Assyrian King Sargon II, otherwise known
as Sennacherib
Part Three: Akkadian King Sargon I,
otherwise known as Naram-Sin?
by
Damien F. Mackey
“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”.
Caleb Chow
There may be enough similarities between dynastic founder, Sargon (I)
of Akkad, and his presumed son, or grandson, Naram-Sin, to suggest that Sargon
was, otherwise, Naram-Sin, thereby suggesting a parallel case with the second
Sargon (II), with whom, in this series, I have identified Sennacherib.
In the latter part of my recent article:
Naram-Sin cramped for
battleaxe swinging space
I had pointed to certain similarities between Sargon and Naram-Sin,
such as the conquest of Subartu
(Shubartu); defiance of the gods
with famine being a punishment; and a major revolt.
And I asked with respect to the latter:
The
coalitional assault against Naram-Sin is known as “The Great Revolt”.
Now, Sargon
of Akkad also faced, and overcame a “revolt”.
Therefore I
must now ask:
Were these
the same revolt?
And was
Sargon of Akkad, Naram-Sin?
Prior to this, I had toyed with the idea of connecting:
Sargon
and Naram-Sin
along the lines of Sargon II and Sennacherib, having written in this
article:
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 ….
[End of quote]
As with Sargon II and Sennacherib, so too
with Sargon I and Naram-Sin, one can sometimes get the overall impression of this
being just the one, two-sided coin.
I had written of this in my university
thesis in the case of Sargon II and Sennacherib:
(Volume One, pp. 141-142):
Other factors
seemingly in favour of the standard view that Sargon II and Sennacherib were
two distinct kings may be, I suggest, put down to being ‘two sides of the same
coin’. For example, one might ask the question, in regard to Russell’s
statement: “... Nineveh, where there is little evidence of Sargon’s
activities”:
- Why would so proud and mighty a king as Sargon II
virtually neglect one of Assyria’s most pre-eminent cities, Nineveh?
- Conversely, why did Sennacherib seemingly avoid
Sargon’s brand new city of Dur-Sharrukin?
- Again, why did Sennacherib record only campaigns,
and not his regnal years?
[End of quote]
Even the Akkadian succession seems to be rather uncertain,
as also does: Who conquered what?
Thus Caleb Chow writes in that same article, “The
Legacies of Sargon and Joshua: An Archaeological and Historiographical
Comparison” (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
….
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. ….
[End of quote]
Here we find Sargon’s legends claiming
success for Naram-Sin’s accomplishments, and vice versa. That reads like a
classic case of only the one king, but
two names.
Again, we find Naram-Sin having to
double-up on Sargon’s supposedly earlier conquests.
Thus M. Van de Mieroop writes (A
History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000 – 323 BC, Blackwell, 2004),
“Naram-Sin had to repeat many of his grandfather’s campaigns” (p. 63):
Military matters
dominate the contents of these inscriptions. We no longer have the statues
themselves, but scribes in the early second millennium copied out the texts
inscribed there, and some of the copies have been preserved. In these texts,
the first five Akkadian kings make extensive coasts about their military
exploits. The statements of Sargon and Naram-Sin stand out, however, because of
their wide geographical range: these were certainly the greatest military men
of their time. Yet, as Naram-Sin had to repeat many of his grandfather’s
campaigns, it seems these often amounted to no more than raids. ….
[End of quote]
More likely, these were just the same
raids, not repeats.
Notice, too, the dearth of primary
documentation.
The statues that recorded the Akkadian
military campaigns, as Van de Mieroop tells (p. 62): “set up in the courtyard
of the temple of Nippur”, “we no longer have”.
Copies thought to date to the early
second millennium, presumably the work of Hammurabi’s Old Babylonian Dynasty,
must in reality be dated much later than this, on the basis of a necessary
massive lowering of Hammurabi on the time table:
"Amraphel
King of Shinar" was not King Hammurabi. Part Two: Amraphel can be Nimrod,
not Hammurabi
I leave the last word to Caleb Chow (op. cit., ibid.):
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