Power and Politics in the Neo-Elamite Kingdom (ACTA Iranica) 9789042942660, 9789042942677, 9042942665

Citation preview

POWER AND POLITICS IN THE NEO-ELAMITE KINGDOM Elynn GORRIS

PEETERS

POWER AND POLITICS IN THE NEO-ELAMITE KINGDOM

ACTA IRANICA EDITED BY Ernie HAERINCK† (Ghent University) and Bruno OVERLAET (Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire, Bruxelles)

IN AEDIBUS

PEETERS LOVANII

ACTA IRANICA 60

POWER AND POLITICS IN THE NEO-ELAMITE KINGDOM

Elynn GORRIS

PEETERS LEUVEN - PARIS - BRISTOL, CT

2020

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN 978-90-429-4266-0 eISBN 978-90-429-4267-7 © 2020 by Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, 3000 Leuven All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other means without written permission from the publisher. PRINTED IN BELGIUM

D/2020/0602/135

Map 1: The Neo-Elamite regions and connecting routes (courtesy of C. Petrie)

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . PREFACE

AND

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

XI

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

XIII

INTRODUCING THE 1. THE LAST 2. HISTORY

.

.

LAST CHAPTER OF

CHAPTER OF

OF RESEARCH

3. HISTORICAL

.

ELAMITE HISTORY

ELAMITE HISTORY .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

3

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

3

FRAMEWORK

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6 6 6 7 8 8

4. SOURCES FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEO-ELAMITE 4.1. Textual sources . . . . . . . . 4.1.1. Mesopotamian sources . . . . 4.1.2. Elamite sources . . . . . . 4.2. Archaeological sources . . . . . . 4.3. Iconographical sources . . . . . . 5. STRUCTURE

AND

THEMES .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

9

CHRONOLOGY .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

13

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

14

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

19

2. THE FIRST NEO-ELAMITE DYNASTY (C. 760-688 BC) . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Huban-tahra (*-743 BC) & Huban-nikaš I (743-717 BC) . . . . . . 2.2. Huban-immena & Šutruk-Nahhunte II (717-699 BC) . . . . . . . 2.2.1. Mesopotamian sources on the royal descent of Šutruk-Nahhunte II . 2.2.2. Elamite sources on the royal descent of Šutruk-Nahhunte II . . . 2.2.3. Onomastic variations in the name Šutruk-Nahhunte. . . . . . 2.3. Hallutuš-Inšušinak I (699-693 BC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4. Kutur-Nahhunte (693-692 BC) & Huban-menanu (692-688 BC) . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

20 20 22 22 23 26 33 35

3. THE SECOND NEO-ELAMITE DYNASTY: THE HUBANIDS (C. 688-650 BC) . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Huban-haltaš I (688-681 BC) & Huban-haltaš II (681-675 BC) . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Urtak (675-664 BC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I (664-653 BC) & Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte, king of Hidalu (*-653 BC) 3.3.1. The Elamite Realm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2. The Realm of Hidalu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. The Sibling Kings: Huban-nikaš II (653-652/1 BC) & Tammaritu, king of Hidalu (653 BC-*) 3.5. Tammaritu, king of Elam (652/1-650 BC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

37 37 39 41 41 42 45 47

4. THE ELAMITE REBEL KINGS (650-645 BC). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. Indabibi (650/49-648 BC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. Huban-haltaš III (648-647 BC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

54 54 55

6. PERIODIZATION 7. HOW TO USE

AND

THIS BOOK .

PART I. ON THE KINGS

.

. .

.

PERIOD

.

.

OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF AŠANZAN AŠŠUŠUN

1. THE DARK AGES (C. 1100-760 BC) .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

VIII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.3. Huban-habua (647 BC) & Tammaritu (647 BC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4. Huban-haltaš III & Pa’e (647-645 BC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. THE KINGS OF ELAM AFTER THE SACK OF SUSA (645–520 BC) . . . . . . 5.1. Šutur-Nahhunte (c. 635-610 BC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2. The Kings of the Susa Acropole Archive (end 7th-early 6th century BC) . 5.3. Šilhak-Inšušinak (end 7th century BC) . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4. Hallutuš-Inšušinak II (c. 598/93-583/78 BC) . . . . . . . . . . 5.5. Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak (2nd quarter 6th century BC) . . . . . . . . 5.6. Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II (3rd quarter 6th century BC) . . . . . . . 5.7. Last Elamite kings during the early Persian empire (last quarter 6th century

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. 91 . 92 . 97 . 100 . 102

1. THE NEO-ELAMITE LOWLANDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 The Neo-Elamite Northern and Western Periphery . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.1. Elamite Dark Ages and the First Neo-Elamite Dynasty (c. 1100-688 BC). 1.1.2. The Hubanid Dynasty (688-646 BC) . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.3. The late Neo-Elamite Period (645-520 BC) . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.3.1. The Susa Acropole Archive . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.3.2. The Elamite Nineveh Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.3.3. Akkadian Texts from Elam . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2. The Elamite Heartland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1. Susiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1.1. Patak Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1.2. Dizful Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1.3. Susa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1.4. Mainab Valley. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1.5. Eastern Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2. Ram Hormuz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2.1. Tall-i Ghazir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2.2. Tepe Bormi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2.3. Ram Hormuz Royal Burials . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3 Behbahan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3.1. Neo-Elamite Architecture at Behbahan: the Arjan Tomb . . . 1.2.3.2. Funerary Goods of the Arjan Tomb . . . . . . . . . . a. Funerary Goods inside the Bronze Coffin . . . . . . . b. Funerary Goods outside the Bronze Coffin . . . . . . 1.2.3.3. Arjan’s geopolitical importance for the Neo-Elamite State. . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

111 111 112 119 124 125 125 128 130 130 130 131 132 136 137 138 139 140 140 141 141 142 142 143 145

2. THE NEO-ELAMITE HIGHLANDS . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Izeh/Malamir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. The Mamasani Plain . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1. Tol-e Nurabad . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2. Neo-Elamite Settlements in the Mamasani Plain .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

147 147 151 152 154

6. LOCAL RULERS OF THE LATE NEO-ELAMITE PERIOD 6.1. Bahuri, king of Zamin (end 7th century BC) 6.2. King Huban-Šuturuk (early 6th century BC) 6.3. The kings of Zari (end 7th century BC) . . 6.4. The Samatian kings (end 7th-6th century BC)

PART II. THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER

OF THE

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . BC).

57 58

. . . . .

