Chapter 13

Fig. 57.—Alabaster statue of Manishtusu, King of Kish, dedicated by a high official to the god Naruti. Found at Susa.—SeeComptes rendus, 1907, p. 398 f.;Délég. en Perse, Mém. X., pl. 1.

Until recently Manishtusu and Urumush were the only kings of Kish of this period whose names had been recovered. But a find has been made at Susa, which, while furnishing the name of another king of Kish, raises important questions with regard to the connection between the empires of Kish and Akkad. In the present chapter we have been dealing with a period of transition in the history of the lands of Sumer and Akkad. The fall of Lagash had been followed by a confederation of Sumerian cities with Erech as its capital, and the conquests of Lugal-zaggisi had sufficed to preserve for a time the integrity of the southern kingdom he had founded. But events were already taking place which were to result in the definite transference of power from Sumer to the north. The votive inscriptions from Nippur have thrown some light upon the struggles by which the Semitic immigrants into Northern Babylonia sought to extend their influence southward. The subsequent increase in the power of Kish was not followed by any fresh access of Sumerian power, but directlypaved the way for the Semitic empire founded by Shar-Gani-sharri with the city of Akkad as his capital. The evidence of the close connection between the rise of Kish and Akkad suggests that both cities were borne up upon the same wave of Semitic domination, which by this time had succeeded in imposing itself on Babylonia from the north. In the following chapter we shall see that Shar-Gani-sharri was not the leader of this racial movement, and that his empire rested upon foundations which other rulers had laid.

[1]It has indeed been suggested that, as Urukagina is termed "King of Girsu" in the lament on the fall of Lagash, he may have survived the catastrophe and continued to rule as king in Girsu (cf. Genouillac, "Tabl. sum. arch.," p. xvi.); but it is scarcely probable that Lugal-zaggisi, after sacking and burning the greater part of the city, would have permitted him to do so.

[2]See Hilprecht, "Old Bab. Inscr.," Pt. II., No. 87, pll. 38 ff.; Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," pp. 152 ff.

[3]Col. I., ll. 4-35.

[4]This rendering is preferable to "the Lower Sea (of) the Euphrates and the Tigris."

[5]Col. I., l. 36—Col. II., l. 16.

[6]Col. II., l. 17—Col. III., l. 2.

[7]See below, p.198.

[8]See above, p.194.

[9]See Hilprecht, "Explorations in Bible Lands," p. 384. In connection with this view, his earlier theory that Umma was Harran (cf. "Old Bab. Inscr.," Pt. II., pp. 54 ff.) he has, of course, given up.

[10]Col. III., ll. 14-36.

[11]See Hilprecht, "Old Bab. Inscr.," Pt. I., p. 47, No. 1; Pt. II., p. 46.

[12]"Old Bab. Inscr.," Pt. II., No. 6, p. 57 f.; "Königsinschriften," p. 156 f.

[13]See below, Chap. IX., p.268.

[14]"Old Bab. Inscr.," Pt. II., No. 86b, pl. 37, p. 58.

[15]See above, pp.99ff.,144ff.

[16]"Old Bab. Inscr.," Pt. II., pl. 43, Nos. 91 and 92.

[17]Op. cit., Pl. 45 f., Nos. 102-105, 110.

[18]With it we may compare the nameEnbu-ilumon the Obelisk of Manishtusu, Face A, Col. IX., l. 24, Col.XIII., l. 17 ("Délégation en Perse," Mém. II., pll. 2 and 3).

[19]See above, Chap. II., p.52f.

[20]The name has also been read as Alu-usharshid, but the phonetic Sumerian rendering Uru-mu-ush is now in general use. A preferable reading would be the Semitic Rí-mu-ush, Rimush (cf. King, "Proc. Bibl. Arch.," XXX., p. 239, n. 2), since the sign URU at this period was commonly employed with the valuerí. But, in order to avoid unnecessary confusion, the accepted reading Urumush is retained in the text.

