A great wealth of literature remains as a legacy
of the dynasty of Akkade and its two most noted rulers, Sargon and
Naram-Sin. Much of this literature
concentrates on the traits and qualities of these two rulers in an effort to
exaggerate their abilities, prowess, and characters. Examination of the combined literature that remains about these
leaders offers a view of how ancient Akkadian literature constructs the ideal
Semitic ruler. This depiction of the
ideal Akkadian ruler can then be juxtaposed with the literature that
commemorates the post-Akkadian kings of the third dynasty of Ur in order to see
whether or not there is an apparent difference in the way literature constructs
the ideal Semitic and Sumerian rulers.
This difference, or lack thereof, can then be used to decide if there
was an ethnic difference between the Sumerians and Akkadians of ancient
Mesopotamia. If there were an ethnic
difference, one would expect that the depictions of the ideal leaders would be
in opposition in some respect because each ethnic group would, naturally,
accentuate and embellish different characteristics of their idealized rulers
based on what their culture deemed uniquely important. But, upon comparison of the literature surrounding
Sargon and Naram-Sin and the Shulgi royal hymns, one finds that the there is
little essential difference and that literature constructs the ancient Semitic
and Sumerian sovereigns in a very similar manner. This, then, inductively supports that there was no apparent
ethnic difference between the Sumerians and Akkadians of ancient Mesopotamia
because the opposing constructions of the ideal rulers that one would expect if
there were an ethnic difference are not present. In addition, the juxtaposition of the Shulgi royal hymns with the
literature surrounding Sargon and Naram-Sin demonstrates the evolution of the
hymn, from previous literary forms, as a way of propagating many themes already
present in literature.
The known Sumerian hymns can be divided into three
major categories: divine hymns, royal hymns, and temple hymns (Klein, 1981, 21-22). While the temple hymns, in which temples are
glorified, and the divine hymns, in which gods are exalted, are valuable
literary tools, they aid little in deciphering the way in which ancient Sumerian
literature constructs the ideal sovereign.
The hymns that are most essential for developing a conceptualization of
the ideal Sumerian ruler are the royal hymns because they offer
characterizations, descriptions, and narratives of the ancient Sumerian kings. The one hundred twenty-five known royal
hymns can be further divided based on the way in which the king is involved in
the hymn (Klein, 1981, 24). Klein
defines the hymns of type A as those in which the hymn addresses a god who is
invoked for the king and those of type B in which the king himself is addressed
as the object of the tribute (Klein, 1981, 23). Of these one hundred twenty-five known royal hymns, thirty-nine
belong to the Third Dynasty of Ur and Shulgi alone accounts for twenty-three of
these thirty-nine royal hymns (Klein, 1981, 24). Thus, the analysis of the type B Shulgi hymns seems to be a quite
logical point from which to examine the way that literature constructs the
ideal Sumerian ruler.
Shulgi D, Shulgi
the Avenger of Sumer, is a narratival hymn of type B in which Shulgi sets
out on a campaign against the Gutians in retaliation for a previous attack upon
Sumer (Klein, 1981, 50 and 58).
Shulgi’s subsequent victory then firmly establishes his hegemony over
Mesopotamia (Klein, 1981, 58). Many
themes appear in this text that resurface in other Shulgi royal hymns and will
also be seen to have been present in previous Akkadian literature. The hymn is rich with dragon and lion
imagery and metaphors. Shulgi is
described as a “raging lion” in line 24, “great dragon” in line 25, and “the
dragon with eyes of a lion” in lines 1 and 2.
Obviously, this “righteous man, invested with justice by Utu” is
compared to beasts of such great power in an effort to express his innate
strength and abilities, but it is also important to simultaneously stress that
Shulgi’s destructive acts are justified (line 5). Other descriptions do not depict Shulgi as violently, but rather
as “the righteous shepherd of Sumer” (lines 298, 303, 306, 311, and 318), which
implies patience and concern for his subjects.
