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 Naram-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-Kalli-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-Kalli-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 Ashurbanipal's library at Nineveh. Here we find references to the name Sharrukin, or Sargon, king of Agade, from which it appeared that he had played an important part in Assyrian heroic mythology. 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, 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, and two years later it was translated by George Smith, who added a translation of the Omens of Sargon and Naram-Sin, which he had just come across in the collections of tablets from Kuyunjik. Smith followed Rawlinson in ascribing to Sargon the building of the temple E-ulmash in Agade, by restoring his name as that of Naram-Sin's father in the broken cylinder of Nabonidus found by Taylor at Mukayyar.

Up to this time no original text of Shar-Kalli-sharri's reign was known. The first to be published was the beautiful cylinder-seal of Ibni-sharru, a high official in Shar-Kalli-sharri's service, of which Menant gave a description in 1877, and again in 1883. Menant 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 BC), but suggested that he was a still earlier king of Akkad. In 1882 an account was published of the Abu Habba cylinder of Nabonidus, which records his restoration of E-babbar and contains the passage concerning the date of Naram-Sin, "the son of Sargon". In the following year the British Museum acquired the famous mace-head of Shar-Kalli-sharri, which had been dedicated by him to Shamash in his great temple at Sippar; this was the first actual inscription of Shar-Kalli-sharri to be found. In place of Menant's reading "Shegani-shar-lukh", the name was read as "Shargan,", 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. Unlike Sargon, the historical character of Naram-Sin presented no difficulties. His name had been read upon the vase discovered by M. Fresnel at Babylon and afterwards lost in the Tigris; and, although he was there called simply "king of the four quarters", his identification with the Naram-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.

Mace head of pink marble; votive inscription of Shar-kali-sharri to Shamash at Sippar (BRITISH MUSEUM).

Apart from the difficulty printed 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 Abu 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. 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, 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 Naram-Sin. The pavement had apparently been laid by Sargon and partly re-laid by Naram-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 Naram-Sin”.

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 Naram-Sin. This was at once hailed as confirming and completing the disputed traditions of the Omen-tablet, 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. The difference in the forms of the two names was ignored or explained away, 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 Délégation en Perse. The new data are furnished by a monument, which, to judge from the published descriptions of it, 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, 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; 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 Naram-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? Pere 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 Naram-Sin are both mentioned on a tablet from Tello. On these grounds Pere Scheil suggested that Sharru-Gi, whose name he would render as Sharru-ukin (= Sargon), was the father of Naram-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 Naram-Sin and one of their successors on the throne.

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. 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. Similar evidence has already been cited to prove that Urumush of Kish was anterior to Shar-Gani-sharri and Naram-Sin, though his reign may not have been separated from theirs by any long interval. Granting these conclusions, if Naram-Sin had been the son of Sharru-Gi, as suggested by Pere 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 Naram-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 Naram-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. The fragmentary nature of the text, which was found at Abu Habba during the excavations conducted by the Turkish Government upon that site, 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 Abu 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. 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 Naram-Sin, who succeeded him upon his throne. It is clear, therefore, that the name of the earlier king of Kish has been borrowed for the king of Akkad, whose real name, Shar-Gani-sharri, has disappeared in the tradition. Are we to imagine that the great achievements, which later ages ascribed to Sargon of Akkad, were also borrowed along with his name from the historical Sargon of Kish? Or is it possible that the traditional Sargon is representative of his period, and combines in his one person the attributes of more than one king? In the cruciform monument, which we have seen may probably be assigned to Manishtusu, the king prefaces the account of his conquest of Anshan by stating that it took place at a time "when all the lands . . . revolted against me", and the phrase employed recalls the similar expression in the Neo-Babylonian chronicle, which states that in Sargon's old age "all the lands revolted against him". The parallelism in the language of the early text and the late chronicle might perhaps be cited in support of the view that facts as well as names had been confused in the later tradition.

CRUCIFORM STONE OBJECT INSCRIBED ON TWELVE SIDES WITH A VOTIVE TEXT OF AN EARLY SEMITIC KING OF KISH, RECORDING A SERIES OF GIFTS TO SHAMASH THE SUN-GOD AND HIS WIFE AA IN THE CITY OF SIPPAR. (British Museum).

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 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 Naram-Sin, and the date-formulae 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-formulae 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, 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". 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. 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. 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. 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. 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, 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, and a broken passage in the Omens appears to state that he increased the might of Babylon. 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. 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 Naram-Sin. 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, 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, 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, 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.

We have already seen reason to believe that the kings of Kish were separated by no long interval from the empire of Akkad, 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 Naram-Sin's stele of victory, 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 Naram-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-Nina's building, but at a rather higher level. 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 earliersculpture 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 Naram-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 body­guard 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, 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 stelae, 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.

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, Dati- Enlil, 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 Azupiranu, 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. Kutu, which lay to the north-east of Akkad, in the hilly country on the east of the Lower Zab, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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, 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 Naram-Sin have been found in place. The mace-head from Abu Habba 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-formulae supports the tradition of his building activity in Babylon. 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 debris 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. 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 cupbearer. 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 Naram-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 Naram-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. 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 Naram-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 formulas, 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. 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". 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.

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. 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 Naram-Sin, whom we may regard with considerable confidence as his son as well as his successor. In the later tradition Naram-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 Naram-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-ushum- gal, patesi of Lagash, was the contemporary of both Shar-Gani-sharri and Naram-Sin 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.

Naram-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 Rish-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 Man i[. . .j, 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 Naram-Sin, and at a rather later period Gudea, brought from Magan, would be more easily effected by water than overland. In that case Naram-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 Naram-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 Naram-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 Naram-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 Naram-Sin are that of Armanu, and of Satuni, king of Lulubu. 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 Naram-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. 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 Naram-Sin, who has planted his foot upon the breast of one of them. The peak of the mountain rises to the stars.

Victory Stele of Naram-Sin, King of Akkad

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 Naram-Sin's own text, the stele bears a later inscription of the Elamite king Shutruk-Nakh-khunte, 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 Naram-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. 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 Kutu 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 Naram-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 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.

Stele sculptured with the figure of Naram-Sin, King of Akkad, which was found at Pir Hussein near Diarbekr. 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.

But by far the most interesting of his building records is the stele sculptured with the figure of himself, 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, and later on, certainly with greater accuracy, to have come from Diarbekr. 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 on the site of the ancient city below the tell. There is no doubt that the stele was found in situ, and it furnishes remarkable evidence of the extent of Naram- 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 Naram-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 Naram-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, and on a seal-impression from Tello, 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 Naram-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. 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 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.

IMPRESSION OF THE CYLINDER-SEAL OF KHASHKHAMER, VASSAL OF UR-ENGUR, KING OF UR.

Sumerian Relief of seated Annunaki

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. 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 Naram-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.

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 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. 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. In the scenes engraved upon the stele of Sharru-Gi 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 Abu Habba. 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. 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.[

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 preeminent 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, is a marvellous product of the engraver's art; while the delicate modelling of the figures upon Naram-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 Naram-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 Naram-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.

CHAPTER IX

THE LATER RULERS OF LAGASH