King, History of Sumer and Akkad (1910), which appeared after this article was written.
Opposed to Kengi and Sumer were Urra (Uri) and Akkad or northern Babylonia.
Sumer has been supposed to be the original of the Biblical Shinar; but Shinar represented northern rather than southern Babylonia, and was probably the Sankhar of the Tell el-Amarna tablets (but see Sumer).
For 7 years Tukulti-In-aristi ruled at Babylon with the old imperial title of " king of Sumer and Akkad."
The early Kaldi had seized and held from very ancient times the region of old Sumer, which was the centre of the primitive non-Semitic culture.
A more comprehensive name of southern Babylonia was Kengi, "the land," or Kengi Sumer, " the land of Sumer," for which Sumer alone came afterwards to be used.
King, A History of Sumer and Akkad (1910).
(1892), pp. 111 ff.; Prince, Commentary on D aniel (1899), pp. 5961; see also BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA and SUMER AND SUMERIAN.
In the Assyro-Babylonian literature the name Akkadu appears as part of the royal title in connexion with Sumer; viz.
Professor McCurdy has very reasonably suggested 6 that the title "king of Sumer and Akkad" indicated merely a claim to the ancient territory and city of Akkad together with certain additional territory, but not necessarily all Babylonia, as was formerly believed.
Khammurabi and the sun-god Shamash, on the former's famous code of laws, have the same features and almost the same frizzled beard, and, according to Meyer, the king in claiming supremacy over Sumer and Akkad wears the costume of the lands.
The rise of Sargon's empire was doubtless the cause of this extension of the name of Akkad; from henceforward, in the imperial title, Sumer and Akkad " denoted the whole of Babylonia.
E-anna-du, the grandson of Ur-Nina, made himself master of the whole of southern Babylonia, including " the district of Sumer " together with the cities of Erech, Ur and Larsa (?).
All that can be said is that both archaeological and epigraphic evidence indicates that no very long interval separated the empire of the Semitic kings of Agade from that of the kings of Sumer and Akkad, whose rule was inaugurated by the founding of the Dynasty of Ur.1 To use caution in accepting the chronological notices of the later kings is very far removed from suggesting emendations of their figures.
SUMER and Sumerian.
It is natural that under the Sumerian revival, which characterized the united kingdom of Sumer and Akkad, the ancient ritual should have been revived and the Sumerian servicebooks adapted for the use of the reigning monarch.
It is not likely, as many scholars have thought, that Akkad was ever used geographically as a distinctive appellation for northern Babylonia, or that the name Sumer denoted the southern part of the land, because kings who ruled only over Southern Babylonia used the double title "king of Sumer and Akkad," which was also employed by northern rulers who never established their sway farther south than Nippur, notably the great Assyrian conqueror Tiglath pileser III.