60 60 64 71 73 80 85 89

NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IX

2.2.3. Mamasani Settlements in the Textual Sources . . . . 2.2.3.1. Hidalu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3.2. Huhnur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3.3. Pessitme . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3.4. Gisat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. The Southern Periphery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1. The Kur River Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1.1. The Kur River Basin during the Dark Ages . . 2.3.1.2. The Kur River Basin in the late Elamite Sources.

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

158 159 160 161 161 162 163 163 165

1. ELAMITE INTERNAL POLITICS AND ORGANIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Government System of the Neo-Elamite Kingdom . . . . . . . . . 1.1.1. Traditional view of Elam as a Fragmentated Kingdom. . . . . . 1.1.2. Elam as a Unified Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.3. Elam as a Federal State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.3.1. Elam’s Regional Government . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.3.2. The meaning of a local king . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.4. Elam’s Political State Formation in a broader Chronological Context 1.2. The Elders of Elam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3. Officials in service of the Neo-Elamite kings . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.1. State Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.2. Palace Household . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.3. Administrative Officials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.4. Military Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.5. Religious Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

173 173 173 174 175 176 178 179 180 181 181 183 185 187 189

PART III. ON THE FORMATION

OF A

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

LATE NEO-ELAMITE STATE

CONCLUSION 1. ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF AŠSUSAN AND AŠANŠAN . 2. THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY . . . . 3. ON THE FORMATION OF A LATE NEO-ELAMITE STATE . . . . . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. 197 . 199 . 201

ABBREVIATIONS .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 203

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 207

.

INDICES 1. PERSONAL NAMES. . 2. ETHNONYMS . . . 3. DIVINE NAMES. . . 4. GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

ANNEX 1: MIDDLE AND NEO-ELAMITE PALAEOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 ANNEX 2: RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEO-ELAMITE INSCRIPTIONS BASED ON LINGUISTIC AND PALAEOGRAPHIC FEATURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 ANNEX 3: NEO-ELAMITE TOPONYMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Relative chronology of the Neo-Elamite kings and texts . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 2: Periodization of the Neo-Elamite period (after Álvarez-Mon 2013a; de Miroschedji 1981a; Steve 1986, 18-21; 1992, 21-22; Vallat 1996a; Potts 1999, 260; Waters 2000, 3) . . . . Table 3: Various systems for denoting determinatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 4: Neo-Elamite references to king Šutur-Nahhunte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5: Genealogy of Šutur-Nahhunte proposed by de Miroschedji (1982; 1985), Vallat (1995a; 1996a; 2006a) and Tavernier (2004; 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 6: Anthroponyms of ‘kings’ mentioned in the Susa Acropole Archive . . . . . . . . . Table 7: The reign of Hallutuš-Inšušinak II based on the Iqiša archive . . . . . . . . . . . Table 8: Attestations of the toponym/ethnonym Zamin in Elamite sources. . . . . . . . . . Table 9: Neo-Elamite and Achaemenid sites in the Patak Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 10: Neo-Elamite sites in the Dizful Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 11: Neo-Elamite sites in the Mainab Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 12: Neo-Elamite and Achaemenid sites in the Mamasani Valley . . . . . . . . . . . Table 13: Text references to Mamasani settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 14: List of Neo-Elamite officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FAMILY

10 14 15 60 61 68 76 94 131 132 137 155 158 192

TREES

Family tree 1: Family tree 2: Family tree 3: Family tree 4: Family tree 5: Family tree 6: Family tree 7: Family tree 8: Family tree 9: Family tree 10: Family tree 11: Family tree 12:

Genealogy of Hallutuš-Inšušinak I (after König 1971a; 1965). . . . . . . . . 33 Genealogy of Hallutuš-Inšušinak I (after Waters 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . 34 New proposition for the genealogy of first Neo-Elamite dynasty . . . . . . . . 37 Genealogy of Tammaritu, king of Elam (after Streck 1916; Cameron 1936; Fuchs 2003) 49 Genealogy of Tammaritu, king of Elam (after Gerardi 1988) . . . . . . . . . 50 New proposition for the genealogy of Tammaritu, king of Elam . . . . . . . . 52 New proposition for the genealogy of the Hubanid dynasty . . . . . . . . . 53 Genealogy of Šutur-Nahhunte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Genealogy of Šilhak-Inšušinak. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Hypothetical linear genealogy of the Zari tribe . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Hypothetical genealogy of the Zari tribe based on the confederation principle . . . 102 Genealogy of the Samatian kings mentioned on the Kalmakarra objects . . . . . 105

LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1: Fig. 2: Fig. 3:

Detail of lacuna in BM 92502 (© Trustees of the British Museum) . . . . . . . . . Repartition of the administrators in the Susa Acropole Archive (MDP 9). . . . . . . . Place of issue of the Susa Acropole tablets (MDP 9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

38 65 66

XII

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 4: Fig. 5:

Bronze door knob of Šilhak-Inšušinak, found in Susa (MDP 7, 38 pl. 41) . . . . . . . Inscribed brick of Hallutuš-Inšušinak II from the Inšušinak sanctuary at the Susa Acropole (MDP 5, pl. 17.4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 6: Inscribed wall knob of Hallutuš-Inšušinak II (MDP 53, pl. 9:6). . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 7: Stele of Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak (Sb 16; after Harper et al. 1992, 198, fig. 140) . . . . . . Fig. 8: Detail of line drawing of Nin 1:3 (PLD image taken by the author at the British Museum) . . Fig. 9: Metal beakers from the Kalmakarra hoard. Left image: Louvre AO 30371. Right image: London Sale Christie’s 04-26-2012 n. 4925 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 10: The Arjan burial chamber (after Alizadeh 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 11: The Arjan ring (after Stronach 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 12: The Arjan bronze bowl (after Majidzadeh 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71 78 79 81 93 105 142 143 144

LIST OF MAPS Map 1: The Neo-Elamite regions and connecting routes (courtesy of C. Petrie) . . . . . . . . Map 2: Elam’s southwestern border region (map adapted from Parpola & Porter 2001, map 11-12, 16-17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Map 3: The Susiana plain (after de Miroschedji 1981b, 177) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Map 4: Location of the Neo-Elamite settlements of the Mainab plain (after Moghaddam & Miri 2003, 102) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Map 5: Southwestern Iran (after de Miroschedji 2003, fig. 3.1. with modifications by Álvarez-Mon 2010a, pl. 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V