Shulgi’s divine birth and the attention he received from the gods are
mentioned in lines 41-46 to accentuate the divine aspects of his kingship. In line 219, Shulgi also attests that he
will destroy in a foreign land whatever has been destroyed in Sumer, which in
conjunction with having “destroyed the city” and “ruined the city walls” in
line 228 solidifies Shulgi’s description as that of a powerful warrior and
conqueror. Shulgi’s might, mental
prowess, unrivalled power, and heroism are all stressed as paramount qualities
of Shulgi (and the ideal Sumerian ruler) in the thrice-repeated refrain:
“O my King, who
is as mighty as you, and who rivals you?
Indeed, who is from birth as richly endowed with
understanding as you?
May your heroism shine forth!
May your might be tenderly praised!”
Shulgi X, Shulgi
the Favorite of the Gods, is a chain of narrative episodes in which Shulgi
receives the blessings and praises of many gods. The end of the text is a hymnal epilogue in which the “justice,
the harmony, and prosperity prevailing in Sumer under” Shulgi’s reign are
described (Klein, 1981, 128). The first
narrative describes the sacred, yearly marriage rites of Shulgi and
Inanna. Shulgi then travels to Larsa
where he gains the blessing of Utu.
Shulgi then receives a blessing from Ninazu while visiting him in his
local temple. Finally, Shulgi returns
to Ur where he receives the blessing of his city god in the royal chamber of
the temple while his head is raised in worship. The text ends by praising Shulgi and, unexpectedly,
Nanna-Suen. Type B royal hymns would
generally end with an epilogue addressed solely to the king, but in the case of
Shulgi X, the hymnal prologue is also missing, which makes it difficult to
assess the reason for this discrepancy (Klein, 1981, 124 and 128). Klein offers that Shulgi X may actually be
the missing end of Shulgi D in which Shulgi gains the praise and blessings of
many gods as the result of his successful campaign against the Gutians (Klein,
1981, 129). But, Klein also says that
it also may not be so because the long hymnal prologue of Shulgi D is dedicated
solely to Shulgi and one would expect the end of Shulgi D to follow this
pattern and praise Shulgi, not Nanna-Suen (Klein, 1981, 129). Thus, it seems that the themes,
characterizations, and imagery of Shulgi X should be analyzed, compared, and
combined with those of Shulgi D as if the two were separate texts because the
evidence is not overwhelming enough to conclude that they are part of the
same. It is possible that Nanna-Suen’s
praise at the end of Shulgi X is an anomaly that could simply be due to the
changing compositional nature of the hymn as a literary form.
Shulgi the
Favorite of the Gods characterizes Shulgi in a very similar manner to the
way in which he is characterized in Shulgi D, but Shulgi X offers many more
examples of the themes of divine blessing, praise, and decree, which are very
important in the conceptualization of the ideal Sumerian ruler. The description of Shulgi as the “righteous
shepherd” presents itself again, this time in conjunction with Shulgi’s
depiction as “the loving heart,” which continues to stress the importance of
patience and concern for subjects as qualities of the ideal ruler (lines 9, 81,
and 133). Line 83 repeats the use of
the animal imagery to describe Shulgi as a “mighty hero, who was born to be a
lion,” to characterize Shulgi as innately strong and fierce as was done in
Shulgi D. Another type of comparison to
nature presents itself with the intent, again, of glorifying Shulgi’s power and
abilities when Shulgi is presented as having “howled like the storm” (line
114). Shulgi receives praise and
blessing from four gods with the hopes that “Enlil, the decreer of the fates, may
never change it” and that “the loving heart, Innana, never neglect” him (lines
72, 125). Shulgi’s divine kingship is
supported by the will of the gods, which is shown by his description as “the
omniscient one from birth” and “the son of Enlil” (lines 142, 155). This hymn addresses how under Shulgi, Sumer
is “filled with abundance” and “Ur abounds in prosperity” which were not
discussed in Shulgi D (lines 148, 149).
