Journal of Archaeological Studies

Naram-Sin’s Divinity: A Re-examination

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Hossein Badamchi 1
Tavakoli Tavakoli 2

1 Associate Professor, Department of History, Faculty of Literature and Human Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran (Corresponding Author).

2 M. A. Student in History, Department of History, Faculty of Literature and Human Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

https://doi.org/10.22059/jarcs.2024.379595.143280
Abstract
Abstract
Divine kingship served as a means of asserting legitimacy in the Ancient Near East, where rulers not only claimed divine descent or representation but also presented themselves as gods. Historical evidence suggests that the first formal instance of divine kingship appeared during the Old Akkadian period, with Naram-Sin, who reigned from approximately 2261 to 2206 BCE. This era, known as the Sargonic or Old Akkadian period, marked the initial attempt at political unification in ancient Mesopotamia and established a lasting tradition of kingship. As a result, divine kingship holds particular significance when studying the political traditions of that time. Naram-Sin’s role as the pioneer of this ideology is especially intriguing, as it sparked a trend, albeit a superficial one, of divine kingship in the ancient Near East. Although research on Naram-Sin’s divinity is limited, with scholars often focusing on later traditions, this study aims to explore Naram-Sin’s role as the originator of this tradition. The paper will examine various aspects of divine kingship during the Old Akkadian period, including the political processes that led Naram-Sin to claim divinity, the nature of his divine status, his objectives, the origins and causes behind his actions, and the lasting impact he had on Mesopotamian political tradition.
Keywords: Naram-Sin, Akkad, Divine Kingship, Mesopotamia, Legitimacy.
 
1. Introduction
Naram-Sin was a prominent Akkadian king who reigned during the 23rd century BCE, known for his military conquests and efforts to solidify the Akkadian Empire’s dominance in Mesopotamia. As the grandson of Sargon of Akkad, his reign marked the empire’s peak, both territorially and culturally. Naram-Sin’s most notable achievement was his self-deification, a move unprecedented for Mesopotamian rulers, as he declared himself a god-king, symbolized by the horned crown he wore in his depictions. This act of deification not only elevated his status above other kings but also marked a profound shift in the relationship between the divine and the mortal in Mesopotamian culture. His victory stele, the “Stele of Naram-Sin,” celebrates his triumph over the Lullubi people and serves as a testament to his military prowess and divine status. The stele’s imagery, which depicts Naram-Sin ascending a mountain and trampling his enemies underfoot, reinforces his godlike stature and the idea of his divine right to rule.
Despite his successes, his reign is also associated with later Mesopotamian traditions of divine retribution, as subsequent generations viewed the empire’s eventual decline as a result of his hubris. This perception of divine retribution was reflected in later Mesopotamian literature and religious thought, where Naram-Sin’s actions were often cited as a cautionary tale against the dangers of excessive pride and overreach. Naram-Sin’s legacy is a complex blend of military triumph, religious innovation, and the lasting impact on Mesopotamian culture and history.
 
2. Discussion
Naram-Sin’s decision to deify himself was driven by a combination of political, religious, military, and cultural motivations. These motivations can be categorized into the following areas:
1. Political Legitimacy and Authority. Consolidation of Power: By declaring himself a god, Naram-Sin sought to elevate his status above all other rulers and reinforce his absolute Authority. In a hierarchical society where divine favor was essential for kingship, self-deification was a way to legitimize his rule and ensure that his power was seen as divinely sanctioned. Supremacy over Religious Institutions: Traditional religious Authorities, such as priests and temple elites, held significant power in Mesopotamian society. By becoming a god, Naram-Sin could assert control over these institutions, reducing their influence and centralizing power within his own hands.
2. Religious and Cultural Innovation. Breaking Tradition: Naram-Sin’s self-deification represented a significant departure from Mesopotamian religious tradition, where kings were seen as chosen by the gods but not divine themselves. This act positioned him as a transformative figure, one who redefined the relationship between the divine and the earthly. Symbol of a New Era: The Akkadian Empire under Naram-Sin was at its zenith, and his self-deification symbolized the empire’s unprecedented power and reach. It was a cultural statement that reflected the empire’s dominance and the king’s role as the embodiment of Akkadian supremacy.
3. Military Prowess and Propaganda. Projection of Invincibility: Naram-Sin’s military victories, especially his conquest of the Lullubi, were celebrated as evidence of his divine favor. By declaring himself a god, he reinforced the idea that his successes were not just the result of human skill but were preordained by the divine, making him seem invincible. Discouraging Rebellion: A divine king would be seen as unchallengeable, both by external enemies and by potential internal dissenters. The aura of divinity served as a psychological tool to maintain order and discourage opposition to his rule.
4. Personal Ambition and Legacy. Desire for Eternal Fame: By becoming a god, Naram-Sin ensured that his name and achievements would be remembered for eternity. This move was not just about ruling in the present but also about securing a lasting legacy, as his divine status would place him among the pantheon of gods worshipped for generations. Precedent Setting: Naram-Sin’s self-deification set a precedent for future rulers, both within Mesopotamia and beyond, as an example of the extent to which a king could elevate himself. It reflected his ambition to be seen not just as a great king, but as a figure of cosmic significance.
5. Response to Challenges. Crisis Management: Some scholars suggest that Naram-Sin’s self-deification might have been a response to crises, such as natural disasters or military threats, that could have been interpreted as signs of divine displeasure. By becoming a god, he could claim direct control over these forces, reassuring his people and maintaining his rule during difficult times.
The present paper argues that Naram-Sin’s deification was a multifaceted strategy that served to reinforce his power, innovate culturally, project military dominance, and secure his legacy as a ruler of unparalleled stature in Mesopotamian history. His bold move to declare himself a god not only solidified his reign but also set a template for future rulers who sought to merge divine authority with earthly power.
 