[21]Cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1908, col. 313 f.

[22]See further, pp.251,273f.,288,301f.

[23]The vase-inscription of Urumush in the British Museum was found at Abû Habba, not at Niffer or Tello as implied by Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," p. 160.

[24]See Hilprecht, "Old Bab. Inscr.," I., No. 5, p. 20 f.

[25]See Boissier, "Choix de textes relatifs à la divination," I., pp. 44, 81; Jastrow, "Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens," II., p. 333; and "Zeits. für Assyr.," XXI. (1908), pp. 277 ff.

[26]The mace-head, dedicated to the goddess Ninâ, which is preserved in the British Museum, was found at Abû Habba; see the opposite plate.

[27]Such is the form of the name in his own inscriptions. The reading is substantiated by the variantsManishduszuandManishdussu, which occur in Anzanite, inscriptions (see Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Anzan.," I., p. 42, and "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," IV., p. 1; cf. also Hoschander, "Zeits. für Assyr.," XX., p. 246).

[28]See Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," I., pp. 1 ff. ("Délég. en Perse," Mém. II.), and Hrozný, "Wiener Zeitschrift," XXI., pp. 11 ff.

[29]The true pronunciation of the name is uncertain.

[30]Literally, "sons."

[31]See below, Chap. VIII., pp.238ff.

[32]The phrase employed possibly implies that they were his grandsons; see Hrozný, "Wien. Zeits.," XXI., p. 19, n. 2, pp. 29, 40.

[33]Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," I., p. 2.

[34]The estate described on the second side of the obelisk is stated to have been bounded on its eastern side by the field of Mesalim; see Face B, Col. VI., ll. 12-14.

[35]See above, pp.99ff.

[36]See above, p.176f.

[37]The mention of the name Engilsa on a tablet from Tello in connection with that of Urukagina's wife may be merely a coincidence; it has, however, been cited in support of the identification (see above, p. 176, n. 2).

[38]See further, Chap. VIII., pp.228ff.

[39]Cf. Hrozný, "Wien. Zeits.," XXI., p. 40.

[40]Nos. 56630 and 56631; cf. Jensen, "Zeits. für Assyr.," XV., p. 248, n. 1. Only a few signs are preserved upon each fragment, but these refer to the same lines of the inscription, and enable us to restore the passage as follows: "[Of the kings] of cities on this side (?) of the sea thirty-two collected for battle, and I conquered them, and their cities [I captured]." It should be noted that the fragmentary text found at Susa and published by Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," II., pl. 1, No. 2, is also a duplicate of the inscription.

[41]"Textes Élam.-Sémit.," IV., pl. 2, No. 1.

[42]Op. cit., pl. 2, No. 2.

[43]It is probable that the statuette figured in "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," III., pl. 3, and four other unpublished statues, which all bear the legend of Shutruk-nakhkhunte, conqueror of Ishnunuk, also represent Manishtusu; in all of them the name of the original owner has been hammered out (cf. Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," IV., p. 3).

[44]"Textes Élam.-Sémit.," IV., pl. 1, pp. 1 ff.

[45]See De Morgan, "Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres," 1907, pp. 397 ff.

[46]See Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," I., pp. 2 ff., IV., pp. 1 ff.

[47]See above, p.206f.

[48]See Chap. VIII., p.231.

[49]See Chap. X., p.289.