Thus, Shulgi X emphasizes characteristics, descriptions, and metaphors
prevalent in Shulgi D while also introducing other important motifs surrounding
the conceptualization of the ideal Sumerian ruler such as creating prosperity
in the land.
Shulgi The King
of the Road, Shulgi A, is a self-laudatory hymn of type B in which Shulgi
praises himself and then recounts having made a trip from Nippur to Ur and back
to Nippur in one day despite a heavy storm.
Shulgi’s purpose was to attend the eŝeŝ-festival in both
cities on the same day, which, purportedly, would gain him universal fame and
recognition (Klein, 1981, 179). Many of
the descriptive themes present in Shulgi D and Shulgi X recur in this royal
hymn, but Shulgi A also raises other considerations, which it is important to
take into account. The lion metaphors
abound in this hymn similarly to Shulgi D and Shulgi X (lines 3, 14, 42, 56,
71) as well as the reiteration of Shulgi as a “mighty man” from birth (line
2). The divine attention and love the
gods show to “the child born of Ninsun,” are also emphasized (lines 7-15). In addition, Shulgi possesses the royal
description “the king of the four regions” (line 4) in this hymn, which is
quite important in its relationship to Akkadian literature because this epithet
was “apparently introduced by Shulgi into the titulary of the Ur III dynasty,”
(Klein, 1981, 204). Also noteworthy is
the way in which the shepherd motif surfaces in this hymn. Shulgi is not only the “shepherd” of Sumer,
but also “the pastor of the black-headed people” (line 5). Shulgi is not the pastor of the Sumerians,
but rather of the black-headed people, which is quite important because this
hymn has the opportunity to offer evidence or attest to an ethnic difference,
but it does not. Shulgi is the
concerned protector of all of the black-headed people (residents of
Mesopotamia) not just the Sumerians.
This negative evidence supports the proposition that there was no
apparent ethnic difference in ancient Mesopotamia, because if there were, one
would not expect the composer of this hymn to miss an opportunity to stress
this ethnic disparity. Shulgi A also
makes it apparent that the black headed people had powerful feelings for Shulgi
as the hymn describes “the black-headed people, as numerous as ewes,” gazing at
him, “with admiration” (line 47). While
this is a self-laudatory hymn, which, undoubtedly, introduces a historical and
historiographical bias, Shulgi A does not describe just the Sumerians gazing
admiringly at Shulgi, but rather all of the black-headed people doing so. The theme of the black-headed people is
recurrent and appears twice in Shulgi C, once in Shulgi P, and once in Shulgi V
while mention of Sumerians and Akkadians as disparate groups occurs only once
(http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/catalogue/shulgi).
While Shulgi B mentions the
Sumerians and Akkadians as different groups, this occurrence offers very little
evidence for an ethnic difference between the Sumerians and Akkadians of
ancient Mesopotamia not only because it merely transpires once, but also
because of the way the distinction is constructed. In Shulgi B, Shulgi states that “in verdicts, my heart has never
committed violence against even one other king, be he an Akkadian or a son of Sumer, or even a brute from Gutium” (lines 266-269). With the direct opportunity to accent an
ethnic difference by casting the Akkadians in a poor light, Shulgi A does
not. Little preference seems to be
given to being “an Akkadian or a son of Sumer,” which implicates the lack of an
ethnic difference between the ancient Sumerians and Semites. If there were an ethnic difference between
the Sumerians and Akkadians, the brutish description of the Gutians or another
derogatory appellation would be expected for the Semites. Rather, it seems that there was an ethnic
difference between the barbarous Gutians and all of the black-headed people of
ancient Mesopotamia, not between the Sumerians and Akkadians.
