by
Damien F. Mackey
“Bronze head of a king of the Old Akkadian dynasty, most likely
representing either Naram-Sin
or Sargon of Akkad”.
Ancient Origins
Sometimes - but not always - these “either … or”
efforts at determining historical identifications can arise from the fact that
there is actually only one person
involved, but going by different names.
That I have argued, for instance, regarding the
second king by the name Sargon (II):
Assyrian King Sargon II, Otherwise Known As
Sennacherib
Anyway, the thought recently occurred to me that
the stand-out kings of the Akkadian dynasty, Sargon [I], Naram-Sin, may likewise
be the same person.
I checked the Internet to see if anyone had
picked up some comparisons, and I came across this one by Caleb Chow, likening (but
not identifying) Sargon and Naram-Sin, but also suggesting some differences:
The Legacies of Sargon and
Joshua: An Archaeological and Historiographical Comparison
(commencing on p. 74-)
....
Sargon and Naram-Sin
The most significant feature of discussion of Sargon's legacy in
comparison with Joshua son of Nun, however, lies in the fact that Sargon is
credited not only with feats and exploits far beyond Mesopotamian confines, but
also with the accomplishments of other individuals. As mentioned above the
Chronicle of Early Kings actually ignores the reigns of Rimuš and Maništušu,
mentioning only Sargon and Naram-Sin while calling Naram-Sin the
"son of Sargon.”
As a result, it is likely that both figures were regarded as legendary,
larger-than-life figures. However, it is sometimes difficult to determine
whether a particular accomplishment was actually Sargon's work; in some cases
the textual and material evidence suggests that some of the accomplishments of
Sargon actually belong to Naram-Sin. First, based on Sargon's inscriptions it
is clear that he did not reach beyond Tuttul on the Middle Euphrates and only
had minor contacts with lands further north-west while archaeological and
textual evidence suggests that Naram-Sin was in actuality the one who expanded
in that direction. Nonetheless, in "King of Battle, "Sargon is the
one who attacked the Anatolian city of Purushhanda rather than Naram-Sin. While
it is possible that Sargon simply did not leave any archeological material or
that Naram-Sin ignored Sargon's accomplishments, it is more likely that
Sargon is regarded by "King of Battle" as a "model to be
imitated.”
A similar case is seen in the city of Ebla; as already discussed above
there are texts saying that Sargon took the city. This conquest was at first
thought to be confirmed by the discovery of a burnt palace in Tell Mardikh in
western Syria, but there was once again no archaeological material to suggest
Sargon's involvement while Naram-Sin also says he conquered Ebla.
While Sargon's legends such as the Sargon Birth Legend portray Sargon as
a glorious king with no rival, the legends of Naram-Sin seem to portray
Naram-Sin as a morally questionable king. The Cuthean Legend of Naram-Sin, a
pseudo-autobiography, speaks of how Naram-Sin's kingdom is invaded by bird
people and inquires of gods but is given negative oracles, and therefore
ignores them. He then questions himself as his kingdom falls, but Ea intercedes
and Naram-Sin eventually emerges victorious.
In this tale the main moral is that one must heed the diviners or suffer
the consequences as Naram-Sin did.
The third millennium text "Curse of Akkad, "similarly,
concerns the mistakes of Naram-Sin, even beginning with a summary of Sargon's greatness--almost
as if in order to provide contrast to Naram-Sin.
Essentially, the story involves Naram-Sin destroying the Ekur temple,
resulting in the anger of the gods and the subsequent destruction of Akkad.
While the "Curse of Akkad" glorifies the destruction of Akkad,
the text itself is not anti-Akkadian per se. Rather, it was more likely
didactic like the Cuthean Legend of Naram-Sin. Historically speaking, the
contents of the "Curse of Akkad" were more than likely fictional. In
the Ur III period statues of Sargonic kings were honored at the Ekur itself;
Naram-Sin in actuality rebuilt the Ekur rather than destroyed it as the
narrative suggests.
The reason for this could have been because Naram-Sin tried to
relocate old local cults to Akkad, and in doing so anger the Sumerians. The
fall of Akkad in reality happened in the time of Naram-Sin's son Šarkališharri,
but in an inversely-similar manner to Sargon Naram-Sin is the one blamed for
the destruction of Akkad.
All things considered, Naram-Sin's actual accomplishments more than
likely rivaled those of Sargon of Akkad, but in these legends he is instead
regarded as the reason for the end of the idyllic age despite the older omens
of Naram-Sin depicting a far more favorable picture.
No comments:
Post a Comment