[42] Dhorme's suggestion that GI was an ideographic writing for _Gani_ in the early period (cf. "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1909, col. 53 f.) is scarcely probable, though the fact that the commonest ideographic value for GI was _kanû_ or _ganû_ ("a reed") may possibly have contributed in some way to the later confusion. It should also be noted that Clay has recently pointed out the occurrence of the name _Sha-ru-ki-in_, on a fragment of an early text (see "Amurru," p. 194), as apparently that of a ruler of "the four quarters." Since the final _n_ can hardly be treated as the nunnation (as in the word _ir-bi-ti-in_ in the fifth line of the text), we may probably regard the passage as proving the early existence of the name _Sharrukîn_, Sargon, which would be the natural rendering of the name Sharru-GI (see above, p. 221). But the title of the king in the new text, and his description as "the beloved of Ishtar," would suit a king of Akkad rather than a king of Kish, thus affording additional excuse for a confusion by the later scribes. [43] I is therefore still permissible to employ the name "Sargon" as a synonym of Shar-Gani-sharri, the predecessor of Narâm-Sin upon the throne of Akkad. Similarly the terms "Pre-Sargonic" and "Post-Sargonic" need not be given up. In the text, however, the forms Sharru-Gi and Shar-Gani-sharri have been employed for the sake of clearness. [44] See above, p. 210 f. [45] See the frontispiece; and cf. p. 242 f. [46] See Heuzey, "Rev. d'Assyr.," Vol. IV., p. 111. [47] See above, p. 211 f. [48] It should be noted that on a tablet from Tello of the time of the Dynasty of Akkad mention is made of a patesi of Susa who must have been the dependent of the reigning king. His name should probably be read as Ilishma, but as the end of the line is broken, it is also possible that the personage referred to was Ilish, an official in the service of the patesi of Susa (cf. "Rec. de tabl.," p. 57, No. 122, Rev., 1. 2 f.). It is possible that to this period also should be assigned a patesi, whose name, occurring upon the fragment of an archaic inscription from Susa, has been provisionally read as Ur-ilim (see Scheil, "Textes Elam.-Sémit.", III., p. 1); see further, p. 243 f. [49] Cf. "Old Bab. Inscr.," Pt. II., pl. 2, No. 2; and see further, p. 248 f. [50] See Thureau-Dangin, "Comptes rendus," 1890, p. 359, No. 6; "Recueil de tablettes," p. 56, No. 118; and "Königsinschriften," p. 225. [51] See King, "Chronicles," Vol. I., p. 38 f. [52] See above, p. 197 f. [53] For a discussion of the archaeological evidence adduced in favour of the theory, see further, Chap. XII., p. 343 f.