CHAPTER VIII

THE EMPIRE OF AKKAD AND ITS RELATION TO KISH

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 steps

by 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 a description 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]

[Illustration: MACK-HEAD DEDICATED TO SHAMASH, THE SUN-GOD, BY

SHAR-GANI-SHARRI, KING OF AGADE.--_Brit. Mus., No._ 91146_; photo, by

Messrs. Mansell & Co._]

[Illustration: 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._ 91013

_and_ 22445.]

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 from that 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 the stele 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 late tradition; 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] The fragmentary 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 monument inscribed 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.

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 testing

[Illustration: 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.]

the 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 Zakhara had

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 have given

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, the suggestion

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]

We have already seen reason to believe that the kings of Kish were

separated by no long interval from the empire of Akkad,[44] and

this view is supported, not only by a study of their inscriptions,

but also by the close connection that may be traced between the

artistic achievements of the two periods. Epigraphic evidence has

been strikingly reinforced by the discovery of Sharru-Gi's monolith;

for the sculptures upon it share to some extent the high artistic

qualities which have hitherto been regarded as the exclusive possession

of the Dynasty of Akkad. The modelling of the figures on Narâm-Sin's

stele of victory,[45] their natural pose and spirited attitudes, have

long been recognized as belonging to a totally different category

from the squat and conventional representations upon the Stele of the

Vultures. The cylinder-seals of the period are marked by the same

degree of excellence, but between the sculptures of Eannatum and those

of Narâm-Sin there has hitherto been a gap in the orderly stages of

development. A single example of engraved metal-work had indeed been

recovered, but the date of this was, and still is, to some extent

uncertain. The object consists of the copper head of a colossal votive

lance, some thirty-one and a half inches long. On one of its faces is

engraved in spirited outline the figure of a lion rampant, and on the

neck of the blade is the name of a king of Kish beginning with the sign

"Sharru." A slight indication of date is afforded by the fact that it

was found at Tello, near the eastern corner of Ur-Ninâ's building, but

at a rather higher level.[46] If the second line of the inscription,

which is illegible through oxidization, contained a title and not part

of the name, it is probable that we may restore the name in the first

line as that of Sharru-Gi himself. Otherwise we must assign the lance

to some other king of Kish, but whether we should place him before or

after Sharru-Gi it is difficult to say.

[Illustration: Fig. 58.--Copper head of a colossal votive lance,

engraved with the name and title of an early king of Kish. From

Tello.--_Déc._ pl 5 _ter_, No 1.]

It was clear that the art of the later period was ultimately based upon

the formal though decorative conventions of the earlier Sumerian time,

but, with the doubtful exception of the copper lance-head and the rude

statues of Manishtusu, no example had previously been found of the

intermediate period. The missing link between the earlier sculpture

of Lagash and that of Akkad has now been supplied by the monolith of

Sharru-Gi. Its points of resemblance to the Vulture Stele, both in

design and treatment, prove direct continuity with early Sumerian art.

The divine net and the vultures were obviously borrowed from the Tello

monument, while the guards attending upon Sharru-Gi display the squat

and heavy appearance which characterizes the warriors of Eannatum.

At the same time, a new element is introduced in the battle scenes,

where the designs and grouping are more varied and less conventional.

Here the sculptor has allowed his fancy freer play, and has attempted

a naturalistic treatment in his delineation of the combatants. He has

not fully attained the masterly qualities which characterize the stele

of Narâm-Sin, but his work is its direct forerunner. To judge from the

striking evidence furnished by a single monument, the art of Kish must

have been closely related to that of Akkad. The latter inaugurated no

totally new departure, but was dependent on its predecessor, whose most

striking qualities it adopted and improved.

As in the sphere of art, so, too, in that of politics and government,

the Dynasty of Akkad did not originate, but merely expanded and

developed its inheritance along lines already laid down. Even with

Sharru-Gi, it is clear that we have not reached the beginning of the

Semitic movement in Northern Babylonia, and that in this respect

the kingdom of Kish resembled the later empire of Akkad. The battle

scenes upon his monuments prove that Sharru-Gi was a great conqueror,

but the traces of the text supply no details of his campaigns. It

is significant, however, that his enemies are bearded Semites, not

Sumerians, proving that the Semitic immigration into Northern Babylonia

and the surrounding districts was no new thing; we may infer that

kindred tribes had long been settled in this portion of Western Asia,

and were prepared to defend their territory from the encroachments of

one of their own race. Yet details of Sharru-Gi's sculpture prove that

with him we are appreciably nearer to the time of Sumerian domination

in the north. The shaven faces of the king's suite or body-guard

suggest Sumerians, and their clothing, which the king himself shares,

is also of that type. In such details we may see evidence of strong

Sumerian influence, either in actual life or in artistic convention.

Such a mixture of Sumerian and Semitic characteristics would be quite

foreign to the Dynasty of Akkad, and it is probable that the earlier

rulers of Kish had not yet proved themselves superior to Sumerian

tutelage.

Some account has already been given in the last chapter of the

campaigns of Manishtusu and Urumush, which paved the way for the

conquests of Shar-Gani-sharri. We there saw that Manishtusu claims to

have defeated a confederation of thirty-two cities,[47] and, if we are

right in assigning the cruciform monument to him, we have definite

proof that his successes were not confined to Akkad and Sumer, but

were carried beyond the Elamite border. Since the fragments of his

stelæ, like the cruciform monument itself, were found at Sippar, where

they had been dedicated in the great temple of the Sun-god, it is

quite possible that they should be employed to supplement each other

as having commemorated the same campaign. In that case, the kings

of the thirty-two cities are to be regarded as having inaugurated

"the revolt of all the lands," which the cruciform monument tells us

preceded the conquest of Anshan. The leader of the revolt was clearly

the king of Anshan, since the cruciform monument and its duplicate

particularly record his defeat and deportation. On his return from

the campaign, laden with gifts and tribute, Manishtusu led the king

as his captive into the presence of Shamash, whose temple he lavishly

enriched in gratitude for his victory. His boast that he ruled, as well

as conquered, Anshan was probably based on the exaction of tribute;

the necessity for the reconquest of Elam by Urumush, and later on by

Shar-Gani-sharri would seem to indicate that the authority of these

early Semitic kings in Elam was acknowledged only so long as their army

was in occupation of the country.[48]

Already, in the reign of Manishtusu, Akkad and her citizens had

enjoyed a position of great influence in the kingdom of Kish, and it

is not surprising that in the course of a few generations she should

have obtained the hegemony in Babylonia. We do not know the immediate

cause of the change of capital, nor whether it was the result of a

prolonged period of antagonism between the rival cities. On this point

the later tradition is silent, merely recording that Sargon obtained

"the kingdom" through Ishtar's help. That Shar-Gani-sharri was the

actual founder of his dynasty is clear from the inscription upon his

gate-sockets found at Nippur, which ascribe no title to his father,

Dâti-Enlil,[49] proving that his family had not even held the patesiate

or governorship of Akkad under the suzerainty of Kish. Indeed,

tradition related that Sargon's native city was Azupirânu, and it

loved to contrast his humble birth and upbringing with the subsequent

splendour of his reign. The legend of his committal to the river in an

ark of bulrushes, and of his rescue and adoption by Akki, the gardener,

would make its appeal to every later generation, and it undoubtedly

ensured for Sargon the position of a national hero in the minds of the

people. The association of the story with his name, while tending to

preserve his memory, need not be held to discredit the traditions of

his conquests, which, as we have already seen, are confirmed in several

important details by the inscriptions of his reign.