Thus, an analysis of
representative type B Shulgi royal hymns has shown literature to be
constructing Shulgi as “the ideal ruler: a combination of sage, warrior,
sportsman, musician, diviner, diplomat, patron of learning, and provider of
prosperity and happiness for his land and people” (Klein, 1995, 853). This construction was accomplished without
directly providing any apparent reason to conclude an ethnic difference between
the ancient Sumerians and Akkadians even though there were many opportunities. But, as will be seen, this synthesis did
incorporate many themes, motifs, and metaphors already present in the
literature surrounding the ancient Akkadian rulers Sargon and Naram-Sin.
The literary texts surrounding Naram-Sin and Sargon also attempt to record these sovereigns as the ideal rulers, though Naram-Sin is unfortunately remembered as the one responsible for the downfall of the Akkadian dynasty. Michalowski reports that there are known hymns before the reign of Gudea, a Mesopotamian ruler who reigned between the fall of the Akkadian dynasty and the beginning of the Third Dynasty of Ur (courtesy G. Emberling). Examining the roots of the motifs and techniques used to characterize Shulgi in the royal hymns through the analysis of the literature and legends dealing with Sargon and Naram-Sin provides one a glimpse at the traditions upon which the Shulgi royal hymns are based. Thus, while the genre of the myth as a whole was relatively new during the reign of Shulgi, many of the characterizations, themes, and comparisons used in the Shulgi royal hymns were not.
The text of Sargon, the Lion
is quite fragmentary, but appears to recount a battle in Elam and the cedar
forest in the east (Westenholz, 94). In
this text, Sargon “is presented as a terrifying conqueror endowed with an
awesome aura whose essence is epitomized as a lion” (Westenholz, 94). Line 24 of Shulgi D describes Shulgi as a
“raging lion” the same way that Sargon’s description is that of a “raging lion”
in line 9’ of Sargon, the Lion.
The lion metaphor occurs again when, presumably, Sargon is described as
having the “heart of a raging lion” (lines 16’-17’). Part of the text is lost at this point, but it seems logical that
by comparing Sargon to a lion this text is constructing him as a fierce warrior
with unquestionable bravery. The lion
metaphor is also found in Naram-Sin and the Lord of Apišal, which
delineates the conflict between Naram-Sin and the ruler of the city of
Apišal. Naram-Sin is depicted “as a
raging lion” in the same manner as other texts describe Sargon and Shulgi (Column
V, line 2). Interestingly, Naram-Sin’s
voice is also characterized as “the thunderstorm,” (Column V, line 1) which
parallels with the comparison to nature in which Shulgi “howled like the storm”
in line 114 of Shulgi X. Again, this is
done to emphasize the almost super-human abilities that the texts are
professing these leaders to possess.
The epithet “the king of the four
regions” used to describe Shulgi in Shulgi A parallels many similar labels in
ancient Akkadian literature. In King
of Battle Text 9B, Sargon is described as “king of the universe”
(line 18) while in King of Battle Text 9D Sargon appears as “king of the
totality” (line 6). Most closely
paralleling Shulgi’s epithet is that of Sargon in King of Battle Text 9E
as the “ruler of the four quarters” (line 11’). While each individual characterization varies, as a group these
labels demonstrate the commonality of describing the Sumerian and Semitic
sovereigns as rulers of the entirety of Mesopotamia that permeates through Akkadian
and Sumerian literary texts. More
evidence to support the overarching importance of these epithets as a literary
device is Naram-Sin’s description as “the king of the four quarters of the
world” in the Geneva Version of The Great Revolt Against Naram-Sin (line
3). Regarding this text, Westenholz argues that “the king is presented
as the rightful king by the grace of the gods,” which is reflected in the
exaltation of Naram-Sin through the employment of all possible epithets”
(238). As Klein has alleged, Shulgi was
the one to introduce the epithet “king of the four regions” into the titulary
of the Ur III dynasty (Klein, 1981, 204).
