Until recently Manishtusu and Urumush were the only kings of Kish of this period whose names had been recovered. But a find has been made at Susa, which, while furnishing the name of another king of Kish, raises important questions with regard to the connection between the empires of Kish and Akkad. In the present chapter we have been dealing with a period of transition in the history of the lands of Sumer and Akkad. The fall of Lagash had been followed by a confederation of Sumerian cities with Erech as its capital, and the conquests of Lugal-zaggisi had sufficed to preserve for a time the integrity of the southern kingdom he had founded. But events were already taking place which were to result in the definite transference of power from Sumer to the north. The votive inscriptions from Nippur have thrown some light upon the struggles by which the Semitic immigrants into Northern Babylonia sought to extend their influence southward. The subsequent increase in the power of Kish was not followed by any fresh access of Sumerian power, but directly paved the way for the Semitic empire founded by Shar-Gani-sharri with the city of Akkad as his capital. The evidence of the close connection between the rise of Kish and Akkad suggests that both cities were borne up upon the same wave of Semitic domination, which by this time had succeeded in imposing itself on Babylonia from the north. In the following chapter we shall see that Shar-Gani-sharri was not the leader of this racial movement, and that his empire rested upon foundations which other rulers had laid. [1] It has indeed been suggested that, as Urukagina is termed "King of Girsu" in the lament on the fall of Lagash, he may have survived the catastrophe and continued to rule as king in Girsu (cf. Genouillac, "Tabl. sum. arch.," p. xvi.); but it is scarcely probable that Lugal-zaggisi, after sacking and burning the greater part of the city, would have permitted him to do so. [2] See Hilprecht, "Old Bab. Inscr.," Pt. II., No. 87, pll. 38 ff.; Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," pp. 152 ff. [3] Col. I., ll. 4-35. [4] This rendering is preferable to "the Lower Sea (of) the Euphrates and the Tigris." [5] Col. I., l. 36--Col. II., l. 16. [6] Col. II., l. 17--Col. III., l. 2. [7] See below, p. 198. [8] See above, p. 194. [9] See Hilprecht, "Explorations in Bible Lands," p. 384. In connection with this view, his earlier theory that Umma was Harran (cf. "Old Bab. Inscr.," Pt. II., pp. 54 ff.) he has, of course, given up. [10] Col. III., ll. 14-36. [11] See Hilprecht, "Old Bab. Inscr.," Pt. I., p. 47, No. 1; Pt. II., p. 46. [12] "Old Bab. Inscr.," Pt. II., No. 6, p. 57 f.; "Königsinschriften," p. 156 f. [13] See below, Chap. IX., p. 268. [14] "Old Bab. Inscr.," Pt. II., No. 86 _b_, pl. 37, p. 58. [15] See above, pp. 99 ff., 144 ff. [16] "Old Bab. Inscr.," Pt. II., pl. 43, Nos. 91 and 92. [17] _Op. cit._, Pl. 45 f., Nos. 102-105, 110.