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 Finally, the recent discovery of a copy of the original chronicle, from which the historical references in the Omen-tablet were taken, restored the traditions to their true setting and freed them from the augural text into which they had been incorporated.[17]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.