Based on the similarities to royal Akkadian labels, it appears logical that
Shulgi was simply characterizing himself by borrowing an already prevalent
Akkadian motif.
Another important similarity between the literary techniques and constructions of the Shulgi royal hymns and the literature of Naram-Sin and Sargon is the emphasis on the divine aspect of kingship. In Gula-AN and the Seventeen Kings against Naram-Sin, Naram-Sin invokes his mother, “skillful Ištar” (line 10’), which is comparable to Shulgi X’s description of Shulgi as “the son of Enlil” (line 155). In King of Battle, Sargon is depicted as “the hero of Ištar” (line 1). In The Tenth Battle, Naram-Sin is described as “the divine Naram-Sin” (line 10), which continues to stress the importance of the heavenly origin and backing to the rule of the ancient Mesopotamian monarchs.
Literature constructs the ideal Akkadian
ruler as a concerned protector who brings about prosperity in the land
analogously to the way in which the Shulgi royal hymns construct the ideal
Sumerian ruler. In Naram-Sin and the
Enemy Hordes, Naram-Sin is “worried, depressed, sunk in gloom,” and
“reduced in spirit” because of his defeat in battle (lines 6-9). Naram-Sin then declares, “I am a king who
has not protected his land and a shepherd who has not safeguarded his people”
(lines 11-12). This exhibits an
appearance of the shepherd motif used so profusely in the Shulgi royal hymns
and the horrible, depressing results of not safeguarding one’s people and
protecting and producing prosperity in the land.
Given the opportunity to highlight
an ethnic difference between the Sumerians and Akkadians if one were present,
the literature surrounding Sargon and Naram-Sin, like the Shulgi royal hymns,
does not. The theme of the
“black-headed people” appears in the Sargon Birth Legend akin to its use
in the Shulgi royal hymns. In line 14,
Sargon exclaims, “The black-headed people, I did rule and govern.” Again, Sargon uses this designation when
describing the ruler who will succeed him by saying, “Let him rule the
black-headed people” (line 24). In
neither case does Sargon refer to himself or his successor as ruling just the
Akkadians or just the Sumerians, but rather all residents of Mesopotamia, the
black-headed people, which implies no racial or ethnic difference.
While “there is no sound basis for assigning the
Curse of Agade to a specific moment in the one hundred fifty years
between the destruction of Agade and the later part of Ibbisin’s reign,” an
examination of its presentation of ethnicity is quite valuable because this
text belongs to the relative time period of the literature discussed thus far
(Cooper, 12). Falkenstein’s analysis of
the text finds that there is a definite anti-Agade sentiment, but that there is
little evidence to support a negative sentiment “against an Akkadian-speaking, mainly
North Babylonian ethno-linguistic group” emanating “from the Sumerian-speaking
inhabitants of Southern Babylonia” (Cooper, 9). However, like Shulgi B, the Curse of Agade describes the
Gutians as a brutish ethnic other having “human intelligence but canine instincts” (line 156). In addition, the Gutians are described as
“those who do not resemble other people,” which, also, helps to characterize
them as a savage, brutish other. Thus,
the literary tradition surrounding Sargon and Naram-Sin offers no direct
apparent evidence for an ethnic difference between the Sumerians and Akkadians
of ancient Mesopotamia, but like the Shulgi royal hymns, this tradition
definitely stresses a difference with the Gutians.
Thus, the through the use of similar metaphors, themes,
and motifs the Akkadian literature surrounding Naram-Sin and Sargon constructs
the ideal Akkadian ruler very similarly to way that the Shulgi royal hymns
construct Shulgi as the ideal ruler.
Both ideal rulers are concerned protectors of their people, whose
justice and power are supported by numerous gods. Both are brave, fierce warriors often depicted as lions. In addition, both ideal rulers are of divine
origin and possess the support and love of the gods. Therefore, these parallels let it be logically asserted that the
hymn was not a radically new literary genre, but rather a genre that evolved
from other genres perpetuating many of the same themes and using many of the
same constructions as its literary roots.
