Semitic Akkadian language and culture over Sumerian and the many other language groups of those who were conquered. A few centuries later through a time of widespread multilingualism, Akkadian cuneiform became the international written language of the Middle East, while Sumerian - the first international written language - became a dead language.

Sargon's grandson Naram-Sin (2254–2218 BC) brought the Akkadian Empire to its greatest extents. He is the first Mesopotamian king known to take a title that claims divinity as "God of Akkad". He also was the first king to take the title "King of the Four Corners" where these "corners" are definite geographical areas corresponding to the four cardinal directions - roughly Elam, Subartu, Amurru and Akkad. He could then fashion himself as "King of the Universe." It is possible that Nimrod is derived from his name, deliberately changed to mean "we shall revolt" in Hebrew. All of these titles of divinity and empire are forms of revolt against God and the social order in the eyes of the Hebrew and the Sumerian.

The term Shinar shows up here for the first time. It is likely a West Semitic version of Sumer (itself actually pronounced 'Shumer') that designates a "sphere of influence based in the south (Babylonia) and later extending to the north (Assyria)" (,1990). For the Bible, in practical terms, this is Sumer and Akkad when considered together and a synonym for Babylonia.

From that land he went to Assyria [ie. Ashur, Assur], where he built Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir [or "with its city squares"], Calah, and Resen - Genesis 10:

Nineveh and Calah (ie. Kalhu, modern Nimrud) are both known to have been prehistoric settlements. Rehoboth Ir literally means "open places city." This could be an unknown city, but it is more likely to be a description of Nineveh's splendor after the building projects of 'Nimrod'. Resen (Septuagint has Desen or Desem) remains a mystery with suggestions that it is related to a waterwork that was famous in its time.

Ninurta

Nimrod's name implies rebellion and is describe as a "mighty one" and a "mighty hunter." This clearly matches the hero-god Ninurta (AKA. Ningirsu) who "developed from a local deity of minor importance into a warrior god equal in rank with An, Enlil, and Enki" during the first dynasty of Akkad (1990):

1-6 Created like An, O son of Enlil, Ninurta, created like Enlil, born by Nintur, mightiest of the Anuna gods, who came forth from the mountain range....

...

13-15 You have made the gods prostrate (?) themselves before you. You have made the Anuna salute (?) you. Ninurta, you are made complete by heroic strength.

...

47-51. The warrior …… made a corpse of the mountains. Lord Ninurta, who destroys (?) ……, made a corpse of the mountains. He piled up ……. The sovereign, with his heroic strength, wreaked his vengeance (?). The warrior Ninurta, with his heroic strength, wreaked his vengeance (?).

52-54. On his shining chariot, which inspires terrible awe, he hung his captured wild bulls on the axle and hung his captured cows on the cross-piece of the yoke.

55-63. He hung the Six-headed wild ram on the dust-guard. He hung the Warrior dragon on the seat. He hung the Magilum boat on the ……. He hung the Bison on the beam. He hung the Mermaid on the foot-board. He hung the Gypsum on the forward part of the yoke. He hung the Strong copper on the inside pole pin (?). He hung the Anzud bird on the front guard. He hung the Seven-headed serpent on the shining cross-beam. 

...

92-97. "O sovereign, shackle of An, first among the gods, seal-bearer of Enlil, life-source of E-kur, O warrior, because you have toppled the mountains your father need send out no other god beside you. Ninurta, because you have toppled the mountains Enlil need send out no other god beside you."

98-101. While these words were yet in Nuska's [vizier of Enlil] mouth, Ninurta put the whip and goad away in the rope-box. He leaned his mace, the strength in battle, against the box and entered into the temple of Enlil.

102-107. He directed his captive wild bulls into the temple. He directed his captive cows, like the wild bulls, into the temple. He laid out the booty of his plundered cities. The Anuna were amazed ……. Enlil, the Great Mountain, made obeisance to him, and Ašimbabbar [ie. Enlil] prayed to him.