On the transference of power from Kish to Akkad an expansion of

Semitic authority from Northern Babylonia appears to have taken place

throughout a considerable portion of Western Asia. Elam no longer

claims the principal share of attention from the rulers of Akkad and

Sumer, and Shar-Gani-sharri seems to have devoted his energies to

extending his influence northwards and, more particularly, in the

west. Kutû, which lay to the north-east of Akkad, in the hilly country

on the east of the Lower Zâb, was conquered in the same year that

Shar-Gani-sharri laid the foundations of the temples of Anunitu and

Amal in Babylon, and Sharlak, its king, was taken captive.[50] The

reference to this event in the official title of the year during which

it took place is some indication of the importance ascribed to the

campaign. Unfortunately, we possess no classified date-list for the

Dynasty of Akkad, such as we have recovered for the later Dynasties of

Ur and Babylon, and the dated tablets of this period are too few to

enable us to attempt any chronological classification of them by their

contents. We are thus without the means of arranging Shar-Gani-sharri's

conquests in the order in which they took place, or of tracing the

steps by which he gradually increased his empire. But if the order of

the sections on the Omen-tablet has any significance, it would seem

that his most important conquest, that of Amurru or "the Western Land,"

took place in the earlier years of his reign.

A discrepancy occurs in the later accounts of this conquest, which have

come down to us upon the Omen-tablet and the Neo-Babylonian Chronicle.

While in the former the complete subjugation of Amurru is recorded to

have taken place "in the third year," the latter states that this event

occurred "in the eleventh year." It is quite possible to reconcile the

two traditions; the former statement may imply that it took three years

to subdue the country, the latter that the conquest was achieved in the

eleventh year of Shar-Gani-sharri's reign.[51] Indeed, the fact that

four sections of the Omens refer to Amurru would seem to imply that it

required several expeditions to bring the whole region into complete

subjection. By the extension of his authority to the Mediterranean

coast Shar-Gani-sharri made a striking advance upon the ideals of

empire possessed by his predecessors on the throne of Kish. But even in

this achievement he was only following in the steps of a still earlier

ruler. A passage in Lugal-zaggisi's text would seem to imply that,

in the course of an expedition along the Euphrates, he had succeeded

in penetrating to the Syrian coast.[52] But Shar-Gani-sharri's

conquest appears to have been of a more permanent character than

Lugal-zaggisi's raid. The position of his capital rendered it easier to

maintain permanent relations with the West, and to despatch punitive

expeditions thither in the event of his authority being called in

question.

It has been claimed on behalf of Shar-Gani-sharri that he did not

stop at the coast, but crossed the Mediterranean to Cyprus, which he

is said to have included within the limits of his empire. It would

seem, however, that while the island may have been subject indirectly

to Babylonian influence at an early period, there is no indication

of any direct or vigorous Semitic influence upon the native Cypriote

culture at this time.[53] But traces of such an influence we should

expect to find, if the island had been politically subject to

Shar-Gani-sharri, and had shared the elaborate system of communication

which he established between the distant parts of his empire. In itself

the archaeological evidence would scarcely have been cited to prove a

definite occupation of the island, had not a statement occurred upon

Sargon's Omen-tablet to the effect that "he crossed the Sea of the

West." But the newly discovered chronicle proves that the true reading

should be "the Sea in the East," which without doubt indicates the

Persian Gulf.

From the Chronicle we gather that in the original composition this

passage was not cast in the form of a consecutive narrative. It is a

poetical summary of Sargon's might, elaborating in greater detail the

preceding phrase that "he poured out his glory over the world." In

it the clauses are balanced in antithesis, and the Western Land and

the Eastern Sea, that is Syria and the Persian Gulf, are mentioned

together as having formed the extreme limits of Sargon's empire. On

the Omen-tablet the original text has been cut up into sections and

applied piecemeal to different augural phenomena. In its new setting

as a consecutive narrative of events the mention of the Persian Gulf

was obviously inconsistent with the conquest of Amurru, and hence

it was natural for a copyist to amend the text to the form in which

it has reached us on the Omen-tablet.[54] The Omens still retained

the reference to the despoiling of the Country of the Sea, _i.e._

the littoral of the Persian Gulf, which Shar-Gani-sharri doubtless

included within the southern border of his empire. With this record

we may connect the tradition, reproduced in the Legend of Sargon,

that he conquered Dilmun, an island in the Persian Gulf, and with his

maritime enterprise in this region we may compare that of Sennacherib

at a later date who crossed the Gulf in the course of his conquest of

Elam. From the earliest periods we know that the rivers and canals

of Babylonia were navigated,[55] and the Persian Gulf was a natural

outlet for the trade of the Sumerian cities in the south. In organizing

a naval expedition for the conquest of the coast and the islands,

Shar-Gani-sharri would have had native ships and sailors at his

disposal, whose knowledge of the Gulf had been acquired in the course

of their regular coastal trading.

In the internal administration of his empire Shar-Gani-sharri appears

to have inaugurated, or at any rate to have organized, a regular

system of communication between the principal cities and the capital.

The references to separate cities, which occur in the contemporary

inscriptions of his reign, are not numerous. From the texts found at

Nippur, we know that he rebuilt E-kur, the great temple of Enlil,

and many of the bricks which formed his temple-platform and that

of Narâm-Sin have been found in place.[56] The mace-head from Abû

Habba[57] is an indication that, like his predecessors on the throne

of Kish, he devoted himself to enriching the great temple of the

Sun-god in Northern Babylonia; while one of his date-formulæ supports

the tradition of his building activity in Babylon.[58] But such votive

texts and records throw no light upon his methods of government, or

upon the means he took to retain his hold upon the more outlying

districts of his empire. Some striking evidence upon this point

has, however, been recovered at Tello, and this is furnished, not

by any formal record or carefully inscribed monument, but by some

rough lumps of clay, which had been broken and thrown on one side as

useless _débris_ during the reigns of Shar-Gani-sharri himself and his

successor.