3. Conclusion
The paper also contends that Naram-Sin was likely the first Mesopotamian king to officially declare himself a god during his lifetime, marking a major departure from the traditional roles of kingship in the region. Prior to Naram-Sin, Mesopotamian rulers were typically viewed as individuals who were divinely chosen or favored by the gods, serving as intermediaries between the gods and the people. These kings were believed to possess a special connection to the divine, often performing religious duties and ensuring the favor of the gods for their city-states or empires. However, they were not considered deities themselves.
Naram-Sin’s decision to elevate himself to the status of a god was a bold and unprecedented move that challenged these established norms. By proclaiming himself a god, Naram-Sin was asserting that his authority was not merely granted by the gods but was inherent in his very being. This self-deification was symbolized in various ways, most notably by his adoption of the horned crown, a symbol traditionally reserved for deities in Mesopotamian iconography. This crown, often depicted in his statues and reliefs, signified his divine status and set him apart from all previous rulers. This innovation in kingship had far-reaching implications for the future of Mesopotamian and broader Near Eastern political traditions. Naram-Sin’s self-deification set a precedent for later rulers, who saw the potential benefits of adopting divine status as a means of legitimizing and strengthening their rule. While not all subsequent kings followed in his footsteps, his example remained a powerful symbol of the intersection between divine and royal authority in the ancient world.