115 130 138 147

PREFACE & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This book represents my doctoral dissertation that was completed in September 2014 thanks to a PhD scholarship of the Fonds spéciale de recherche (FSR) of the Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium. After my PhD research, I was fortunate to be able to spend most of the following years in Iran with the generous support of a VOCATIO grant (2015-2017). It was a unique experience which gave me the opportunity to get deeply acquainted with the landscape and the environment of Khuzestan, Lurestan and Fars, the core regions of my PhD research. It gave me new insights but at the same time, however, it meant postponing the publication of my PhD dissertation. Nevertheless, the original dissertation was shared between a select group of friends and scholars and while some of its theories and ideas thus circulated and appeared in scientific literature, correct referencing and full scholarly debate remained impossible. For this reason, making the full study available in its original form to the whole of the scientific community was something that needed to be addressed with some urgency. In view of this, we opted to publish the present PhD dissertation, although my stay in Iran resulted in some new perceptions and research ideas. I hope this contribution will stimulate research on the history of Elam, I am certain it will at least spark new discussions. This work owes much to many friends, family and colleagues. I am most grateful to all my colleagues of the National Museum of Iran, especially the director Dr. Nokandeh and the curator of the Tablet collection Ms. Piran, for allowing me to work on a weekly basis in the museum and giving me a better insight world of museology. I also deeply acknowledge the efforts of the diplomatic staff of the Belgian Embassy to the Islamic Republic of Iran, especially Ms. Karin Reynders, for watching over me, and for giving me a Belgian home far away from home. When I wrote the original acknowledgments of this dissertation, I thanked my supervisor Prof. Jan Tavernier for the excellent scientific guidance and wished that our collaboration would continue for many more years. Since we share an office for more than ten years now, I can safely say that I would not mind another ten years of vivid discussions on Elamite onomastics. Throughout the early stages of my academic career, I was able to count on the help of international and Belgian colleagues, who all contributed in their own particular way in the training of the scholar that I am today. Especially, Gian Pietro Basello (L’Orientale, Naples) and Michael Kozuh (Auburn University) for being part of my dissertation committee and giving me numerous suggestions. Javier Álvarez-Mon (Macquarie University), Yasmina Wicks (Macquarie University) and Wouter Henkelman (EPHE) for the inspiring dialogues. Theo Krispijn (Leiden University) for teaching me Elamite language at Leiden in my masters (2008). Special thanks goes to Cameron Petrie (University of Cambridge) who kindly provided me with a map that highlights all the areas discussed in the book. I am deeply indebted to Anne Goddeeris (UGent) and Karel Van Lerberghe (KU Leuven), who introduced me to numerous Assyriologists at Rencontres Assyriologiques Internationales; to Katrien De Graef (UGent), Daniel T. Potts (ISAW), Caroline Waerzeggers (Leiden University), and Kathleen Abraham (KU Leuven), who provided a platform to present my research on different occasions; to Bruno Overlaet (RMAH) for entrusting Iranica Antiqua to me and teaching me some valuable editing skills. When I started my PhD scholarship at the UCLouvain, I was most fortunate to arrive in the inspiring work environment of the Institut orientaliste, where my fellow researchers and professors welcomed me with a warm and open-minded spirit. My colleagues taught me that, even though means are scarce, collaboration and a profound respect for each other’s research can make an institute like ours work and survive. To my friends, my parents, and all my family members for their unconditional love and support. Elynn Gorris

INTRODUCING THE LAST CHAPTER OF ELAMITE HISTORY

1. THE LAST CHAPTER OF ELAMITE HISTORY The Ancient Near East is traditionally divided in four regions: the Levant, Anatolia, Mesopotamia and Elam (Iran). Most specialists in the field of Ancient Near Eastern History have devoted their attention to Mesopotamia, Anatolia and the Levant and their mutual relations. Elam, the eastern neighbour of Mesopotamia, however, has attracted less scholarly attention, partly because the textual source material is not that abundant and partly because the Elamite language, compared to other Ancient Near Eastern languages such as Akkadian, Aramaic, Hittite and Hebrew, is not yet fully understood. Within the study of ancient Iran, it is the Achaemenid empire that has received most interest in modern research. This is, however, to be expected, since the Achaemenid empire is much better known thanks to its abundant source material and to its contacts with the Greek world. The name ‘Elam’ was not used frequently in studies on Ancient Near Eastern history until quite recently. This is clearly illustrated by the fact that George Cameron, when publishing his Elamite history in 1936, gave it the title ‘History of Early Iran’. Nonetheless, Elam has received a growing attention during the latest decades. But then again, scholars are mostly interested in the Middle Elamite period (c. 1500-1100 BC) and the Achaemenid period (c. 550-330 BC). The period in between, called the Neo-Elamite period, was hardly ever studied in depth, leaving a gap in modern scholarship. It is precisely that gap that this monography wants to bridge. In concentrating on the history of the NeoElamite period (c. 1100-520 BC), this book aims at a better understanding of the historical developments in this lesser known transition period between the Middle Elamite kingdom and the Achaemenid empire. In order to achieve this goal, it will make use of all available source material: philological, archaeological and iconographic, deriving from both Elam itself and Mesopotamia. Nevertheless, this study does not pretend to re-establish a political history of the Neo-Elamite period, since far too little source material is available or correctly understood to conduct a comprehensive study. This study does intend to add significant pieces to the historical puzzle, so that we can work in the forthcoming years towards a comprehensive history of the Neo-Elamite kingdom.

2. HISTORY OF RESEARCH Since the source material is scarce, Neo-Elamite history has been one the most unexploited topics of the Ancient Near Eastern studies. In the 19th century, attention was especially consecrated to the Achaemenid period, with the study of the Elamite version of the Bisitun Inscription as main research activity. With the start of the Susa excavations in 1898, Elamite studies were firmly stimulated. One of the early pioneers in Elamite studies was Father Vincent Scheil, who was the first epigraphist of the French archaeological mission at Susa and who published in the well-known series Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse (MDP) a great number of Elamite inscriptions deriving from the Susa excavations and the Susiana region. Friedrich W. König provided a text edition on the Elamite royal inscriptions (1965 = EKI), while Françoise Malbran-Labat (1995 = IRS) assembled the Elamite brick inscriptions. Marie-Joseph Steve (1992) published the only general sign list for Elamite studies. Walther Hinz & Heidemarie Koch (1987 = ElW) composed the only complete Elamite dictionary. The first synoptic monograph dealing with Elamite history was published by George Cameron in 1936. Later monographies on Elamite history were published by Walther Hinz (1964) and Elisabeth Carter & Matthew W. Stolper (1984). Daniel T. Potts (1999) published the latest historical overview of Elam’s history based on archaeological, textual and iconographical sources. Over the past few decades, our understanding of the Neo-Elamite period has drastically changed. Matthew W. Waters (2000) studied the Neo-Elamite history primarily from Mesopotamian documents, including the Neo-Babylonian chronicles, the Assyrian omen reports, the Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions and the NeoAssyrian correspondence. Pierre de Miroschedji, François Vallat and Jan Tavernier have examined the Elamite language and its history in various publications. Most recently, Javier Álvarez-Mon & Mark B. Garrison