Along with the dated tablets of this period there were found at

Tello, in a mound to the S.S.E. of the "Tell of Tablets," a number

of sun-dried lumps of clay, most of them broken in pieces, but

bearing traces of seal-impressions upon their upper surface.[59] A

careful comparison and examination of them showed that on their under

sides impressions of cords and knots were still visible, and it was

evident that the clay had been used for sealing bales or bundles of

objects, which had been tied up and secured with cords. Some of the

seal-impressions bear short inscriptions, consisting of the name of

the king and that of some high functionary or officer of state, such

as "Shar-Gani-sharri, the mighty, the king of Akkad: Lugal-ushumgal,

patesi of Lagash, thy servant"; here the king is addressed in the

second person by the officer whose name and title were engraved upon

the seal. Similar inscriptions occur upon impressions from the seals of

the shakkanakku or grand vizir, the magician of the royal household,

and the king's cup-bearer. The seals were obviously employed by the

officials whose names occur in the second part of each inscription, the

name of the king being also included to give them the royal authority.

The right to use the royal name was evidently a privilege enjoyed only

by the higher officials of the court.

From the fact that the broken lumps of clay were found at Tello, it

is clear that the sealed bundles had been despatched thither from

Akkad, and we have in them incontestable evidence of a service of

convoys between Akkad and Lagash, under the direct control of the

king's officers. We may note that in addition to the seal-impressions

several of the clay fragments were inscribed in a cursive hand with

the name of an official, or private person, for whom the sealed

packet was intended. Thus a sealed bundle from the grand vizir was

addressed "To Alla," that from Dada, the magician, "To Lugal-ushumgal,"

whose name occurs in the seal on other fragments; while one sent in

Narâm-Sin's reign appears to have been addressed simply "To Lagash,"

indicating the packet's place of destination. Apart from the fact

that, with the exception of Lugal-ushumgal, the high court-officials

mentioned on the seals would naturally be living in Akkad, not in

Lagash, the addresses on the different fragments, particularly the one

last referred to, definitely prove that the sealings were employed on

bundles actually despatched from city to city and not stored in any

archive or repository. It is therefore certain that, during the reigns

of Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin, a regular system of communication

was kept up between Lagash and the court, and it may legitimately be

inferred that the capital was linked up in a similar way to the other

great cities of the empire.

In addition to the system of official convoys, the commercial tablets

of this period that have been found at Tello bear witness to an active

interchange of goods and produce between Lagash, Akkad, and other

cities in the empire.[60] Thus in some we read of the despatch of gold

to Akkad, or of herds of oxen, or flocks of sheep, lambs and goats.

In return we find Akkad sent grain and dates southwards, and probably

garments and woven stuffs; the importance of the first two exports is

indicated by the frequent occurrence of the expressions "grain of Akkad"

and "dates of Akkad" in the commercial texts. Moreover, a study of

the proper names occurring on the tablets suggests that, in consequence

of these commercial relations, a considerable Semitic immigration now

took place from Akkad and the north. Among southern Sumerian cities

Erech and Umma, Ninni-esh and Adab had particularly close relations

with Lagash, while goods despatched from Kish, Nippur, and Ur are

invoiced in the lists. The conquests of Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin

were also reflected in the articles of commerce that reached the market

of Lagash, where contributions from Magan, Melukhkha, and Elam were

not infrequently met with, and we even find the sale of slaves from

such distant countries as Gutiu and Amurru recorded. To regulate the

trade relations between the different cities, and to instruct his local

officials on details of their administration, it is probable that the

kings of Akkad, like those of the First Dynasty of Babylon, wrote

letters and despatches which were delivered by royal messengers. Though

no royal letters have been found inscribed with the regular epistolary

formulæ, a few tablets of the period contain what are obviously

directions from the king.

It was probably due to his encouragement of official and commercial

intercourse between the scattered cities over which he ruled, that

Shar-Gani-sharri was enabled to establish an efficient control over

an empire which was more extensive than that of any earlier ruler. A

study of the names upon the Obelisk of Manishtusu makes it clear that,

already under the kings of Kish, the barriers which had previously

surrounded and isolated each city-state had begun to disappear under

the influence of a central administration. This process was accelerated

in Shar-Gani-sharri's reign, and, although under the kings of Ur

and Isin a conservative reaction appears to have set in, the great

cities never returned to their former state of isolation even in the

south. Another factor, which may have contributed to this process of

centralization, may probably be traced in Manishtusu's text itself, and

echoes of it may perhaps be detected in some of the later traditions

of Sargon's reign. It will be remembered that the obelisk records the

purchase by the king of some large landed estates in the neighbourhood

of Kish and three other cities in Northern Babylonia, on which he

intended to settle certain citizens of Akkad and their adherents.[61]

This wholesale transference of a large section of the population of

a city may well have been dictated by political motives, and it is

possible that it was part of a general system, inaugurated by the kings

of Kish with the object of substituting national feeling in place of

the local patriotism of the city-state. According to this theory,

Manishtusu's object would have been to weaken Akkad by the deportation

of many of her principal citizens to the neighbourhood of Kish.

The high social standing of several of the immigrants, whose names

are enumerated on the obelisk, suggests a comparison with the late

traditions concerning Sargon's high-handed treatment of "the sons of

his palace."[62] The Neo-Babylonian Chronicle relates that Sargon

caused "the sons of his palace," that is his relatives and personal

attendants, to settle for five _kasgid_ around, and it adds that over

the hosts of the world he reigned supreme. The Omen-tablet represents

certain nobles, or powerful adherents of the king, as having been

dispossessed of their dwellings in consequence of additions made to the

royal palace; and they are recorded to have appealed to Sargon to tell

them where they should go. It is quite possible that these episodes

in the Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian texts had some such historical

basis as that suggested in the preceding paragraph. Shar-Gani-sharri

may have adopted Manishtusu's policy and carried it out on a more

extensive scale. The deportations from Akkad, referred to in the late

tradition, may have been intended to strengthen the loyal elements in

the provinces. In the course of centuries the motive which prompted the

movement would be forgotten or misunderstood, and it would be ascribed

to some such material cause as an increase in the size of the royal

palace. If this was only part of a settled policy, we may conjecture

that similar transfers were effected in the population of other parts

of the empire.