The name of Sargon of Agade, or Akkad, bulks largely in later Babylonian tradition, and his reign has been regarded by modern writers as marking the most important epoch in the early history of his country. The reference in the text of Nabonidus to the age of Narâm-Sin has caused the Dynasty of Akkad to be taken as the canon, or standard, by which to measure the relative age of other dynasties or of rulers whose inscriptions have from time to time been recovered upon various early Babylonian sites. Even those historians who have refused to place reliance upon the figures of Nabonidus, have not, by so doing, detracted from the significance of Sargon's position in history; and, since tradition associated his name with the founding of his empire, the terms "Pre-Sargonic" and "Post-Sargonic" have been very generally employed as descriptive of the earlier and later periods in the history of Sumer and Akkad. The finding of early inscriptions of Shar-Gani-sharri of Akkad, and of tablets dated in his reign, removed any tendency to discredit the historical value of the later traditions; and the identification of Shar-Gani-sharri with the Sargon of the Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian scribes ceased to be called in question. In fact, if any one point in early Babylonian history was to be regarded as certainly established, it was the historical character of Sargon of Agade. But a recent discovery at Susa has introduced a fresh element into the problem, and has reopened its discussion along unfamiliar lines. Before introducing the new data, that must be explained and reconciled with the old, it will be well to refer briefly to the stepsby which Sargon's name was recovered and his position in history deduced.

Sargon's name was first met with in certain explanatory texts of a religious or astrological character, which had been recovered from Ashur-bani-pal's library at Nineveh. Here we find references to the name Sharru-ukîn,[1]or Sargon, king of Agade, from which it appeared that he had played an important part in Assyrian heroic mythology.[2]In the year 1867, attention was first directed to Sargon's place in history when Sir Henry Rawlinson briefly announced his discovery of the famous Legend of Sargon,[3]in which the king is represented as recounting in the first person the story of his birth and boyhood, his elevation to the throne and his subsequent empire. The text of the Legend was published in 1870,[4]and two years later it was translated by George Smith, who added a translation of the Omens of Sargon and Narâm-Sin, which he had just come across in the collections of tablets from Kuyunjik.[5]Smith followed Rawlinson in ascribing to Sargon the building of the temple E-ulmash in Agade, by restoring his name as that of Narâm-Sin's father in the broken cylinder of Nabonidus found by Taylor at Mukayyar.[6]

Up to this time no original text of Shar-Gani-sharri's reign was known. The first to be published was the beautiful cylinder-seal of Ibni-sharru, a high official in Shar-Gani-sharri's service, of which Ménant gave adescription in 1877,[7]and again in 1883.[8]Ménant read the king's name as "Shegani-shar-lukh," and he did not identify him with Sargon the elder (whom he put in the nineteenth century B.C.), but suggested that he was a still earlier king of Akkad. In 1882 an account was published of the Abû Habba cylinder of Nabonidus, which records his restoration of E-babbar and contains the passage concerning the date of Narâm-Sin, "the son of Sargon."[9]In the following year the British Museum acquired the famous mace-head of Shar-Gani-sharri, which had been dedicated by him to Shamash in his great temple at Sippar; this was the first actual inscription of Shar-Gani-sharri to be found. In place of Ménant's reading "Shegani-shar-lukh," the name was read as "Shargani," the two final syllables being cut off from it and treated as a title, and, in spite of some dissentients, the identity of Shargani of Agade with Sargon the elder was assumed as certain.[10]Unlike Sargon, the historical character of Narâm-Sin presented no difficulties. His name had been read upon the vase discovered by M. Fresnel at Babylon and afterwards lost in the Tigris;[11]and, although he was there called simply "king of the four quarters," his identification with the Narâm-Sin mentioned by Nabonidus on his cylinder from Ur was unquestioned. Further proof of the correctness of the identification was seen in the occurrence of the name of Magan upon the vase, when it was discovered that the second section of his Omens recorded his conquest of that country.[12]

MACK-HEAD DEDICATED TO SHAMASH, THE SUN-GOD, BY SHAR-GANI-SHARRI, KING OF AGADE.—Brit. Mus.,No.91146;photo, by Messrs. Mansell & Co.

LAPIS-LAZULI TABLET WITH VOTIVE INSCRIPTION OF LUGAL-TARSI, KING OF KISH; AND MACE-HEAD DEDICATED TO A GOD ON BEHALF OF NAMMAKHNI, PATESI OF LAGASH (SHIRPURLA) —Brit. Mus., Nos.91013and22445.

