A History of Sumer and Akkad / An account of the early races of Babylonia from prehistoric times to the foundation of the Babylonian monarchy

by L. W. King

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]

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.

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.

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.