The effect of such a policy would undoubtedly have been to weaken the

power of resistance formerly possessed by self-contained city-states

against the hegemony of any one of their number. In this respect the

kings of Kish and Akkad would only have been carrying out, on a

less ambitious scale and over a smaller area, the policy which the

later Assyrian kings so ruthlessly enforced throughout the whole of

Western Asia. But, although successful for a time, no state could be

permanently established upon such a basis. The forces of discontent

were bound to come to a head, and in Shar-Gani-sharri's own case we

may perhaps trace to this cause the revolt of all the lands, which is

recorded to have taken place in his old age. It is perhaps significant,

too, that Urumush is related to have met his end in a palace

revolution.[63]

Tradition does not speak with any certain voice concerning the fate

of Shar-Gani-sharri. Both the Omen-tablet and the Chronicle relate

that he was besieged in the city of Akkad, and that he sallied forth

and signally defeated his enemies. But the latter text ends its

account of Sargon's reign with a record of disaster. "Because of the

evil which he had committed," the text runs, "the great god Marduk

was angry and he destroyed his people by famine. From the rising of

the sun unto the setting of the sun they opposed him and gave him no

rest." The expedition against Erech and Naksu, recorded in dates upon

certain tablets inscribed during the patesiate of Lugal-ushumgal, may

perhaps be referred to this period of unrest during the latter part

of Sargon's reign.[64] The reference to Sargon's closing years on the

Neo-Babylonian tablet is quite in the manner of the Hebrew books of

Chronicles. The writer traces Sargon's misfortunes to his own evil

deeds, in consequence of which the god Marduk sent troubles upon him

as a punishment. It may seem strange that such an ending should follow

the account of a brilliant and victorious reign. But it is perhaps

permissible to see in the evil deeds ascribed to Sargon a reference to

his policy of deportation, which may have raised him bitter enemies

among the priesthood and the more conservative elements in the

population of the country.

There can be little doubt that Shar-Gani-sharri was succeeded on the

throne of Akkad by Narâm-Sin, whom we may regard with considerable

confidence as his son as well as his successor. In the later tradition

Narâm-Sin is represented as the son of Sargon, and, although in his own

inscriptions he never mentions his father's name, we have contemporary

proof that his reign and that of Shar-Gani-sharri were very close

to one another. The relation of Shar-Gani-sharri's pavement in the

temple of Ekur to that of Narâm-Sin and the similar character of their

building materials suggest that the structures were laid with no long

interval between them, and the fact that Lugal-ushumgal, patesi of

Lagash, was the contemporary of both Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin[65]

supports the presumption that the latter was Shar-Gani-sharri's

successor on the throne. Hence such evidence as we possess is in favour

of accepting the later tradition of their relationship to one another.

Narâm-Sin's fame as a great conqueror, like that of his father,

survived into later times, and the Omen-tablet and the Neo-Babylonian

Chronicle relate his siege of the city of Apirak and the defeat of its

governor and of Rîsh-Adad its king. Both texts also briefly record his

successful expedition against the land of Magan. In the Omen-tablet the

name of the king is wanting, but the lately recovered Chronicle has

supplied it as Mannu-dannu. On this point the later tradition has been

strikingly confirmed by the discovery at Susa of the base of a diorite

statue of the king, on which it is recorded that he conquered Magan

and slew Mani[...],[66] its prince or "lord." The precise position of

the land of Magan is still unsettled, some setting it in the Sinaitic

peninsula, others regarding it as a portion of Eastern Arabia. In

favour of the latter view it may be noted that from Southern Babylonia

it would be easy of access by way of the Persian Gulf, and the

transport of heavy blocks of diorite, which Narâm-Sin, and at a rather

later period Gudea, brought from Magan, would be more easily effected

by water than overland. In that case Narâm-Sin's invasion of Magan was

in direct continuation of Shar-Gani-sharri's policy of extending his

empire southwards to include the shores of the Persian Gulf.

In the inscription upon this same statue, which Narâm-Sin records was

fashioned from diorite brought to Akkad for that purpose from the

mountains of Magan, he claims the proud title of "king of the four

quarters (of the world)." Shar-Gani-sharri, in addition to his usual

titles of "the mighty one, the king of Akkad," describes himself in

one of the texts upon his gate-sockets from Nippur as "king of Enlil's

realm," but in none of his inscriptions that have been recovered does

he employ the title "king of the four quarters." This may be merely a

coincidence, and no inference should perhaps be drawn from the absence

of the title from his texts. On the other hand, it is possible that its

assumption by Narâm-Sin was based on a definite claim to a world-wide

empire, the full extent of which his predecessor had not enjoyed.

However this may be, we have ample evidence of Narâm-Sin's military

activity. In the introductory lines on the statue already referred to

he claims to have been the victor in nine separate battles, forced

upon him by the attack of hostile forces, in the course of a single

year. Conquests recorded in other inscriptions of Narâm-Sin are that of

Armanu,[67] and of Satuni, king of Lulubu.[68] The latter region lay to

the east of Akkad, in the mountainous region to the north-east of Elam,

and its king appears to have formed a confederacy of the neighbouring

districts to oppose the advance of Akkadian influence in that direction.

The monument, which Narâm-Sin set up and dedicated in the temple of

his god in commemoration of this latter victory, is one of the finest

pieces of Babylonian sculpture that has yet been recovered.[69] It is

a stele of victory, and the face is sculptured with a representation

of the king conquering Satuni and his other enemies in a mountainous

country. The king, whose figure is on a larger scale than the others,

is nearly at the summit of a high mountain. He wears a helmet adorned

with the horns of a bull, and he carries a battle-axe and a bow and

arrow. Up the mountain side and along paths through the trees which

clothe the lower slopes, the king's allies and warriors climb after

him, bearing standards and weapons in their hands. Some of the king's

foes are fleeing before him, and they turn in their flight to sue for

mercy, while one still grasps a broken spear. Another has been shot by

the king and crouches on the ground, seeking to draw the arrow from his

throat. Two others lie prone before Narâm-Sin, who has planted his foot

upon the breast of one of them. The peak of the mountain rises to the

stars.

The fact that the stele was found at Susa has been employed as an

argument in favour of regarding Elam as a dependency of Akkad during

his reign. But, in addition to Narâm-Sin's own text, the stele bears a

later inscription of the Elamite king Shutruk-Nakhkhunte, from which

we may infer that it was captured in Northern Babylonia and carried

off to Susa as a trophy of war. But it is not unlikely that Narâm-Sin,

like Shar-Gani-sharri and the kings of Kish, achieved successes

against Elam. Apirak, his conquest of which tradition records, was

a country within the Elamite region, and its capture may well have

taken place during a successful raid. Mention has been made of two

early Elamite patesis, whose names have been recovered upon a tablet

from Tello and an archaic text from Susa.[70] The patesi of Susa,

whose name may be read as Ilishma, belongs to a period when that city

acknowledged the suzerainty of Akkad. But this single name does not

prove that Elam, however closely connected with Akkad by commercial

ties, formed a regular province of the Akkadian empire. Ilishma may

have been appointed to the throne of Susa by the king of Akkad during

an invasion of that country, which reached its culmination in the

deportation of the native king, as Shar-Gani-sharri deported the kings

of Kutû and Amurru, and Manishtusu the king of Anshan. The available

evidence suggests that, during the Dynasty of Akkad, Susa and Elam

generally enjoyed their independence, subject to occasional periods of

interruption.