Apart from the difficulty presented by Sargon's name, the absence of early records concerning the reign of Shar-Gani-sharri for a time led in certain quarters to a complete underrating of the historical value of the traditions preserved in the Omen-text. The mace-head from Abû Habba alone survived in proof of the latter's existence, and it was easy to see in the later Babylonian traditions concerning Sargon valueless tales and legends of which the historian could make no use.[13]The discovery at Nippur, close to the south-east wall of the ziggurat, or temple-tower, of brick-stamps and door-sockets bearing the name of Shar-Gani-sharri and recording his building of the temple of Enlil,[14]proved that he had exercised authority over at least a considerable part of Babylonia. At a later period of the American excavations there was found in the structure of the ziggurat, below the crude brick platform of Ur-Engur, another pavement consisting of two courses of burned bricks, most of them stamped with the known inscription of Shar-Gani-sharri, while the rest bore the briefer inscription of Narâm-Sin. The pavement had apparently been laid by Sargon and partly re-laid by Narâm-Sin, who had utilized some of the former's building materials. The fact that both kings used the same peculiar bricks, which were found in their original positions in the structure of the same pavement, was employed as an additional argument in favour of identifying Shar-Gani-sharri with Sargon I., "the father of Narâm-Sin."[15]

A further stage in the development of the subject was reached on the recovery at Tello of a large number of tablets inscribed with accounts of a commercial and agricultural character, some of which were dated by events in the reigns of Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin. This was at once hailed as confirming and completing the disputed traditions of the Omen-tablet,[16]and fromthat time the identity of Sargon and Shar-Gani-sharri was not seriously called in question. Finally, the recent discovery of a copy of the original chronicle, from which the historical references in the Omen-tablet were taken, restored the traditions to their true setting and freed them from the augural text into which they had been incorporated.[17]The difference in the forms of the two names was ignored or explained away,[18]and the early texts were combined with the late Babylonian traditions. Both sources of information were regarded as referring to the same monarch, who was usually known by the title of Sargon I., or Sargon of Agade.

The discovery which has reopened the question as to the identity of Shar-Gani-sharri with the Sargon of later tradition was made at Susa in the course of excavations carried out on that site by the Delegation en Perse. The new data are furnished by a monument, which, to judge from the published descriptions of it,[19]may probably be regarded as one of the most valuable specimens of early Babylonian sculpture that has yet been found. Two portions of the stone have been recovered, engraved with sculptures and bearing traces of an inscription of an early Semitic king of Babylonia. The stone is roughly triangular in shape, the longest side being curved, and on all three sides reliefs are sculptured in two registers. In the upper register are battle scenes and a row of captives, and in the lower are representations of the king and his suite. On the third face of the monolith, to the right of the king in the lower register, is a scene in which vultures are represented feeding on the slain; and on a smaller detached fragment of the stone is a figure, probably that of a god, clubbing the king's enemies who are caught in a net. The details of the net and the vultures obviously recall the similar scenes on thestele of Eannatum,[20]but the treatment of the birds and also of the figures in the battle scenes, is said to be far more varied and less conventional than in Eannatum's sculpture. That they are Semitic and not Sumerian work is proved by the Semitic inscription, of which a few phrases of the closing imprecations are still visible. The king also has the long pointed beard of the Semites, descending to his girdle, and, although his clothing has Sumerian characteristics, he is of the Semitic type. Several points of interest are suggested by details of the sculpture, and to these we will presently refer.

