It is possible that Lugalzagesi and Sargon, the first ruler of the dynasty of Akkad,
overlapped for some time (McMahon 2006 : 4 ). A. Westenholz ( 1999 : 35 ) suggests that
they overlapped for ten years before Sargon defeated Lugalzagesi while admitting that
this number is ‘guesswork’, also because it is still unclear how long Sargon’s reign lasted.
Although Sargon succeeded in defeating Lugalzagesi and although he is considered to
be the founder of the Old Akkadian dynasty, it appears that he governed by leaving
most of the administrative structures of the southern Babylonian city-states intact
(A. Westenholz 1999 : 50 ), leading to Liverani’s ( 1993 a: 4 ) pointed assessment that
Sargon himself is really ‘pre-Sargonic’. This serves to show that the boundaries between
historical periods, in particular during the third millennium, are rather fluid,
something that is also supported by the archaeological evidence from the city of
Nippur (McMahon 2006 ), where no stratigraphic breaks can be observed in the
transition from Early Dynastic to Akkad and material culture shows some continuity.
Historical information about the two most important kings of the dynasty of
Akkad, Sargon and Nara ̄m-Sîn, is difficult to disentangle, because both were immor-
talised in literary stories surrounding their lives and rule (J.G. Westenholz 1997 ).
According to legend, Sargon began his career as a high-standing official (‘cup-bearer’)
of king Urzababa in the city of Kish (A. Westenholz 1999 : 35 ). There is a possibility that
Sargon created for the first time in history a standing army, although this is also a
matter of contention.
Through military campaigns Sargon was able to expand his area of influence, which
certainly included all of southern Mesopotamia, yet it is not clear how far to the north
and east his influence extended. The new capital of Sargon’s state was moved to the city
of Akkad, which, it is assumed, lay somewhere in northern Babylonia, though no
definite location has been identified as yet (A. Westenholz 1999 : 31 – 34 ). Inscriptions
seem to indicate that Sargon destroyed some of the cities of the south and replaced the
previous rulers with local governors loyal to him (Postgate 1992 : 40 ).
The new conquest of southern Babylonia led to several revolts of the southern city-
states, which are reported under Rı ̄mush and Nara ̄m-Sîn. It is possible that the revolts
were due to large-scale expropriations of land (Postgate 1992 : 41 ). However, the most
famous monument recording the (forced?) sale of land is the well-known Manisˇtusˇu
obelisk (Gelb et al. 1991 : 2 et passim), which records land sales of northern Babylonia
(A. Westenholz 1999 : 44 ). Since the revolt came mostly from the southern city-states,
it is unclear whether land sales were a direct cause for rebellion and it is more likely that
the revolts had multiple reasons, of which land expropriation was only one (A.
Westenholz 1999 : 46 ).
The more profound changes in the administration and territorial expansion seem to
have come under Nara ̄m-Sîn, who was Sargon’s grandson according to the SKL. Sargon
and Nara ̄m-Sîn led several campaigns that took them as far as areas that are today in
northern Syria, Turkey and western Iran, going, in their own words, where no king had
gone before. As Nara ̄m-Sîn seems to have repeated some of the campaigns that already
took place under Sargon, it is unlikely that they were more than raids (Van De Mieroop
2007 : 67 ). Nara ̄m-Sîn is also well known because of a great rebellion of southern
Babylonia that occurred during his reign. Reliable information on the exact nature and
circumstances of this rebellion is hard to come by, because we know of the rebellion
mainly from Nara ̄m-Sîn’s own inscriptions. As it is unclear whether Nara ̄m-Sîn reigned
for thirty-seven or fifty-four years (A. Westenholz 1999 : 47 ), it is difficult to place the
–– History and chronology ––