Within the limits of Sumer and Akkad Narâm-Sin appears to have followed

his father's policy of materially benefiting the provincial cities,

while keeping their administration under his immediate control. Thus he

continued the service of convoys, and at the same time devoted himself

to the erection of temples to the gods. His rebuilding of the temples

of Enlil at Nippur and of Shamash at Sippar has been already referred

to, while his votive onyx vases found at Tello[71] prove that he did

not neglect the shrines of Lagash. Another Sumerian city in which he

undertook building operations was Ninni-esh, for there he rebuilt the

temple dedicated to the goddess Ninni in the same year that he laid the

foundation of the temple at Nippur.[72]

But by far the most interesting of his building records is the stele

sculptured with the figure of himself,[73] which is usually known as

the Diarbekr stele. When first brought to the Museum at Constantinople

it was said to have been found at Mardin,[74] and later on, certainly

with greater accuracy, to have come from Diarbekr.[75] As a matter of

fact, it was discovered at Pir Hussein, a small village built beside

a low tell, and situated about four and a half hours to the N.N.E. of

Diarbekr, on the Ambar Su, a stream which rises in the lower slopes

of the Taurus, and, after running parallel to the Sebene Su, joins

the Tigris below Diarbekr. It was found by the villagers some nineteen

years ago when they were digging for building materials

[Illustration: Fig. 59.--Stele sculptured with the figure of Narâm-Sin,

King of Akkad, which was found at Pir Hussein near Diarbekr. In the

Imperial Ottoman Museum.]

on the site of the ancient city below the tell.[76] There is no doubt

that the stele was found in situ,[77] and it furnishes remarkable

evidence of the extent of Narâm-Sin's influence northwards. The

inscription upon the stone is broken, but it contains a reference to

the defeat of the king's enemies by the god Enki, or Ea, within the

four quarters of the world. That Narâm-Sin and his army should have

penetrated to the upper reaches of the Tigris is remarkable enough

in itself, but that he should have erected a stele of victory, and

possibly a building, in at least one of the towns he subdued during the

campaign, suggests that his occupation of this region was effective for

some time.

Of Narâm-Sin's successors upon the throne of Akkad we know little. The

name of Bin-Gani-sharri, one of his sons, has been recovered upon a

seal,[78] and on a seal-impression from Tello,[79] but his name has

not been found with the royal title, so that we do not know whether he

succeeded his father upon the throne. Another son of Narâm-Sin, the

reading of whose name is uncertain, held the post of patesi of Tutu,

for his name and title have been preserved on a perforated plaque

from Tello, engraved by Lipush-Iau, who describes herself as his

daughter and lyre-player to the Moon-god, Sin.[80] The famous seal of

Kalki, the scribe, who was in the service of Ubil-Ishtar, "the king's

brother," is also to be assigned to this period, but to which reign we

cannot tell. The scene engraved upon the seal[81] gives an interesting

picture of one of these early Semitic princes attended by his suite.

The central figure, who carries an axe over his left shoulder, is

probably Ubil-Ishtar, and he is followed by a Sumerian servant, whom we

may identify with the scribe Kalki, the holder of the seal. The other

attendants, consisting of the prince's huntsman, his steward with his

staff of office, and a soldier, are all bearded Semites. The shaven

head and fringed garment of the Sumerians are here retained by the

scribe, suggesting that, though the Sumerians were employed by their

conquerors, little racial amalgamation had taken place.

[Illustration: IMPRESSION OF THE CYLINDER-SEAL OF THE SCRIBE OF

UBIL-ISHTAR, BROTHER OF AN EARLY SEMITIC KING OF NORTHERN BABYLONIA.

--_Brit. Mus., No._ 89137.]

[Illustration: IMPRESSION OF THE CYLINDER-SEAL OF KHASHKHAMER, VASSAL

OF UR-ENGUR, KING OF UR.--_Brit. Mus., No._ 89126.]

[Illustration: IMPRESSION OF THE CYLINDER-SEAL DEDICATED TO THE GOD

MESLAMTAEA BY KILULLA-GUZALA ON BEHALF OF DUNGI, KING OF UR.--_Brit.

Mus., No._ 89131.]

To the time of the kings of Akkad must also be assigned the Stele of

Victory, two fragments of which have been found at Tello, sculptured

on both faces with bas-reliefs, arranged in registers, above an

inscription.[82] The sculptor has represented his battle-scenes as

a series of hand-to-hand conflicts, and here we see bearded Semitic

warriors, armed with spear, axe, or bow and arrows, smiting their

enemies. The inscription is very broken, but enough is preserved to

indicate that it enumerates a number of estates or tracts of land,

some, if not all of them, situated in the neighbourhood of Lagash,

which have been assigned to different high officials. The summary at

the end of the text is partly preserved, and states that the list

comprised seventeen chief cities and eight chief places, and it ends

with a record that may probably be restored to read: "Besides Akkad,

the kingdom, which he had received, [was the patesiate of Lagash given

to ...]." It would thus seem that the stele was set up in Lagash to

commemorate its acquisition by a king of Akkad, who at the same time

rewarded his own courtiers and officials by assigning them parts of the

conquered territory. The name of the king is wanting in the text, and

we must depend on conjecture to decide the reign or period to which it

belongs.

A comparison of the monument with Narâm-Sin's Stele of Victory will

show that, though the attitudes of the figures are natural and

vigorous, the sculptor does not display quite the same high qualities

of composition and artistic arrangement. This fact might conceivably

be employed in favour of assigning the stele to a period of decadence

when the dynasty of Shar-Gani-sharri may have fallen before the onset

of some fresh wave of Semitic hordes. But the impression given by the

monument is that of a vigorous art struggling towards perfection

rather than the rude imitation of a more perfect style, and it is

probable that we must date it in an early, rather than in a late,

period during this epoch of Semitic domination.[83]

The reference to "Akkad, the kingdom," in the summary at the end of the

text, renders it difficult to assign it to an early king of Kish such

as Sharru-Gi, for we should then have to assume that Shar-Gani-sharri's

dynasty was not the earliest one to rule in Akkad, and

[Illustration: Fig. 60. Portion of a Stele of Victory of a king of

Akkad, sculptured in relief with battle scenes; from Tello.--In the

Louvre: Cat. No. 21.]

that still earlier Semitic kings reigned in that city before the rise

of Kish. But in view of the total absence of other evidence in support

of such a conclusion, it is preferable to assign the Tello stele

provisionally to Shar-Gani-sharri himself. It will have been noted

that the foes sculptured upon the monument are Semites, not Sumerians,

and, if our assumption is correct, we may see in them the men of Kish,

on whose defeat by Shar-Gani-sharri the whole of Sumer, including the

city of Lagash, would have fallen under the rule of Akkad.[84] In that

case the stele may well have commemorated the decisive victory by which

Shar-Gani-sharri put an end to the domination of Kish and founded his

own empire.