4

INTRODUCING THE LAST CHAPTER OF ELAMITE HISTORY

(2011) have published a collection of articles on the final decades of the Elamite kingdom and the rise of Persia. The proceedings of the international conference on Elam and Susa held in 2009 (De Graef & Tavernier 2013) give the latest update on Elamite research in general. As could be expected, most Assyriologists studying Neo-Elamite history concentrate on the best-documented Neo-Elamite II phase (c. 760-646 BC). Nevertheless, new research on the Neo-Elamite I and III periods has already been conducted in the form of studies on particular aspects. François Vallat (1996a) and Jan Tavernier (2004) have made a reconstruction of the Neo-Elamite III chronology based on analysis of the Elamite language. Pierre de Miroschedji (1985, 1990a), Marie-Joseph Steve (1986) and Walther Hinz (1987) reported on the transition and the acculturation of the Neo-Elamite inhabitants into the Persian empire as well as Wouter Henkelman (2003b) who has investigated the influence, if there was any, of the Medes and the Persians on the Neo-Elamite kingdom during its last decades. Despite these recent insights on Neo-Elamite history of the last decades, much work remains to be done, because since the last reconstruction of Neo-Elamite history by Daniel T. Potts (1999, 259-294) many years have passed and new studies, for instance on the archaeological material of the Mamasani plain (Potts et al. 2009) or on the Arjan tomb (Álvarez-Mon 2010a) have modified our view on the period in question.

3. HISTORICAL FRAMEWORK The earliest history of the (pre-) Elamite civilization dates back to prehistoric times. The archaeological evidence from Susa and Anšan, the later core sites of the Elamite kingdom, shows a permanent settlement since the late 5th millennium BC. In these regions, a ‘proto-Elamite’ culture was established. In Susa, the proto-Elamites constructed a fortified village on the Acropole hill (Susa I period). In the Kur River Basin (Anšan, Tall-e Bakun), archaeologists found more than a hundred small settlements from the late Bakun (45003900 BC) and Lapui (3900-3400 BC) phases. In the Susa II period (3800-3100 BC), the first indigenous script, the yet undeciphered Proto-Elamite writing system, was created. By the Banesh phase (3100-2900 BC), the Proto-Elamite script reached the highland region. The first historical reference to the kingdom of Elam appears in an Archaic Uruk text from 3000 BC (Potts 1999, 85). During the mid-3rd millennium BC, a second reference to Elam is made in the Sumerian King List from the city-state Kiš, where king Enmebaragesi (2700 BC) describes his attack on Elam. The Sumerians referred to Elam with the cuneiform sign(s) reading NIM or NIM.KI (literally: ‘high(land)’). The period following the attack on Elam is called ‘the Old Elamite period’. In the Old Elamite period (2700-1600 BC) three successive Elamite dynasties — Awan (2700-2100 BC), Šimaški (2100-2000 BC), and sukkalmahs (2000-1600 BC) — had a troublesome relationship with Mesopotamia. The Awan dynasty ruled partly contemporary with the Mesopotamian Agade dynasty, who dominated Elam for about a century. Sargon of Akkad was the first Mesopotamian king to conquer thirteen Elamite cities in c. 2330 BC, a campaign that was repeated by his son and successor Rimuš of Akkad. Sargon’s other son Manistušu annexed Anšan and installed Mesopotamian governors in Elam. These governors probably introduced the Akkadian language and accountancy system in Susa. In this period, the oldest Elamite text, the so-called treaty of Naram-Sin, is written. After the fall of the Agade dynasty, the last Awanite king Puzur-Inšušinak (c. 2100 BC) recaptured the Elamite cities and seems to have introduced a new writing system known as ‘Linear Elamite’. Eventually Puzur-Inšušinak was defeated by Ur-Nammu, founder of the Ur III dynasty. Under the Šimaški dynasty, the Elamite cities had to pay taxes to the central Ur III government. The Ur III kings strengthened the relationship with Elam by marrying off the royal daughters to the local Elamite elite. However, the repeated looting of the Elamite lands by the Ur III kings evoked dissatisfaction amongst the Elamite elite, whereupon the Šimaški king Kindattu (2004 BC) defeated and ended the powerful Ur III empire. Under the sukkalmah dynasty, particularly those of the late 19th and early 18th centuries BC, and specifically during the reign of Siwepalarhupak the prestige and the influence of the Elamite kingdom throughout Western Asia reached an unprecedented extent. The sukkalmahs gradually seized power in the more northern Šimaški valleys, controlling the highlands as well as the lowlands, and even ruled some Mesopotamian