The point which now concerns us is the name of the king to whom we owe this remarkable monument. Although the main inscription has unfortunately been hammered out, the king's name has been preserved in a cartouche in front of him, where he is termed "Sharru-Gi, the king." Now Sharru-GI is practically identical with Sharru-GI-NA, one of the two forms under which Sargon's name is written in Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian texts[21]; for the sign NA in the latter name is merely a phonetic complement to the ideogram and could be dropped in writing without affecting in any way the pronunciation of the name. Hitherto, as we have seen, Sargon, the traditional father of Narâm-Sin, has been identified with Shar-Gani-sharri of Akkad. The question obviously suggests itself: Can we identify the Sharru-Gi of the new monument with Shar-Gani-sharri? Can we suppose that a contemporary scribe invented this rendering of Shar-Gani-sharri's name, and thus gave rise to the form which we find preserved in later Babylonian and Assyrian tradition? Père Scheil, who was the first to offer a solution of the problem, is clearly right in treating Sharru-Gi and Shar-Gani-sharri as different personages; the forms are too dissimilar to be regarded as variants of the same name. It has also been noted that Sharru-Gi and Narâm-Sin are both mentioned on a tablet from Tello. On these grounds Père Scheil suggested that Sharru-Gi, whose name he would render as Sharru-ukîn (=Sargon), was the father of Narâm-Sin, as represented in the latetradition; Shar-Gani-sharri he would regard as another sovereign of Akkad, of the same dynasty as Sargon and Narâm-Sin and one of their successors on the throne.[22]

It may be admitted that this explanation is one that at first sight seems to commend itself, for it appears to succeed in reconciling the later tradition with the early monuments. But difficulties in the way of its acceptance were at once pointed out.[23]The occurrence of the proper name Sharru-Gi-ili, "Sharru-Gi is my god," on the Obelisk of Manishtusu clearly proves that a king bearing the name of Sharru-Gi, and presumably identical with the Sharru-Gi of the new stele, preceded Manishtusu, king of Kish, for the deification of a king could obviously only take place during his lifetime or after his death.[24]Similar evidence has already been cited to prove that Urumush of Kish was anterior to Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin, though his reign may not have been separated from theirs by any long interval.[25]Granting these conclusions, if Narâm-Sin had been the son of Sharru-Gi, as suggested by Père Scheil, Urumush would have been separated from Manishtusu by the Dynasty of Akkad, a combination that is scarcely probable. Moreover, the context of the passage on the tablet from Tello, on which the names of Sharru-Gi and Narâm-Sin are mentioned, though of doubtful interpretation, does not necessarily imply that they were living at the same time; they may have been separated by several generations. These reasons in themselves make it probable that Sharru-Gi was not the founder of Narâm-Sin's dynasty, but was a predecessor of Manishtusu and Urumush upon the throne of Kish.

It has been further pointed out that in an inscription preserved in the Imperial Ottoman Museum at Constantinople the name of a king of Kish is mentioned, which, to judge from the traces still visible, may probably be restored as that of Sharru-GI.[26]Thefragmentary nature of the text, which was found at Abû Habba during the excavations conducted by the Turkish Government upon that site,[27]rendered any deductions that might be drawn from it uncertain; but it sufficed to corroborate the suggestion that Sharru-Gi was not a king of Akkad, but a still earlier king of Kish. Since then I have recognized a duplicate text of the Constantinople inscription, also from Abû Habba, which enables us to supplement and to some extent correct the conclusions based upon it. The duplicate consists of a cruciform stone object, inscribed on its twelve sides with a votive text recording a series of gifts to the Sun-god Shamash and his consort Aa in the city of Sippar, and the early part of its text corresponds to the fragmentary inscription at Constantinople. Unfortunately the beginning of the text is wanting, as is the case with the Constantinople text, so that we cannot decide with certainty the name of the king who had the monument engraved. But the duplicate furnishes fresh data on which to base a conclusion.