The absence of Sumerians from the battle-scenes in the reliefs of the

period that we possess is significant of their political annihilation

before the Semitic onslaught.

[Illustration: Fig. 61. Portion of a Stele of Victory of a king of

Akkad, sculptured in relief with battle scenes; from Tello. For the

other face of the fragment see the opposite page.]

In the scenes engraved upon the stele of Sharru-Gi[85] the king's

enemies are Semites, so that even in his time we have the picture of

different Semitic clans or tribes contending among themselves for the

possession of the countries they had overrun. That the racial movement

was not confined to Akkad and Sumer is proved by Semitic inscriptions

of the rulers of other districts. Lasirab, King of Gutiu, has left us

a ceremonial mace-head, which was found at Abû Habba.[86] Whether it

was carried to Sippar as spoil of war, or deposited there by Lasirab

himself, we cannot say; but its text proves that Gutiu was ruled by

Semitic monarchs. The neighbouring district of Lulubu was similarly

governed, and Anu-banini, one of its kings, has left us sculptured

images of himself and his goddess Ninni, or Ishtar, upon the face of a

cliff near Ser-i-Pul-i-Zohab.[87] Here the river Hulvan flows through

a natural rift in a low range of limestone hills that rise abruptly

from the plain. The track runs through the rift in the hills beside the

stream, and on to the foot of the Zagros pass and through the mountains

into Elam. Road, river, and cliff form a striking combination, and not

only Anu-banini but other monarchs who passed that way have left their

records on the rock. One of these, on the further bank of the stream,

was set there by another early Semitic king, whose sculpture was

influenced by that of Anu-banini.[88]

Among the various Semitic kingdoms and small principalities which

were founded and endured for a time in this portion of Western Asia,

that of Akkad won the pre-eminent place. In the mountainous regions

to the east and north of Elam the immigrants doubtless dominated the

country, but they found a population in a state of culture little more

advanced than their own, and, if subject to no other influence, they

must have remained in a condition of semi-barbarity. But in Babylonia

the case was different. Here the vigorous nature of the nomad found a

rich soil to support its growth and development. The ancient culture

of the Sumerians was adopted by their conquerors, at whose hands it

underwent a gradual change. The sculptor slowly freed himself from

the stiff conventions of his Sumerian teachers, and, while borrowing

their technical skill, he transformed the work of their hands. Such

a cylinder-seal as that of Ibni-sharru, Shar-Ganni-sharri's scribe,

with its design of kneeling heroes watering oxen,[89] is a marvellous

product of the engraver's art; while the delicate modelling of

the figures upon Narâm-Sin's stele, their natural attitudes, and

the decorative arrangement of the composition as a whole, are not

approached on any earlier monument. The later sculptures of Lagash owe

much to the influence of Akkadian work.

In the political sphere the Dynasty of Akkad attained a similar

position. Not only did her kings secure the hegemony in Akkad and

Sumer, but they pushed their influence beyond the limits of Babylonia,

and consolidated an empire in the strict sense of the term. His

rule over the four quarters of the world may have led Narâm-Sin to

add to his titles, and the growth of their power probably increased

the tendency of these early monarchs to assume the attributes and

privileges of gods. Of the kings of Kish we have evidence that some

were deified, and the divine determinative is set before the name of

Shar-Gani-sharri in two inscriptions that have come down to us. In

nearly every text of Narâm-Sin the determinative for deity precedes

his name, and in some of the contemporary seal-inscriptions he is

even termed "the god of Akkad." Under the later kings of Ur the cult

of the reigning monarch was diligently practised, and his worship was

continued after death. There is no evidence that this custom obtained

among the earlier Sumerian kings and patesis, and we may with some

confidence set its origin in this period of Semitic supremacy. That

the kings of Akkad should have claimed divine honours during their own

lifetime may probably be connected with the increase in their dominion,

based upon conquests which extended from the Persian Gulf to the

Mediterranean, and from Arabia to the mountains of Kurdistan.

[1] Written both as _Sharru_-GI-NA and as _Sharru_-DU.

[2] Cf. "Cuneiform Inscriptions from Western Asia," Vol. II. (1866),

pl. 39, No. 5, l. 41, where Sargon's name occurs in conjunction with

his title "King of Agade," or pl. 48, l. 40, where he is credited with

such descriptions as "king of justice" (_shar kitti_), "proclaimer of

justice" (_dabib kitti_), "proclaimer of favours" (_dabib damkâti_);

the passage in pl. 50, l. 64, which mentions the old Babylonian city of

Dûr-Sharrukîn, "Sargon's Fortress," was also referred to him.

[3] Rawlinson announced his discovery of the Legend of Sargon in the

_Athenæum_, No. 2080, Sept. 7, 1867, p. 305, where he made the acute

suggestion that Sargon of Assyria, the father of Sennacherib, may have

been called "the later Sargon" (_Sharru-ukîn arkû_) "to distinguish him

from the hero of romance whose adventures were better known among the

Assyrian people."

[4] "Cun. Inscr. West. Asia," Vol. III. (1870), pl. 4, No. VII.

[5] "Trans. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," Vol. I. (1872), p. 46 f.

[6] See "Cun. Inscr. West. Asia," Vol. I. (1861), pl. 69, Col. II.,

ll. 29-32; Oppert had restored the name of Narâm-Sin's father as

Sagaraktiyas (cf. "Expédition scientifique en Mésopotamie," Vol. I.

(1863), p. 273, and "Histoire des Empires de Chaldée et d'Assyrie"

(1865), pp. 22 ff.).

[7] See "Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions et

Belles-lettres," Ser. IV., Tome V. (Oct., 1877), pp. 330 ff. An

impression of the seal had been sent from Baghdad to Constantinople,

whence M. Ménant had received it from M. Barré de Lancy in 1865. It was

later acquired by M. de Clercq (cf. "Collection de Clercq," Tome I.,

1888, No. 46, pl. V., p. 49 f.).