HISTORICAL FRAMEWORK

5

city-states. They maintained trading contacts with Mesopotamia, Syria, Dilmun, Magan, and even Bactria in the east. Eventually the Babylonian king Hammurabi (c. 1764 BC) put an end to this Elamite geopolitical expansion in about 1762 BC. During the Middle Elamite period (c. 1500-1100 BC), Elam reached its prime of power. For the first time since the days of the sukkalmah ruler Siwepalarhupak the Elamites pursued an assertive foreign policy and became serious rivals to the Mesopotamian kingdoms, economically as well as geopolitically. The kings of three succeeding dynasties of the Middle Elamite period — the Kidinuid (c. 1500-1400 BC), the Igihalkid (c. 1400-1200 BC) and the Šutrukid kings (c. 1200-1100 BC) — all carried the royal title ‘king of Anzan and Susa’, referring to their power over the united lowland and highland kingdom with their two main centers, Susa and Anšan. The Kidinuids were the immediate successors to the sukkalmahs and it seems that the transition did not have a violent character. Unfortunately, the history of the Kidinuid period is still poorly understood. Out of the five known Kidinuid kings, only the latter two (Tepti-ahar and Inšušinak-šar-ilani) have left their own inscriptions in Akkadian. The Igihalkid kings were engaged in large building projects: Tepti-ahar founded the (political) center of Haft Tepe in the Susiana plain. The Elamite king Untaš-Napiriša erected a new sanctuary at the site of Chogha Zanbil with a large ziggurat, where the deities of the highlands were worshipped along with those of the lowlands. The Igihalkid kings campaigned in Mesopotamia and tried to extend their geopolitical influence by matrimonial alliances with the Babylonian Kassite dynasty and defended their Kassite allies against a growing Assyrian involvement in Babylonian politics. Especially under the Šutrukid dynasty, Elam played a crucial role on the international political scene. The ‘kings of Anzan and Susa’ dominated the Elamite highlands & lowlands as well as significant parts of southern Mesopotamia and the northern Zagros. King Šutruk-Nahhunte I (c. 1190-1155 BC) made Elam one of the most powerful kingdoms in the Ancient Near East by defeating the Babylonian kingdom in 1158 BC. His son, Kutir-Nahhunte, dethroned the last Kassite king of Babylonia and heavily insulted his Mesopotamian neighbour by removing the cult statue of the god Marduk from its sanctuary (esagil) in the city of Babylon. His successor Šilhak-Inšušinak I (c. 1155-1125 BC) took advantage of the power vacuum, created by the collapse of the Kassite dynasty, and campaigned in eastern and northeastern Mesopotamia. At that time Elam was at the height of its power. The period of prosperity ended abruptly when the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar I (1125-1104 BC) sought revenge for the humiliations the Babylonians had suffered and wanted to bring back the divine statue of Marduk. In this he succeeded and his military actions compelled the successor of Šilhak-Inšušinak I, Hutelutuš-Inšušinak, to retire to the highlands, more precisely to Anšan. It should be noted, however, that Nebuchadnezzar’s campaign did not annihilate the Elamite kingdom and Nebuchadnezzar’s adversary Hutelutuš-Inšušinak could rule for some time after the Babylonian campaign. Scholars of Elamite history have assumed for a long time that after the Babylonian raid on Susa, the Middle Elamite dynasty did not recover and that it slowly disappeared from Ancient Near Eastern history. Cameron (1936, 130), who stated that ‘history affords frequent examples of empires which reach their prime only to pass into immediate decline, and Elam was no exception’, was right in arguing that Elam in the 1st millennium BC would never have regained the extent and political influence of the Šutrukid heydays. The large Middle Elamite kingdom came to an end the way the Neo-Elamite kingdom began, with an almost complete absence of historical data. Whether the lack of historical data implies an ‘immediate decline’ is another question that will be addressed in the first chapter of part I: ‘The Dark Ages (1100-760 BC)’. The Neo-Elamite period (c. 1100-520 BC) is often called one of the darkest chapters of Elamite history, because this period of approximately 500 years is historically situated between two of the best known empires of early Iranian history, ruled by the Šutrukid and the Achaemenid dynasties. Our knowledge of Neo-Elamite political history begins with the accession to the throne of Huban-nikaš I (743-717 BC). The main threat to the Elamite kingdom, an occasional ally of the Babylonian king, came from the Neo-Assyrian empire. The hostile contacts between the two kingdoms (743-646 BC) culminated in military campaigns of the Assyrian king Assurbanipal against the Elamite kingdom followed by the destruction of Susa in 646 BC. After the sack of Susa, the political history of the late Neo-Elamite kingdom (646-520 BC) is hardly known. Perhaps the Elamite

6

INTRODUCING THE LAST CHAPTER OF ELAMITE HISTORY

cities were rebuilt after the destruction of Susa on a smaller scale with limited political power. Maybe that is why Elam did not participate in the alliance of Babylonians and Medes, which defeated the Neo-Assyrian empire (612 BC). Ironically, not only the beginning of the Neo-Elamite period is difficult to define. Also its end is a debatable subject. We grope in the dark about the last century of Elamite independence. Most probably the Neo-Elamite kingdom lost its independent position to the rising Achaemenid dynasty (cf. I.5.7.), when Darius (I) the Great annexed its territory by the end of the 6th century BC (520 BC).

4. SOURCES FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEO-ELAMITE PERIOD 4.1. Textual sources Textual sources on Neo-Elamite history can be divided in two main groups: Mesopotamian sources and Elamite sources. Both groups contain valuable information, albeit of a very different nature, on the history of the Neo-Elamite kingdom. At present, the interpretation of the royal inscriptions from the Neo-Assyrian empire and the Neo-Babylonian kingdom remain critical for most historical reconstructions of the Neo-Elamite period. Next to these two principal groups, some Biblical references (Dan. 8:2; Jeremiah 49:34-39) give limited information on Neo-Elamite history.

4.1.1. Mesopotamian sources The Mesopotamian chronicles mainly provide a chronological sequence of Neo-Elamite kings, historical connections between Babylonia and Elam, information on royal genealogy, military and political activities. The Babylonian Chronicle (ABC 1), the main source for the Neo-Elamite dynastic chronology, describes the reign from Huban-nikaš I (743-717 BC) to the accession of Urtak (675-664 BC). The Babylonian Chronicle contains occasional details on the royal bloodlines, such as Šutruk-Nahhunte II being the mār ahātišu of Huban-nikaš I or the brotherhood between Kutur-Nahhunte and Huban-menanu. The Esarhaddon Chronicle (ABC 14; CM 18) describes a much shorter period of Neo-Elamite royal genealogy and adds some additional information on the reigns of Huban-haltaš II and Urtak. The Šamaš-šum-ukin Chronicle (ABC 15; CM 19) only reflects on king Huban-nikaš II. The Chronicle of the Neo-Babylonian king Nabonidus (556-539 BC; ABC 7; CM 26) gives some valuable information on the rise of the Persian empire under the Teispid king Cyrus the Great. The Assyrian royal inscriptions from the reign of Sargon II (721-705 BC) to Assurbanipal (668-627 BC), dating from the late 8th to the first half of the 7th centuries BC, are the most informative account of the NeoElamite/Neo-Assyrian interactions. The Assyrian Annals give a detailed account on the events during the 650s, starting with the final regnal years of Urtak until the defeat of Huban-haltaš III. In the Annals of his fifth campaign (c. 646), the Assyrian king Assurbanipal gives a detailed description of the destruction of Susa (BIWA). Also the Assyrian correspondence (ABL; SAA), which consists of letters of Assyrian officials to their king reporting on the Elamite political and military events, plays a significant role in the reconstruction of Elamite foreign policy and territorial disputes with neighbouring states. Especially the correspondence of Bel-ibni, governor of Sealand, gives an insight on the tumultuous years of the Elamite rebel kings (de Vaan 1995). The Mesopotamian sources on Neo-Elamite history have to be studied with caution. Especially the NeoAssyrian Annals are propagandistic literature that colours the modern perspective on the Neo-Elamite kingdom through a bias of hostility. The best example of the modified truth can be studied from the battles of Der and Halule (Waters 2000, 13-14, 34-36), where the three involved parties, the Elamite, Babylonian and Assyrian army, each claim victory in their reports on the battles. Moreover, the Assyrian records describe brief contacts with the Elamite civilization and are not able to contribute to the reconstruction of the religious, economic and social history of Elam.

