The term ‘empire’ may be misleading when trying to define the territories controlled by the kings of Akkad, especially when comparing it to the territorial empires of the following periods. However, Akkad’s imperial ideology was already strong and consistent. The god Enlil and the other gods ‘gave’ the world’s dominion (as far as the seas surrounding it) to the kings of Akkad. However, the actual realisation of this empire was more complicated. The Akkadian empire constituted the first attempt to exercise political control over an extended and diversified territory, with significant linguistic, political, demographic and environmental differences. The composite character of the empire caused more problems than its mere extension. This was a completely different situation than the one of contemporary Egypt. At that time, Egypt was a unified territory with a more homogeneous linguistic, cultural and environmental background.
The most important factor in the formation of the Akkadian empire was military intervention. As a result of that, the king came to be described as a strong and victorious ruler, one that ‘has neither equals nor rivals’. Wars were not seen as the result of conflicts between city-gods anymore, but as concrete expressions of the heroism of the king. This aspect of kingship probably finds its roots in the north, in its Semitic background. However, it caused several ideological and religious problems for the Sumerian cities in the south, which saw this self-representation of the Akkadian kings as impious and arrogant.
This change in the ideology of kingship peaked with the deification of Naram-Sin both in his titles and his official iconography. Apart from proclaiming himself a ‘strong king’ (just like Sargon before him), Naram-Sin also called himself ‘god of the land’. He thus became a sort of protective deity that did not replace the traditional gods, but aimed to stand alongside them. This drastic change led to a profound revolution of traditional Sumerian values. This would be attested in later sources, which describe Naram-Sin in a negative light (unlike Sargon), calling him an impious king. He was seen as a ruler who took decisions without consulting the gods, thus causing his own inevitable fall. However, the Sumerian kings would eventually implement (cultically, rather than heroically) Naram-Sin’s innovative ideology of kingship for themselves. This proves that it was actually a successful strategy.
A different problem from the territorial expansion of the empire was its administration. In this regard, it is necessary to divide the empire into two parts: the centre (from the area slightly north of Akkad to the Persian Gulf) and the periphery. In the centre, Akkadian control was exercised in a compact, yet indirect way. The administration of cities was left in the hands of the local ensi. These were under the authority of the king of Akkad, but held a certain degree of autonomy. It is probable that some cities were ruled by an Akkadian ensi appointed by the king, while other cities continued to be ruled by a local ensi.
In both cases, local dynasties continued to exist. In fact, unlike the following Ur III period, the ensi were not yet governors, but were still rulers dependent on Akkadian support and approval. The difficult relations between Akkadian kings and local rulers are visible both on a technical and administrative level and on an ideological and religious one. In terms of administration, there was undoubtedly an Akkadian influence on the economy. The empire’s acquisition of new territories and its control of fertile fields in the south, taking these lands away from the temples, initiated a unifying process under the king’s authority. This process of unification was further supported by the use of the large number of war prisoners in activities under direct imperial control.
On a religious level, there was a marked contrast between north and south in this period. The new deification of the king and the role of the goddess of Akkad, Ishtar, characterised the north. On the contrary, the south was still centred on the authority of city-gods and of the supreme Sumerian deity, Enlil, god of Nippur. The kings of Akkad paid considerable attention to Enlil and Nippur. The god featured in a prominent position in royal titles. Moreover, the Ekur was restored and enlarged and many monuments celebrating Akkadian victories were left there. These attempts by Sargon and his successors were clearly aimed at inserting their ideology within the political and religious framework of Sumer. This allowed the establishment of a privileged relationship with the head of the Sumerian pantheon, a gesture that automatically placed the Akkadian kings above the other local deities.
The Akkadian kings also took care of their relationships with local city-gods, but in other ways. In this regard, the case of Enheduanna is important as well as symbolic. Enheduanna was Sargon’s daughter. She was chosen by her father to become priestess of the city-god of Ur, Nanna-Sin. The presence of an Akkadian priestess from the royal family of Akkad in the prestigious southern city of Ur was probably mirrored by the installation of a Sumerian priestess in the temple of Ishtar in Akkad. These appointments were aimed at uniting the north and the south. However, deities could not be easily identified in other languages (such as the Sumerian Inanna and the Akkadian Ishtar). This problem led to brief periods of rejection in several cities. Nonetheless, in the long run, this strategy would eventually prove to be a winning one (though more for cultural than political reasons). It facilitated the acceptance of a syncretism between the two cultures and the development of a wide network of identifications between them.
The regions outside the centre of the empire, whose collaboration was essential for the celebration of the empire’s size, required a different strategy. The periphery was not easy to control either directly or homogeneously. On a political level, it was too vast and varied, with urban centres located in the middle of steppes, mountains and other areas with limited agricultural and demographic concentrations. Therefore, Akkad’s interest in the periphery was mainly commercial. This interest was secured through treaties with states too strong to be subdued (such as in the case of Elam), or through the appointment of a local ensi (such as the sakanakku of Mari). Another possibility was the creation of Akkadian strongholds in foreign territories, such as Naram-Sin’s palace at Nagar (Tell Brak). This was probably not the only palace built by Akkadian rulers, and was possibly the most suitable way to keep a vast commercial network under control.
As it can be seen, the Akkadian empire was halfway between the system that supported trade in the Uruk phase, and the more compact and territorial type of organisation that will be encountered with the Third Dynasty of Ur. The Akkadian approach, however, gave the centre of the empire, especially Sumer, too many opportunities to rebel and oppose its religious innovations. Similarly, it gave too much autonomy to the states in the periphery, which should have remained subordinate to the Akkadian strongholds.
World History