[8] "Recherches sur la glyptique orientale," I. (1883), p. 73 f.

[9] See Pinches, "Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," Vol. V. (Nov. 7, 1882), pp.

8 f., 12. For a discussion of the date, see above, Chap. III., p. 60 f.

[10] See Pinches, _op. cit._, Vol. VI. (Nov. 6, 1883), pp. 11 ff. The

identification was opposed by Ménant, who pointed out that the two

final syllables of the name could not be treated as a title (_op.

cit._, Feb. 5, 1884, pp. 88 ff., and "Collection de Clercq," p. 49 f.).

Ménant adhered to his former opinion that Shargani-shar-lukh (as he now

read the name) was an earlier king of Agade.

[11] See Oppert, "Expedition scientifique," II. (1859), p. 62, and

"Cun. Inscr. West. Asia," Vol. I., pl. 3, No. VII.

[12] See George Smith, "Trans. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," Vol. I., p. 52.

[13] Cf. Winckler, "Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens" (1892), pp.

30, 39, and "Altorientalische Forschungen," I., p. 238 (1895); and

Niebuhr, "Chronologie" (1896), p. 75.

[14] Hilprecht, "Old Bab. Inscr.," I. (1893), pll. 1-3, p. 15.

[15] _Op. cit._, II. (1896), p. 19 f.

[16] Cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions

et Belles-lettres," Ser. IV., Tome XXIV., 1896, pp. 355 ff.; and

Heuzey, "Revue d'Assyr.," IV. (1897), p. 2.

[17] See King, "Chronicles concerning early Babylonian Kings" (1907),

Vol. I., pp. 27 ff.

[18] _Shargani_, the first part of the name Shar-Gani-sharri, was

equated with _Sharru_-GI-NA (=ukîn), and the second part of the name,

read as _shar-ali_, "king of the city" was regarded as having been

dropped by a process of abbreviation.

[19] See Gautier, "Recueil de travaux," Vol. XXVII., pp. 176 ff., and

Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," IV., pp. 4 ff.

[20] See above, Chap. V., pp. 125, 130 ff.

[21] See above, p. 217, n. 1.

[22] See Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Sémit," IV., pp. 4 ff.

[23] See Thureau-Dangin, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1908, col. 313 ff.; cf.

also King, "Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," Vol. XXX. (1908), pp. 239 ff.

[24] See above, p. 203.

[25] See above, p. 203 f.

[26] See King, _op. cit._, p. 240 f. M. Thureau-Dangin has since

examined the text at Constantinople, and he confirms the restoration.

[27] Cf. Scheil, "Une saison de fouilles à Sippar," p. 96.

[28] See above, pp. 206, 212

[29] King, "Chronicles," Vol. II., pp. 27 ff., Sections II, IV., V.,

and VII.

[30] Thureau-Dangin, "Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions,"

1896, p. 358, No. 2 and n. 1, "Recueil de tablettes chaldéennes," p.

57, No. 124 (cf. p. 46, No. 85); see also "Königsinschriften," p. 225.

[31] "Chronicles," Vol. II., p. 25 f., Section I.

[32] "Comptes rendus," 1896, p. 357, No. 1; "Recueil de tablettes," p.

60, No. 130.

[33] The warlike expedition to Dêr (Dûr-ilu), which is referred to in

the Legend of Sargon (see "Chronicles," Vol. II., p. 92), may possibly

be connected with this campaign of Shar-Gani-sharri.

[34] See above, p. 205, and below, pp. 231, 243 f.

[35] "Comptes rendus," 1896, p. 359, No. 6; "Recueil de tablettes," p.

56, No. 118.

[36] "Chronicles," II., p. 8, l. 18.

[37] _Op. cit._, II., p. 27. The passage has no reference to Kish, as

suggested by Hilprecht, "Old Bab. Inscr.," II., p. 26.

[38] "Chronicles," II., pp. 3, 30 f., 90 f.

[39] See below, p. 241.

[40] Though we have no direct evidence in his case, Sharru-Gi may well

have been the founder of his dynasty; the absence of his father's

name from the genealogy in the Constantinople text and the cruciform

monument accords with this suggestion. Shar-Gani-sharri ascribes no

title to his father Dâti-Enlil (see further, p. 232).

[41] Cf. Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," I., pp. 16, 26.

[42] Dhorme's suggestion that GI was an ideographic writing for _Gani_

in the early period (cf. "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1909, col. 53 f.) is

scarcely probable, though the fact that the commonest ideographic value

for GI was _kanû_ or _ganû_ ("a reed") may possibly have contributed

in some way to the later confusion. It should also be noted that Clay

has recently pointed out the occurrence of the name _Sha-ru-ki-in_, on

a fragment of an early text (see "Amurru," p. 194), as apparently that

of a ruler of "the four quarters." Since the final _n_ can hardly be

treated as the nunnation (as in the word _ir-bi-ti-in_ in the fifth

line of the text), we may probably regard the passage as proving the

early existence of the name _Sharrukîn_, Sargon, which would be the

natural rendering of the name Sharru-GI (see above, p. 221). But the

title of the king in the new text, and his description as "the beloved

of Ishtar," would suit a king of Akkad rather than a king of Kish, thus

affording additional excuse for a confusion by the later scribes.

[43] I is therefore still permissible to employ the name "Sargon" as

a synonym of Shar-Gani-sharri, the predecessor of Narâm-Sin upon the

throne of Akkad. Similarly the terms "Pre-Sargonic" and "Post-Sargonic"

need not be given up. In the text, however, the forms Sharru-Gi and

Shar-Gani-sharri have been employed for the sake of clearness.

[44] See above, p. 210 f.

[45] See the frontispiece; and cf. p. 242 f.

[46] See Heuzey, "Rev. d'Assyr.," Vol. IV., p. 111.

[47] See above, p. 211 f.

[48] It should be noted that on a tablet from Tello of the time of the

Dynasty of Akkad mention is made of a patesi of Susa who must have been

the dependent of the reigning king. His name should probably be read as

Ilishma, but as the end of the line is broken, it is also possible that

the personage referred to was Ilish, an official in the service of the

patesi of Susa (cf. "Rec. de tabl.," p. 57, No. 122, Rev., 1. 2 f.).

It is possible that to this period also should be assigned a patesi,

whose name, occurring upon the fragment of an archaic inscription from

Susa, has been provisionally read as Ur-ilim (see Scheil, "Textes

Elam.-Sémit.", III., p. 1); see further, p. 243 f.

[49] Cf. "Old Bab. Inscr.," Pt. II., pl. 2, No. 2; and see further, p.

248 f.