SOURCES FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEO-ELAMITE PERIOD

7

4.1.2. Elamite sources The Neo-Elamite corpus can largely be divided in four categories: 1) The royal monumental inscriptions were meant to display the grandeur of the monarchy. Since the aim of these inscriptions was ‘to be seen’, the texts were inscribed on building materials (bricks, wall knobs & pegs), statues and steles. The oldest Neo-Elamite royal inscriptions (EKI 71-73; IRS 57) date from the reign of a single king Šutruk-Nahhunte II (717-699 BC). Thereafter, there is a gap of almost a century before new Elamite royal texts appear. Late Neo-Elamite kings who have left their signature on building materials are Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II (EKI 79-84; IRS 59-62), Šilhak-Inšušinak II (EKI 78) and HallutušInšušinak II (EKI 77; IRS 58; MDP 53). Several other kings like Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II (EKI 85) and Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak I (EKI 86-89) have left us some statues and steles. 2) The official Elamite inscriptions can be defined as monumental texts that are not written in the name of an Elamite king. Although these texts have an official state character, their content is much more informative than the propagandist royal inscriptions. The stele of Šutruru (EKI 74), the inscribed rock reliefs of Kul-e Farah and Šekaft-e Salman (EKI 75-76) and the Ururu Bronze Plaque of Persepolis (Basello 2013) are all ascribed to Elamite state officials. These texts, although displayed on public places, describe land grants, religious ceremonies, and military campaigns by high-ranked officials in service of the Elamite monarchy. 3) Documentary texts in the largest sense of the word have no public purpose. This category includes the economic archive of the Susa Acropole texts (MDP 9), the corpus of legal texts (MDP 11, 301-307), the Nineveh letters (Weissbach 1902) and one omen text (Scheil 1917, 24). These corpora have a purely documentary purpose, offering a supporting role in the governmental system, whether this is on an administrative, a legal, a diplomatic or a religious level. These texts reflect the daily organization of the Elamite kingdom by the Elamite bureaucratic apparatus. 4) Captions on sealings and objects mark a last category. The names and lineages of the owners of the tableware of the Kalmakarra cave (Henkelman 2003b), the Arjan tomb (Álvarez-Mon 2010a) and the Ram Hormuz burials (Shishehgar 2008) are inscribed on these objects. The inscribed sealings on documents found at Susa (Amiet 1973) and at Persepolis (Garrison & Root 2001; Garrison 2006) provide personal information on the genealogy and ethnic background of the seal bearers and administrators. Although the indigenous Elamite sources are very diverse, they do not provide a consistent chronological report on the events that took place in the Neo-Elamite kingdom. The major problem with regard to the indigenous Elamite sources is their chronology, since there is not a single Neo-Elamite text with a regnal year. This basically means that studying the evolution of the Elamite language and script includes dealing with these restrictions as well. Most scholars have based the relative dating of the Neo-Elamite textual corpus on a linguistic and palaeographical comparative study. However, there is a substantial difference between royal and documentary writing traditions. Ideally the royal monumental inscriptions should be studied within their own category, separated from other genres of texts such as economic documents, letters and legal cases, because they developed at a different tempo. This can be demonstrated by the classification on palaeographic grounds of the Neo-Elamite inscriptions in the sign list of Steve (1992). All the royal inscriptions are catalogued in the Neo-Elamite II column, while documentary texts are listed in the Neo-Elamite III column. In royal inscriptions, script and language are often much more archaic in order to highlight the continuity of the king with his predecessors. The royal inscriptions, probably made by specially trained palace scribes, were written in calligraphy to be used as a signature of the Elamite king to the outer world and did not necessarily reflect the writing traditions of that time. Although there is a clear evolution in monumental royal Elamite texts, these inscriptions are not comparable to practical documents, such as economic text, letters or omens. This difference is already noticeable in palaeographic variations in the royal Šutruk-Nahhunte II inscriptions and the Šutruru stela (EKI 74), a charter on land grants of an Elamite official. The same principle is seen in the Achaemenid period, if one compares the monumental Bisitun inscription to the Persepolis Fortification archive. The economic texts of the Susa Acropole archive were intended to register the intake and the distribution of commodities at the royal stores of the Susa administrative district. The scribes, who had to record administrative

8

INTRODUCING THE LAST CHAPTER OF ELAMITE HISTORY

operations, wrote them swiftly in the style and linguistic tradition that were common for that period. The royal monumental inscriptions that were written in that same period probably had a distinct orthography. An example of this principle is the sign UM that keeps its Neo-Elamite II shape in all late Neo-Elamite royal inscriptions, but undergoes a palaeographic evolution in the texts without a monumental character (Annex 1). Therefore, it seems quite unadvisable to transpose the characteristics of the royal inscriptions without restrictions on documentary texts, since these documents display more recent linguistic evolutions than the royal inscriptions that were written during the same period. Until today, scholars in Elamite studies have paid little attention to the different nature of these documents and consequently did not take these differences into account when establishing a relative chronology of the Neo-Elamite texts. This subdivision will obviously have an influence on the sequence of the Neo-Elamite kings, known from these texts, in the relative chronology of the Neo-Elamite period. For the study of Neo-Elamite chronology based on palaeography the situation becomes more complicated by the fact that one and the same person (V. Scheil) copied the majority of Elamite texts in the late 19th century. As a result of this, one cannot differentiate whether the copyist has drawn all the signs in the same way (as happened more often in that time) or whether there was no orthographic variety in the texts of a certain archive at all.

4.2. Archaeological sources European excavations in southwestern Iran started more than a hundred years ago (1895), when the Persian Shah Nasr al-Din granted French archaeologists the exclusive permission to excavate throughout his kingdom. In 1897, the French government created the archaeological mission Délégation scientifique française de Perse. They had to explore western Iran (Khuzestan and Fars) and to locate the lands of ancient Elam and Persia, which were merely known from the Bible (Dan. 8:2) and the ancient Greek historians. With the arrival of this French exploration mission, the official large-scale excavations of Elam had begun. Nevertheless the Elamite kingdom, located in the current Islamic Republic of Iran, remains one of the least exploited archaeological areas. Excavation permissions for Western archaeologists became scarce after the Iranian Revolution in 1979. With the reduction of these archaeological excavations, new information on the Elamite civilization became available only on a modest scale. In the 1980s and the 1990s, these circumstances led to a wave of revising the already existing Elamite source material, which resulted in a large number of scientific articles with hypotheses on the Neo-Elamite kingdom still improvable at present. During the last decade selected companies of archaeologists, like the Iranian-Australian Mamasani team of D.T. Potts, succeeded in resuming archaeological fieldwork in Iran and to reveal little pieces of this Elamite civilization. These teams and welltrained young Iranian researchers are providing and publishing new Elamite material sources for Elamologists to continue the investigation on the Neo-Elamite kingdom. This study will only observe those archaeological sites of southern Lurestan (Overlaet 2003), Khuzestan and northern Fars that show traces of Elamite Iron Age III (800-500 BC) settlements. Most of the major Elamite alluvial plains were investigated during the last century. Extensive archaeological surveys have been undertaken in the Susiana Plain and the Kur River Basin (Anšan). The most profound research on Neo-Elamite Susa was conducted by P. de Miroschedji (1978; 1981a), who made a stratigraphy of the Iron Age III levels in Ville Royale II. The site of Anšan has been identified and excavated by W. Sumner (1974). Additional surveys have been carried out in the valleys that connected the Elamite kingdom: the Mainab plain (Moghaddam & Miri 2003), the Ram Hormuz plain (Wright & Carter 2003), the Eastern corridor (Moghaddam & Miri 2007), Behbahan & Zohreh (Stronach 2003), Izeh (Bayani 1976), and the Mamasani region (Potts et al. 2009).