Shulgi was the most important ruler of the Third
Dynasty of Ur because of the political and cultural renaissance he brought
about in Sumer (Klein, 1995,
843). During Shulgi’s reign a number of
scribal schools, a meticulous system of bookkeeping, and a new calendar were
established. In addition, around the
middle of his reign, Shulgi takes on the status of a deity, which “no doubt
involved revolutionary changes in the current religious ideas and beliefs, as
is duly reflected in the royal hymns” (Klein, 1995, 846). Shulgi’s deification can be viewed as a
religious, cultural, political, and literary theme continuing from the
self-deification of Naram-Sin and the later deification of Sargon. Thus, it is not surprising that the hymn as
a literary form flourished during Shulgi’s reign. The hymn was able to make use of many themes already present in
the literary tradition surrounding Sargon and Naram-Sin while at the same time
making itself distinct by chronicling, through the basis of Shulgi as the ideal
ruler, the great achievements, changes, and advancements brought about during
the Sumerian Renaissance. The genre was
able to experiment with new ideas and techniques characteristic of the Sumerian
Renaissance while still retaining continuity with elements of the existing
literary tradition.
The
examination of the Shulgi royal hymns in relation to previous literature shows
them accentuating already prevalent literary constructions, but briefly
examining them in relation to the subsequent royal hymns displays them as a
genre still in the process of evolving.
Klein argues that “a comparison of the Šulgi hymns with those of the
kings of Isin should prove helpful in evaluating the position of the Šulgi
hymns in the development of royal hymnology” (Klein, 1981, 43). He also
notes that the majority of the Shulgi hymns are of type B while this type is
barely represented in the later Isin corpus of hymns (Klein, 1995, 44). Thus, the royal hymn is easily viewed as a
new genre coming out of other preexisting literary genres, which flourished
during the reign of Shulgi and then continued its evolution as an art
form. This explanation of the hymn as
still evolving during Shulgi’s reign allows for the controversial epilogue of
Shulgi X to be viewed simply as a branch in the evolutionary tree of the
hymn. The hymn was by no means a perfected
literary form at the time and it seems illogical to believe that an evolving
literary form could or would not exhibit any anomalies.
The
way in which literature constructs the ideal ancient Akkadian ruler differs
little from the way in which the Shulgi royal hymns construct Shulgi as the
ideal Sumerian ruler. This is
accomplished through the use of many parallel and analogous themes, motifs, and
constructions, which, in conjunction with the appearance of the hymn as a
literary form around the time of Gudea, also shows the hymn evolving as a
literary genre from previous genres.
The construction of the ideal Semitic and Sumerian rulers in a similar
manner provides little evidence for an ethnic difference between the ancient
Sumerians and Akkadians of Mesopotamia, because if there were an ethnic
difference, one would expect that the ideal rulers of each ethnic group would
be constructed in an opposing manner.
In addition, neither the texts of the literary tradition of Sargon and
Naram-Sin nor the royal hymns of Shulgi explicitly develop an ethnic divergence
between the Sumerians and Akkadians though given the opportunity. Thus, the examined literature supports no
ethnic difference between the ancient Sumerians and Semites though it does show
the royal hymn evolving as a literary form and propagating many themes already
present in literature.
1. Cooper, J. The
Curse of Agade. 1983
2. Klein, Jacob. “Shulgi of Ur: King of a Neo-Sumerian
Empire.” Civilizations of the Ancient Near East II (1995): 842-857
3. Klein, Jacob. Three
Šulgi Hymns. Israel: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1981
4.
Michalowski, course materials for ACABS
414, Winter 2002, courtesy G.
Emberling
5. Westenholz, Joan Goodnick. Legends of the Kings of
Akkade. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997
6. The
Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature courtesy of G. Emberling:
http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/