[50] See Thureau-Dangin, "Comptes rendus," 1890, p. 359, No. 6;

"Recueil de tablettes," p. 56, No. 118; and "Königsinschriften," p. 225.

[51] See King, "Chronicles," Vol. I., p. 38 f.

[52] See above, p. 197 f.

[53] For a discussion of the archaeological evidence adduced in favour

of the theory, see further, Chap. XII., p. 343 f.

[54] The phrase "the Sea in the East," opposed to the Country of the

West, can only mean the Eastern Sea, _i.e._ the Persian Gulf. It

would be more than a fanciful interpretation to take it as implying

a maritime expedition in the eastern portion of the Western Sea, as

Winckler suggests (see "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," Nov. 1907, col. 580). The

Neo-Babylonian Chronicle, though the tablet on which it is written

is later in point of time than the Omen-tablet from Ashur-bani-pal's

Library, clearly represents the more original version. There would be

no object in amending the Chronicle's text, while its mutilation to fit

the Liver-omens would naturally introduce inconsistencies, which it

would be tempting to a copyist to correct.

[55] In the commercial tablets of the period of Shar-Gani-sharri and

Narâm-Sin, reference is frequently made to transport by water. Thus the

arrival of grain-boats at Lagash is often noted, or arrangements are

made for the despatch of cattle and asses by boat to other places.

[56] See above, p. 219.

[57] See above, p. 218.

[58] See above, p. 226.

[59] See Heuzey, "Rev. d'Assyr.," Vol. IV., pp. 2 ff.

[60] See Thureau-Dangin, "Rec. de tabl.," pp. 44 ff., Nos. 77 ff.;

"Rev. d'Assyr.," IV., pp. 71 ff.

[61] See above, pp. 206 ff.

[62] See "Chronicles," I., p. 40 f.; II., pp. 5, 32.

[63] See above, p. 205.

[64] See Thureau-Dangin, "Recueil de tablettes," Nos. 99, 136, 176.

The possibility may also be noted that the expedition represents one

of Narâm-Sin's successful efforts, at the beginning of his reign, to

recover his predecessor's empire which had dwindled during his later

years.

[65] In addition to Lugal-ushumgal's seal-impression with its address

to Shar-Gani-sharri, another has been recovered with a similar address

to Narâm-Sin, which he evidently employed after the latter's ascension

of the throne; see Heuzey, "Rev. d'Assyr.," Vol. IV., p. 11.

[66] On the monument the end of the name is wanting. Scheil suggested

the restoration Mani[um] (see "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," III., p. 5),

a reading that would not be inconsistent with the traces on the

Omen-tablet (see King, "Chronicles," II., p. 39, n. 1). But M.

Thureau-Dangin informs me that the traces upon the statue are not those

of the sign UM, but possibly of DAN, so that the form Mannu-dannu may

be a fairly accurate transcription of the original name.

[67] See "Comptes rendus," 1899, p. 348.

[68] See "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," I., pp. 53 ff.

[69] See the frontispiece to this volume.

[70] See above, p. 231, n. 2

[71] See Heuzey, "Rev. d'Assyr.," IV., p. 1. He also built in Lagash a

temple to Sin, the Moon-god; see King, "Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," Nov.

1909.

[72] See the date-formulæ on tablets Nos. 86, 106, and 144 in "Rec. de

tabl.," pp. 46, 53, 65; "Königsinschriften," p 226.

[73] See p. 245, Fig. 59.

[74] See Scheil, "Rec. de trav.," Vol. XV., p. 62.

[75] See Hilprecht, "Old Bab. Inscr.," II., p. 63, No. 120; and Meyer,

"Geschichte des Altertums," Bd. I., Hft. II., p. 473.

[76] I visited the site in the summer of 1904, when on my way from

Persia to Samsun, and the exact spot was pointed out to me where the

stele was found. Narâm-Sin's building, or platform, was on lower ground

below the tell, on which probably stood the citadel. The stele was

found only about five feet below the surface, and it is clear that no

considerable accumulation of debris covers the remains of the city of

Narâm-Sin's time, and that its excavation would be a comparatively

simple matter.

[77] On being discovered by the villagers no particular value was

attached to it, and, as it was too large for them to use, it was left

lying for three years on the spot where it was found. It was then

brought to Diarbekr by the owner of the village, Chialy Effendi, who

built it into the edging of a fountain in the court of his house on the

left bank of the Tigris outside the city. On his death, about fourteen

years ago, Natik Effendi sent it to the Museum at Constantinople.

[78] See Ménant, "Recherches sur la glyptique orientale," p. 76, pl.

1, No. 1. The seal is that of Izinum, the scribe, who was evidently in

Bin-Gani-sharri's service.

[79] The seal of Abi-ishar, the scribe, bore the names of both

Narâm-Sin and Bin-Gani-sharri; see Thureau-Dangin, "Rec. de tabl.," p.

70, No. 169. Erinda is mentioned on a commercial tablet of the period

as the slave of a certain Bi-Gani-sharri (_op. cit._, p. 48, No. 94,

"Rev. d'Assyr.," IV., p. 76), who may possibly be identified with

Narâm-Sin's son.

[80] "Comptes rendus," 1899, p. 348.

[81] See the opposite plate.

[82] See Heuzey, "Comptes rendus," 1895, pp. 22 ff.; "Rev. d'Assyr.,"

Vol. III., pp. 113 ff.; and Thureau-Dangin, "Revue Sémitique," 1897,

pp. 166 ff. For the sculptures, see p. 248 f., Figs. 60 and 61.

[83] Certain epigraphic peculiarities in the inscription, which are

not characteristic of the Sargonic period, may perhaps be explained as

due to the influence of Lagash: the inscription may have been engraved

by a scribe of that city, who has reproduced the local forms of the

characters with which he was familiar (cf. "Rev. Sémit.," 1897, p. 169).

[84] As the stele was set up in Lagash, the section dealing with the

distribution of that city's land would naturally be added to the

historical record.

[85] See above, p. 220.

[86] See the plate facing p. 206.

[87] See De Morgan, "Mission scientifique en Perse," Vol. IV., p. 161,

pl. ix.

[88] When passing by this route into Persia from Turkey, in the

spring of 1904, I made a careful study of all the sculptured panels

on both sides of the Hulvan. The second largest panel is that of this

early Semitic king; on the ledge below the sculpture are traces of

an inscription, of which sufficient is preserved to prove that it is

written in Semitic Babylonian. The sculptured panel at Sheikh-Khân,

with its fragmentary Semitic inscription (De Morgan, op. city pl. x.),

is a very much ruder production, and is probably of a considerably

later date.

[89] See the panel on the cover of this volume; and cf. p. 217 f.