The point which now concerns us is the name of the king to whom we owe this remarkable monument. Although the main inscription has unfortunately been hammered out, the king's name has been preserved in a cartouche in front of him, where he is termed "Sharru-Gi, the king." Now Sharru-GI is practically identical with Sharru-GI-NA, one of the two forms under which Sargon's name is written in Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian texts[21]; for the sign NA in the latter name is merely a phonetic complement to the ideogram and could be dropped in writing without affecting in any way the pronunciation of the name. Hitherto, as we have seen, Sargon, the traditional father of Narâm-Sin, has been identified with Shar-Gani-sharri of Akkad. The question obviously suggests itself: Can we identify the Sharru-Gi of the new monument with Shar-Gani-sharri? Can we suppose that a contemporary scribe invented this rendering of Shar-Gani-sharri's name, and thus gave rise to the form which we find preserved in later Babylonian and Assyrian tradition? Père Scheil, who was the first to offer a solution of the problem, is clearly right in treating Sharru-Gi and Shar-Gani-sharri as different personages; the forms are too dissimilar to be regarded as variants of the same name. It has also been noted that Sharru-Gi and Narâm-Sin are both mentioned on a tablet from Tello. On these grounds Père Scheil suggested that Sharru-Gi, whose name he would render as Sharru-ukîn (=Sargon), was the father of Narâm-Sin, as represented in the late tradition; Shar-Gani-sharri he would regard as another sovereign of Akkad, of the same dynasty as Sargon and Narâm-Sin and one of their successors on the throne.[22]