Keywords

Naram-Sin
Akkad
Divine Kingship
Mesopotamia
Legitimacy
- Andersson, J., (2012). Kingship in the Early Mesopotamian Onomasticon 2800–2200 BCE. Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 28. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.
- Barjamovic, G., (2012). “The Mesopotamian Empires”. In: P.F Bang and W. Sheidel. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Ancient State in the Ancient Near East and the Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 120–160. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195188318.013.0005
- Beaulieu, P-A., (2018). A History of Babylon 2200 BC–AD 75. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119257561
- Bernbeck, R., (2008). “Royal deification: an Ambiguation Mechanism for the Creation of Courtier Subjectivities”. In: N. Brisch. (ed.), Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond. Oriental Institute Seminars 4. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 157–166.
- Blocher, F., (1999). “Wann wurde Puzur-Eštar zum Gott?”. In” J. Renger. (ed.), Babylon: Focus Mesopotamischer Geschichte, Wiege früher Gelehrsamkeit, Mythos in der Moderne. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker. 253–269.
- Brisch, N., (2006). “The Priestess and the King: The Divine Kingship of Šu-Sîn of Ur”. In: Journal of the American Oriental Society, 126: 161–176.
- Brisch, N., (2013). “Of gods and kings: divine kingship in Ancient Mesopotamia”. In: Religion Compass, 7: 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec3.12031
- Cooper, J. S., (1983). The Curse of Agade. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
- Cooper, J. S. (1993). “Paradigm and propaganda: the dynasty of Akkade in the 21st century”. In: M. Liverani.(ed.), Akkad: the first world empire: structure, ideology, traditions. History of the Ancient Near East, Studies 5. Padua: Sargon srl. 11–23.
- Cooper, J. S., (2008). “Divine kingship in Mesopotamia, A Fleeting Phenomenon”. In: N. Brisch (ed.), Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond. Oriental Institute Seminars 4. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 261–265.
- Fischer, C., (2002). “Twilight of the sun-god”. Iraq, 64: 125–134. https://doi.org/10.2307/4200522
- Foster, B. R., (1982). Ethnicity and Onomastics in Sargonic Mesopotamia. Orientalia, 51(3): 297–354.
- Foster, B. R., (1993). “Management and Administration in the Sargonic Period”. In: M. Liverani (Ed.), Akkad, the First Universal Empire: Structure, Ideology, Traditions. History of the Ancient Near East/Studies 5 (pp. 25–38). Padua: Sargon.
- Foster, B. R., (2016). The Age of Agade: Inventing Empire in Ancient Mesopotamia. New York: Routledge.
- Frayne, D., (1993). Sargonic and Gutian Periods (2234–2113 BC). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
- Frayne, D., (1997). Ur III Period (2112–2004 BC). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
- Frayne, D. R., Stuckey, J. H., & Beaulieu, S. (2021). A Handbook of Gods and Goddesses of the Ancient Near East: Three Thousand Deities of Anatolia, Syria, Israel, Sumer, Babylonia, Assyria, and Elam. Philadelphia: Penn State University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781646021291-008
- Gelb, I. J., Steinkeller, P., & Whiting Jr., R. M. (1991). Earliest Land Tenure Systems in the Near East: Ancient Kudurrus. Oriental Institute Publications 104. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
- Glassner, J. J., (2004). Mesopotamian Chronicles. Atlanta: Society for Biblical Literature. (Originally published as Chroniques Mésopotamiennes, Paris: Les Belle Lettres, 1993).
- Hallo, W. W., (1957). “Early Mesopotamian Royal Titles: A Philologic and Historical Analysis”. American Oriental Series, Vol. 43. New Haven: American Oriental Society.
- Hansen, D. P., (2003). “Art of the Akkadian Dynasty”. In: J. Aruz (Ed.), Art of the First Cities: The Third Millennium B.C. from the Mediterranean to the Indus (pp. 189–198). New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
- Liverani, M., (1993). “Model and Actualization. The Kings of Akkad in the Historical Tradition”. In: M. Liverani (Ed.), Akkad: The First World Empire. Structure, Ideology, Traditions. History of the Ancient Near East, Studies 5 (pp. 41–67). Padua: Sargon srl.
- Liverani, M., (2014). The Ancient Near East: History, Society and Economy. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315879895
- Machinist, P., (2006). “Kingship and Divinity in Imperial Assyria”. In: G. Beckman & Th. J. Lewis (Eds.), Text, Artifact, and Image: Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion (pp. 152–188). Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies.
- Michalowski, P., (2008). “The Mortal Kings of Ur: A Short Century of Divine Rule in Ancient Mesopotamia”. In: N. Brisch (Ed.), Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond. Oriental Institute Seminars 4 (pp. 33–45). Chicago: The Oriental Institute.
- Michalowski, P., (2020). “The Kingdom of Akkad in contact with the world”. In: K. Radner, N. Moeller, & D. T. Potts (Eds.), The Oxford History of the Ancient Near East (Vol. 1, pp. 686–764). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190687854.003.0011
- Milano, L., & Westenholz, A., (2015). The “Šuilisu Archive” and other Sargonic texts in Akkadian. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology, Vol. 27. Bethesda: University Press of Maryland.
- Nissen, H., (1988). The Early History of the Ancient Near East, 9000–2000 B.C. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226182698.001.0001
- Ornan, T., (2013). “A Silent Message: Godlike Kings in Mesopotamian Art”. In: B. Brown & M. Feldman (Eds.), Critical Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Art (pp. 569–596). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614510352.569
- Pitts, A., (2015). The Cult of the Deified King in Ur III Mesopotamia. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Graduate School of Arts & Sciences.
- Porter, A., (2013). “When the Subject is the Object: Relational Ontologies, the Partible Person and the Images of Naram-Sin”. In: B. Brown & M. H. Feldman (Eds.), Critical Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Art (pp. 597–617). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614510352.597