Although the king's name is wanting, it is possible to estimate the amount of text that is missing at the head of the first column, and it is now clear that the name of Sharru-Gi does not occur at the beginning of the inscription, but some lines down the column; in other words, its position suggests a name in a genealogy rather than that of the writer of the text. Moreover, in a broken passage in the second column the name Sharru-GI occurs again, and the context proves definitely that he was not the writer of the text, who speaks in the first person, though he may not improbably have been his father. But, although the monument can no longer be ascribed to Sharru-GI, the titles "the mighty king, the king of Kish," which occur in the first column of the text, are still to be taken as applying to him, while the occurrence of the name in the second column confirms its suggested restoration in the genealogy. It may therefore be regarded as certain that Sharru-GI was an early king of Kish, and, it would seem, the father of the king who had the cruciform monumentinscribed and deposited as a votive offering in the temple of Shamash at Sippar. In the last chapter reference has been made to Manishtusu's activity in Sippar and his devotion to the great temple of the Sun-god in that city.[28]For various epigraphical reasons, based on a careful study of its text, I would provisionally assign the cruciform monument to Manishtusu. According to this theory, Sharru-GI would be Manishtusu's father, and the earliest king of Kish of this period whose name has yet been recovered.

The proof that Sharru-Gi, or, according to the later interpretation of the name, Sargon, was not identical with Shar-Gani-sharri, King of Akkad, nor was even a member of his dynasty, would seem to bring once more into discredit the later traditions which gathered round his name. To the Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian scribes Sargon appears as a king of Agade, or Akkad, and the father of Narâm-Sin, who succeeded him upon his throne. It is clear, therefore, that the name of the earlier king of Kish has been borrowed for the king of Akkad, whose real name, Shar-Gani-sharri, has disappeared in the tradition. Are we to imagine that the great achievements, which later ages ascribed to Sargon of Akkad, were also borrowed along with his name from the historical Sargon of Kish? Or is it possible that the traditional Sargon is representative of his period, and combines in his one person the attributes of more than one king? In the cruciform monument, which we have seen may probably be assigned to Manishtusu, the king prefaces the account of his conquest of Anshan by stating that it took place at a time "when all the lands ... revolted against me," and the phrase employed recalls the similar expression in the Neo-Babylonian chronicle, which states that in Sargon's old age "all the lands revolted against him." The parallelism in the language of the early text and the late chronicle might perhaps be cited in support of the view that facts as well as names had been confused in the later tradition.

CRUCIFORM STONE OBJECT INSCRIBED ON TWELVE SIDES WITH A VOTIVE TEXT OF AN EARLY SEMITIC KINO OF KISH, RECORDING A SERIES OF GIFTS TO SHAMASH THE SUN-GOD AND HIS WIFE AA IN THE CITY OF SIPPAR.—Brit. Mus., No.91022.

Fortunately we have not to decide the question as a point of literary criticism, nor even upon grounds of general probability, for we have the means of testingthe traditions in detail by comparison with contemporary documents. Reference has already been made to tablets dated in the reigns of Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin, and the date-formulæ occurring upon them refer, in accordance with the custom of the period, to events of public interest after which the years were named. In the case of tablets dated in Shar-Gani-sharri's reign, we find three date-formulæ which have a direct bearing upon the point at issue, and refer to incidents which correspond in a remarkable degree to achievements ascribed to Sargon in the Omen-tablet and the Neo-Babylonian Chronicle. The conquest of Amurru, the "Western Land" on the coast of Syria, is referred to in four sections of the Omens,[29]probably representing separate expeditions thither. The third section records a decisive victory for Sargon, and apparently the deportation of the king of Amurru to Akkad; while in the fourth Sargon is recorded to have set up his images in Amurru, that is to say, he carved his image upon the rocks near the Mediterranean coast, or in the Lebanon, as a lasting memorial of his conquest of the country. Now one of the tablets of accounts from Tello is dated "in the year in which Shar-Gani-sharri conquered Amurru in Basar."[30]It is therefore certain that the conquest of Amurru, ascribed by tradition to Sargon of Akkad, is to be referred to Shar-Gani-sharri and treated as historically true.

