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