- Reichel, C., (2008). “The King is Dead, Long Live the King: The Last Days of the Šu-Sîn Cult at Ešnunna and its Aftermath”. In: N. Brisch (Ed.), Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond. Oriental Institute Seminars 4 (pp. 133–155). Chicago: The Oriental Institute.
- Renger, J., (1995). “Institutional, communal and individual ownership or possession of arable land in ancient Mesopotamia from the end of the fourth to the end of the first millennium BC”. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 71: 269–319
- Sallaberger, W., (1999). “Ur III-Zeit”. In: P. Attinger & M. Wäfler (Eds.), Mesopotamien: Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit. OBO 160/3 (pp. 121–390). Freiburg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz.
- Sallaberger, W., & Schrakamp, I., (2015). “Philological Data for a Historical Chronology of Mesopotamia in the 3rd Millennium”. In: W. Sallaberger & I. Schrakamp (Eds.), Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean. Vol. 3: History & Philology (pp. 1–136). Turnhout: Brepols.
- Scheil, V., & Legrain, L., (1913). Textes élamites-sémitiques: cinquième série. Paris: Ernest Leroux, Éditeur.
- Schrakamp, I., (2020). “The Kingdom of Akkad: A View from Within”. In: K. Radner, N. Moeller, & D. T. Potts (Eds.), The Oxford History of the Ancient Near East. Vol. 1 (pp. 612–685). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190687854.003.0010
- Selz, G., (1998). “Über Mesopotamische Herrschaftskonzepte. Zu den Ursprüngen mesopotamischer Herrscherideologie im 3. Jahrtausend”. In: M. Dietrich & O. Loretz (Eds.), dub-sar anta-men: Studien zur Altorientalistik. Festschrift für Willem H. Ph. Römer. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 253 (pp. 281–344). Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
- Selz, G., (2008). “The Divine Prototypes”. In: N. Brisch (Ed.), Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond. Oriental Institute Seminars 4 (pp. 13–31). Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
- Steinkeller, P., (1999a). “Land-tenure conditions in southern Babylonia under the Sargonic Dynasty”. In: B. Böck, E. Cancik-Kirschbaum, & Th. Richter (Eds.), Munuscula Mesopotamica: Festschrift für Johannes Renger. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 267 (pp. 553–571). Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
- Steinkeller, P., (1999b). “On Rulers, Priests and Sacred Marriage: Tracing the Evolution of Early Sumerian Kingship”. In: K. Watanabe (Ed.), Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East: Papers of the Second Colloquium on the Ancient Near East – The City and Its Life (pp. 103–137). Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter.
- Steinkeller, P., (2003). “An Ur III Manuscript of the Sumerian King List”. In: W. Sallaberger, K. Volk, & A. Zgoll (Eds.), Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien: Festschrift für Claus Wilcke (pp. 267–292). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
- Steinkeller, P., (2013). “An Archaic ‘Prisoner Plaque’ from Kiš”. In: M. G. Biga, J.-M. Durand, & D. Charpin (Eds.), Mélanges Paolo Matthiae. Revue d’Assyriologie, 107 (pp. 131–157). Paris. https://doi.org/10.3917/assy.107.0131
- Steinkeller, P. (2017a). “Appendix 2: The Roundlet of Naram-Suen”. In: History, Texts and Art in Early Babylonia: Three Essays (pp. 158–164). Berlin: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504778-005
- Steinkeller, P., (2017b). “The Divine Rulers of Akkade and Ur: Toward a Definition of the Deification of Kings in Babylonia”. In: History, Texts and Art in Early Babylonia: Three Essays (pp. 107–157). Berlin: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504778-004
- Steinkeller, P., (2017c). “Writing, Kingship and Political Discourse in Early Babylonia: Reflections on the Nature and Function of Third Millennium Historical Sources”. In: History, Texts and Art in Early Babylonia: Three Essays (pp. 7–81). Berlin: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504778-002
- Steinkeller, P., (2021). “The Sargonic and Ur III Empires”. In: P. F. Bang, C. A. Bayly, & W. Scheidel (Eds.), The Oxford World History of Empire. Vol. 2: The History of Empires. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197532768.003.0002
- Suter, C., (2014). “Human, Divine or Both? The Uruk Vase and the Problem of Ambiguity in Early Mesopotamian Visual Arts”. In: B. Brown & M. Feldman (Eds.), Critical Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Art (pp. 545–568). Berlin: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614510352.545
- Van de Mieroop, M., (2016). A History of the Ancient Near East, ca. 3000–323 BC (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1515/janeh-2016-0010
- Van Dijk, L., (1970). “Les contacts ethniques dans la Mésopotamie et les syncrétismes de la religion sumérienne”. In: S. S. Hartman (Ed.), Syncretism (pp. 171–206). Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksel. https://doi.org/10.30674/scripta.67038
- Westenholz, A., (1999). “The Old Akkadian Period: History and Culture”. In: P. Attinger & M. Wäfler (Eds.), Mesopotamien: Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit. OBO, 160/3 (pp. 17–117). Freiburg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz.
- Westenholz, A. (2000). “Assyriologists, Ancient and Modern, on Naramsin and Sharkalisharri”. In: J. Marzahn, H. Neumann, & A. Fuchs (Eds.), Assyriologica et Semitica: Festschrift für Joachim Oelsner (pp. 545–556). Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
- Winter, I. J., (1996). “Sex, Rhetoric, and the Public Monument: The Alluring Body of Naram Sîn of Agade”. In: N. B. Kampen (Ed.), Sexuality in Ancient Art: Near East, Egypt, Greece, and Italy (pp. 11–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Winter, I. J., (2008). “Touched by the Gods: Visual Evidence for the Divine Status of Rulers in the Ancient Near East”. In: N. Brisch (Ed.), Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond. Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (pp. 75–101). Chicago: The Oriental Institute.

  • Receive Date 19 July 2024
  • Revise Date 10 August 2024
  • Accept Date 17 August 2024

Home

Contact Us