We obtain a very similar result when we employ the same method of testing Sargon's Elamite campaigns. The Omen-tablet opens with the record of Sargon's invasion of the country, followed by his conquest of the Elamites, whom he is related to have afflicted grievously by cutting off their food supplies.[31]This would appear to have been in the nature of a successful raid into Elamite territory. On the other hand, one of the early account-tablets is dated in the year when Shar-Gani-sharri overcame the expedition which Elam and Zakharahad sent against Opis and Sakli.[32]It is clear that the date, although it records a success against the Elamites, can hardly refer to the same event as the Omen-text, since the latter records an invasion of Elam by Sargon, not a raid into Babylonian territory by the Elamites. But the contemporary document at least proves that Shar-Gani-sharri was successful in his war with Elam, and it is not unlikely that the attack on Opis by the Elamites provoked his invasion of their country.[33]Such a raid as the Omens describe fully accords with the practice of this period, when the kings of Kish and Akkad used to invade Elam and return to their own country laden with spoil.[34]The date-formula which confirms a third point in the late tradition refers to the year in which Shar-Gani-sharri laid the foundations of the temple of Anunitu and the temple of Amal in Babylon,[35]proving not only that the city of Babylon was in existence at this period, but also that Sargon devoted himself to its adornment by building temples there. The late Chronicle records that Sargon removed the soil from the trenches of Babylon,[36]and a broken passage in the Omens appears to state that he increased the might of Babylon.[37]On this point the early date-formula and the late tradition confirm and supplement each other.

Thus, wherever we can test the achievements ascribed to Sargon of Akkad by comparison with contemporary records of Shar-Gani-sharri's reign, we find a complete agreement between them. Another feature in the traditional picture of Sargon admirably suits the founder of a dynasty at Akkad, whereas it would have little suitability to a king of Kish. This is the support which the goddess Ishtar is stated to havegiven Sargon, both in raising him to the throne and in guiding his arms to victory.[38]For Akkad, which Shar-Gani-sharri made his capital, was an important seat of her worship. When, therefore, the late tradition records that Sargon conquered Subartu and Kazallu, we may ascribe these victories to Shar-Gani-sharri, although they are unrecorded in the contemporary monuments that have as yet been recovered. At any time it may happen that the name of Kashtubila of Kazallu may be found in a text of Shar-Gani-sharri's reign, as that of Mannu-dannu of Magan has been recovered on a statue of Narâm-Sin.[39]Such an attitude of expectancy is justified by the striking instances in which the late tradition has already been confirmed by the early texts; and the parallelism in the language of Manishtusu's monument and the late Chronicle of Sargon, to which reference has been made, must be treated as fortuitous. Having regard to the insecure foundations upon which these early empires were based, Shar-Gani-sharri, like Manishtusu, may well have had to face a revolt of the confederation of cities he had subjected to his rule. In such a case the scribe of Shar-Gani-sharri would probably have employed phraseology precisely similar to that in Manishtusu's text, for conventional forms of expression constantly recur in monumental inscriptions of the same period.

Our conclusion, therefore, is that in the later texts Shar-Gani-sharri has adopted Sharru-Gi's name, but nothing more. In view of the general accuracy of the late traditions concerning the conquests of these early rulers, it may seem strange that such a change of names should have taken place; but it is not difficult to suggest causes for the confusion. Both kings were great conquerors, both belonged to the same epoch, and founded dynasties in Northern Babylonia,[40]and both bore names which, in part, are not dissimilar. Moreover, thesuggestion has been made that the words "Gani" and "Gi," which form components of the names, may possibly have both been divine titles,[41]though we find no trace of them in the later periods of history. But whether this was so or not, and whatever renderings of the names we adopt,[42]it is clear that Sargon's traditional achievements may be credited to Shar-Gani-Sharri, who, as king of Agade or Akkad, succeeded to the earlier empire of the kings of Kish.[43]

Back to Index Next