- Ninurta's return to Nibru: a šir-gida to Ninurta - ETCSL 1.6.1

Similar Content: Ninurta's exploits: a šir-sud (?) to Ninurta: c.1.6.2; Ninurta and the Turtle, 1.6.3

Further establishing the connection, Sargon's biography has important parallels to Ninurta such as where his ancestors came from and the cities (and temples) such as Nippur that he conquered. Naram-Sin and his sons built a ziggurat to Ninurta at Marad called E-igi-kalama (ie. “House which is the eye of the land”).

Middle Assyrian Kingdom

The Nimrod passage (Genesis 10:8-12) seems out of place with the rest of the Table of Nations. This may be a Mosaic addition to the text prompted by current events as the rise of the Assyrian Middle Kingdom was roughly contemporary with the Exodus. Adad-nirari I (1295–1275 BC) and Shalmaneser I (1274–1244 BC) made Calah (Kalhu) into a greater city and provincial capital complete with a palace. Shalmaneser conquered Uruatri around lake Van in a geographical region he called Urartu (ie. Ararat). Shalmaneser's son and successor, Tukulti-Ninurta I (1244–1207 BC), conquered Babylon. Following this he took the title "King of Sumer and Akkad," not used since Sargon.

Besides ethnic connections, the promotion and worship of Ninurta provide the main connection between the Akkadian Empire and the Assyrian Middle Kingdom. Tukulti-Ninurta who conquered Babylon was the first to have Ninurta as part of his throne name. Somewhat ironically he carried away the idol statue of Marduk from Babylon, a god who had assumed all the stories and powers of Ninurta. 

It is this rebirth of Ninurta in the guise of the Assyrian Middle Kingdom which might have spurred the compiler of Genesis to add Nimrod as a grandson of Ham. The fame of these two kingdoms ruling under the god Ninurta was such that many of the kings of the last and most famous Neo-Assyrian Empire (911-609 BC), took their throne names from these earlier kingdoms.

NIMROD BEFORE AND AFTER THE BIBLE (1990) - godawa.com (pdf)

Modern damage 

https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/babylon

"...found a plain in Shinar....build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens....So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel - because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world." - Genesis 11:2, 4, 8 

As mentioned concerning Nimrod, the reference to Shinar is not just a reference to Sumer, but to Sumer and Akkad that corresponds best to the middle and southern reaches of Mesopotamia. There is some debate however, as the Akkadian Empire extended into the Northern Mesopotamia and some ancient writers address more northern locations with cognates to the Hebrew Shinar. For instance Sinjar is thought to be a cognate of Shinar, giving the name to the Sinjar Mountains that run East to West in the Northern reaches of Mesopotamia.

Archaeologically, what one should expect if the location were left alone would be a village with features of a much bigger city in a plan featuring the base of an uncompleted tower. Babylon is presented as a village existing around the 24th century BC during the Akkadian empire. The Tower of Babel is taken to refer to one of the early step-pyramids called ziggurats. So the base of an incomplete ziggurat, roughly square, similar to a temple platform, but built to hold more weight would be expected. It is very likely such a base would later be completed as a ziggurat or repurposed for something else, such as a temple or palace, such as perhaps the 590 foot (180 meter) square platform below Nebuchadnezzar's Summer Palace (Tell Babil, 1.5 miles North of the famous Ishtar Gate and 2 miles North of the ziggurat Etemenanki) just North of a temple area where the important Babylonian Akitu New Years festival is thought to have been celebrated (Boiy , pg. 9).

 The British Museum: Ziggurats - mesopotamia.co.uk 

 UNESCO: Babylon Maps and Plans (pdf) - whc.unesco.org 

The Tower of Babel Stele inscribed by Nebuchadnezzar (c. 600 BC) shows the ziggurat Etemenanki in Babylon matches the description, construction and purpose as given in Genesis 11 for the Tower of Babel. Nebuchadnezzar completed the ziggurat that was dedicated to the god Marduk around 600 BC. Oddly, the secular account has this built for the first time during the rule of the Amorite king of Babylon Hammurabi (c. 1810-1750 BC), which is much too late to match the biblical story. Hammurabi is thought by many to be a contemporary of Abraham. The reference to the meaning of Peleg's name (10:25) and the birth dates for Abraham's other ancestors taken literally (11:18-26) require the Tower of Babel story to be at least 250 years earlier. However, the Weidner Chronicle (vs.19-20) written to Apil-Sin, Hammurabi's grand father, insinuates the Etemenanki or its predecessor had long been in existence, perhaps even back to Sargon (24th BC). Perhaps Hammurabi built upon the base of the original failed ziggurat.

 Tower of Babel Stele - schoyencollection.com 

Babel does not necessarily have to refer to the city of Babylon as we know it. Babel as was first understood means "gate of god." Several places with gates and temples were given that name in ancient times. It was not until __ that Al Hillah, the place we know as the famous Babylon, exclusively had that name.  In most ziggurat designs, the three sets of stairs of the first stage lead up to a gate. All of this taken together means the ziggurat at Babylon is not necessarily the Tower of Babel known in the Bible. 

Qs. 

Naram Sin and sons building projects? 

The Tower of Babel Story seems to be closely connected to the Nimrod addition to the Table of Nations. The Akkadian Empire supplied the conditions for the confusion of languages by imposing Akkadian just at the the time it was becoming fashionable to make the step pyramids known as ziggurats. One of the earliest, if not the earliest ziggurat is the temple to Enlil at Nippur (ie. Nibru) known as the Ekur meaning "Mountain House" or Duranki which means the "tether of heaven and earth."  

Ur-nammu Shulgi at Ur The Ancient Sumerians: The Great Ziggurat of Ur | Ancient Architects - youtube.com

 Genesis 11, 1-9 and its Sumerian Predecessors in Comparative Perspective: Early Views on "National Culture" and its Nature (2021) by Peeter Espak

Myopic Etymologies

A few hundred years in the future, someone whose primary language is something other than English might look back at political cartoons from the turn of the 21st century and encounter a mysterious leader who is called 'Dubya'. It might help to find out he was one of the Presidents of the United States, but then more confusion will set in when his full name - President George Walker Bush - is compared to his father's - President George Herbert Walker Bush. Usually, sons have more middle names than the fathers they are named after, not less. The unlikely similarities - cheerleader at Yale, Skull, and Bones, oil business, President of the United States, and war in Iraq against Saddam Hussein - may keep people from realizing these two presidents were even different people. The exact connection may not be made until it is found that the younger president is usually referred to with his middle initial - "George W. Bush" - and often just referred to as 'W'. 

But all the English textbooks and language professors will say 'W' is correctly pronounced "Double-U" - three syllables - which is not at all close to 'Dubya'. The answer definitively comes in a cascade: George W. Bush was Governor of Texas; Texas is ostensibly part of the geographical unit in the United States called "The South"; Northerners hold all sorts of stereotypes about the South, some of which were ascribed to George W. Bush. Southerners are notorious for speaking in a dialect called a "southern drawl" - of which 'Dubya' for the letter 'W' is an excellent example. 'Dubya' is then a marvelous pun on his middle name and a good-natured slight whenever it is used.

Asimov has a fine-sounding point about biblical folk etymologies, but then sound is the entire problem. Asimov assumes the biblical writers are writing a simple etymology as one would do with technical or scientific terms. He is certainly very good at describing etymologies. They are an important part of both his fiction and non-fiction writing. But biblical words are made by free associations of local stories, names, places, and sounds. If the name or place sounded exactly like an existing term in the language, there would be little need to write an etymology, especially in Hebrew where the three consonant root words are easy to associate. Instead, the biblical authors are letting us in on the pun of how Babel is pronounced more like 'babal' rather than babilu, emphasizing the "ba-ba" sound in the word so that it sounds more like gibberish and more like balal which means to confuse. It was a subtle slight on the Babylonians whenever a Hebrew called them by name.

The First Etymology

Balashon - Hebrew Language Detective: ish and isha - balashon.com

Interesting Histories: Female - Male - Woman - Man - medium.com