4.3. Iconographical sources The iconographical sources come from both Mesopotamia and Elam. The Elamite iconographic material consists of rock reliefs, objects and cylinder seals. The Elamite rock reliefs at Šekaft-e Salman, Kul-e Farah,

9

STRUCTURE AND THEMES

Kurangun and Naqš-e Rostam reflect local Neo-Elamite traditions (Vanden Berghe 1983; Álvarez-Mon 2013b). Furthermore, the objects of the Kalmakarra cave, the Arjan tomb and the Ram Hormuz burials are examples of the artistic connection between Southern Lurestan, Khuzistan and Fars. The various seal impressions on documents found at Susa (Amiet 1973) and at Persepolis (Garrison & Root 2001) represent cultural resemblances with the neighbouring Mesopotamian kingdoms. Mesopotamian iconography on Elam is displayed on the Assyrian palace reliefs. Several Neo-Assyrian reliefs in the Southwest Palace and the North Palace of Assurbanipal at Nineveh provides us with additional iconographical material on the battle of Til-Tuba (c. 653 BC) (Barnett 1976, pl. 24-25; Barnett et al. 1998, 94-95, pl. 286-299), the installation of the Elamite client king Huban-nikaš II (Barnett 1976, 42, pl. 25), Elamite political refugees and royal captives (Barnett 1976, pl. 47, 51, 56, 63-65) and Elamite architecture (on Madaktu: see Barnett et al. 1998, 96-97, pl. 300-13; on the ziggurat: Barnett 1976, 42, pl. 25-26).

5. STRUCTURE AND THEMES To improve our understanding of Neo-Elamite history, this monograph will concentrate on three themes. In the first part, the chronological framework of the Neo-Elamite kings will be revised mostly by using the Elamite and Mesopotamian textual sources. An in-depth study on the sequence of Neo-Elamite kings and their genealogy is intended to contribute to new insights into the political history of the Neo-Elamite period. In the second part, the geopolitical settings of the Neo-Elamite monarchy will be investigated. The third part will focus on the internal organisation of the Neo-Elamite kingdom. It will examine the Neo-Elamite government structure and the magnates working in this political system to carry out the decisions of the Neo-Elamite kings. In addition, this research will consider the historical developments in the three neighbouring areas: the NeoBabylonian kingdom in the west, the Medes in the northeast and the emerging Persian empire in the south. In this way, it is possible to study Neo-Elamite history in connection with other contexts, most obviously that of the political and socio-economical history of the Ancient Near East. PART 1: ON THE KINGS OF

NIM.MA.KI

(ELAM) AND ON

THOSE OF

SUSA

AND

ANŠAN

Writing a history of a kingdom or a nation implies a certain framework in which the historian can chronologically situate persons and facts. The most important historical figures of ancient kingdoms are the kings, whom we know through ancient records reporting on their achievements. In order to reconstruct the history of the Neo-Elamite period, one needs a king and a royal family with successors to the Elamite throne to guarantee the continued existence of the kingdom. The first part will therefore examine the genealogy of the Neo-Elamite royal families and order of succession of the Neo-Elamite kings. Part 1 is divided into six chapters. The first chapter briefly discusses indications of royal presence during the Dark Ages. The second chapter explains the genealogy of the first Neo-Elamite dynasty, from Huban-tahra to Huban-menanu (c. 760-689 BC). In the third chapter, the family history of the Hubanid dynasty (688-650 BC) from Huban-haltaš I to Tammaritu is revised. The fourth chapter accounts on the rebel kings (650-645 BC) that attempted and often succeeded to seize the Elamite throne during the Hubanid family feud. The fifth chapter describes the Elamite kings that ruled after the sack of Susa until the annexation of Elam by the Achaemenids and in the sixth chapter a chronological sequence of the local kings or sheikhs is made during that same period. The history of research has proven that this is not an easy task, as various theories have already been proposed (Table 1). When reconstructing the Neo-Elamite king list, Mesopotamian sources, when brought together, provide a relatively accurate chronology from Huban-nikaš I (743 BC) to Huban-haltaš III (645 BC). However, two elements complicate the reconstruction of the Neo-Elamite king list. Firstly, the Neo-Elamite textual sources are not dated. Secondly, the names of the Elamite kings have been adapted in the Mesopotamian sources into Akkadian variants. Therefore, it is often difficult to connect the royal references in Mesopotamian sources to the Elamite inscriptions. For decades, scholars have tried to link all Elamite royal names to their

650/49-648

Indabibi

c.529-c.522 c.522-c.486

Cambyses II Darius I

Table 1: Relative chronology of the Neo-Elamite kings and texts

c.585-c.559 c.559-c.530

Cyrus II

c.610-c.585

Cyrus I Cambyses I

c.635-c.610

Teispes (Anšan)

Persian Dynasty

de Miroschedji 1985

Dabala, Ampiriš, Anni-Šilhak & Unšak (Samati; Kalmakarra hoard)

Bahuri (Zamin)

c.530-520

Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak (EKI 86-89)

c.585-c.539

c.550-c.530

c.565-c.550

c.590-c.555

c.620-c.585

c.625-c.600

c.640

646-645

647

Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak (EKI 79-85)

Šati-hupiti & Huban-Šuturuk (Gisat; Ururu Bronze Plaque)

585-539

Šilhak-Inšušinak II (EKI 78)

Bahuri (Zamin; Nin 1, 5, 10, 14)

Ummanunu (S. 165)

Hallutuš-Inšušinak (EKI 77)

Huban-Šuturuk (Gisat)

Šutur-Nahhunte (Malamir)

Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak (II) (Susa)

Šilhak-Inšušinak II (Susa)

Ummanunu (Susa)

Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak

Indada & Šutur-Nahhunte (EKI 75-76, seal)

646-585

Hallutaš-Inšušinak

Huban-haltaš III Omen text

647-645

Tammaritu

648-647

649-648

Indabibi Huban-haltaš III

652-649

653-652

Tammaritu

Huban-nikaš II + Tammaritu

Tavernier 2004

Šutur-Nahhunte (EKI 71)

Huban-haltaš III

Tammaritu

648-647

652/1-650/49

Tammaritu

Huban-haltaš III

653-652/1

Huban-nikaš II + Tammaritu

Vallat 1996

646

Pa’e

Appalaya (Zari, S. 71)

Šati-hupiti & Huban-Šuturuk (Gisat; Ururu Bronze Plaque)

Bahuri

Tabala, Ampiriš, Anni-Šilhak, Unzi-kilik, Gittiyaš & Unšak (Samati; Kalmakarra hoard) c.585-c.539

c.530-520

c.530

Hutran-tepti (EKI 86-89) Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak (EKI 86-89)

c.550-c.530

c.565-c.550

c.585-c.565

c.620-c.585

Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak (II) (EKI 79-85)

Šilhak-Inšušinak (EKI 78)

Ummanunu (Hubanini; S. 165, EKI 78)

Hallutuš-Inšušinak (EKI 77)

Huban-tahra II (EKI 77)

Šutur-Nahhunte (seal)

c.630-c.610

647-645

Huban-haltaš III

Indada (EKI 75-76)

647

648-647

Huban-haltaš III

648/7

650/49-648

Indabibi

Tammaritu

652/1-650/49

Tammaritu

Huban-habua

653-652/1

Huban-nikaš II + Tammaritu

Tavernier 2007a

10 INTRODUCING THE LAST CHAPTER OF ELAMITE HISTORY

STRUCTURE AND THEMES

11

Mesopotamian counterparts (Hinz 1964; Carter & Stolper 1984; Waters 2000). Consequently, all Neo-Elamite royal inscriptions were automatically dated to the Neo-Elamite II period, which is the era covered by Mesopotamian sources (c. 743-646/5 BC), resulting in numerous inconsistencies. Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak, for example, went on a campaign in an area for which he needed to cross several Assyrian provinces and Hallutuš-Inšušinak reigned Elam for seven years in the Babylonian Chronicle, while an economic contract from Hidalu would be dated to the 15th regnal year of Hallutuš-Inšušinak. Although the Elamite sources provide data on a number of kings for the late Neo-Elamite period, the attestations are too limited to bridge the gap of about 125 years. When Mesopotamian source material disappears after the reign of Huban-haltaš III, the scanty source material does not allow to retrace the genealogy of the late Elamite kings. Therefore, this study will merely focus on the sequence of the late Neo-Elamite kings. F. Vallat (1996a) was the first scholar to revise the Neo-Elamite sources and to assign most Neo-Elamite royal inscriptions to the Neo-Elamite III period after the sack of Susa (post-646 BC). Accepting F. Vallat’s reconstruction means recognizing a significant larger number of kings for the late Neo-Elamite period. J. Tavernier (2004) refined the work of F. Vallat by fully exploiting the system of the broken writings as an additional dating method for late Elamite inscriptions (Table 1). Nevertheless, it is highly possible that only the late Neo-Elamite kings, who were engaged in building activities and left us monumental steles, are known to us. Moreover, one can question whether the fathers, mentioned in the royal titulary, of these Neo-Elamite king held the office of king as well, which would of course double the number of late Neo-Elamite kings. Since we cannot deduce from the available source material any dynastic connection between the kings, it seems rather doubtful that all the attested patronyms would have been kings. At this point in research, however, one can only make educated guesses on which Elamite king had the honour of succeeding his father. Despite the fact that the earliest Achaemenid rulers were unmistakably the heirs of the Neo-Elamite kingdom and that the transition of a Neo-Elamite to an Achaemenid government is far from clear in the sources, the Achaemenids were no Elamites. The Achaemenids were not merely another dynasty that came into power in Elam, they were an Indo-Iranian dynasty that conquered and integrated Elam into their large empire. The earliest Achaemenid heirs of Elam are therefore not included in this part. PART 2: THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY Ancient Elam is situated in the southwest of present-day Iran and broadly includes the provinces of Khuzestan, the south of Lurestan and the north of Fars. The province of Khuzestan is geographically part of the alluvial plain of Mesopotamia. Therefore, it is often called the Elamite lowlands. The province of Fars or the Elamite highlands is located southeast to the lowlands. The two most important cities of Elam, Susa and Anšan, are located over more than 500 kilometers from each other. Susiana is the major plain in Khuzestan, while Anšan lies in the mountainous Fars area. Susiana, Fars and the valleys between those two areas are the principal setting for Neo-Elamite history. As Potts (1999, 10) already indicated, the name Elam represents a political entity rather than a geographical one. During the three millennia of the Elamite civilization, the geographical boundaries changed so often from lowland to highland that the name Elam in every historical period has a different content. In prosperous times, the two regions were mostly united. When the Elamite kingdom suffered from foreign attacks, the Elamite kings often lost their control over the highlands or, conversely, were forced to flee to the highlands and give up the lowland territories. In this part, the geopolitical setting of the Neo-Elamite kingdom will be studied. The territory over which the Elamite monarchy had a political claim and over which they exercised cultural influence will be examined. An even more important question for the Neo-Elamite period is to what extent the Elamites were capable of maintaining their territorial boundaries during the 1st millennium BC in their dealings with the emerging Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid empires. This part is divided into two large chapters dealing with the Neo-Elamite lowlands and the Neo-Elamite highlands respectively. In the first chapter of the Neo-Elamite lowlands, the western & northern periphery

12

INTRODUCING THE LAST CHAPTER OF ELAMITE HISTORY

is discussed as well as the Elamite heartland including the large Susiana plain, Ram Hormuz and Behbahan. In the second chapter on the Elamite highlands, the Elamite regions of Izeh, Mamasani and the southern periphery are studied. The analysis of the Elamite periphery or border regions throughout the Neo-Elamite period is a tentative reconstruction, combining Assyrian, Babylonian and Elamite records with archaeological evidence. Since the initial attempt of J. Brinkman (1986), no further study has been undertaken to grasp the boundaries of the NeoElamite kingdom. This part intends to bring together the existing source material on the Elamite-Mesopotamian border regions. The sources on the eastern and southern borders are rather limited, but the information on the northern and western frontier zones is abundant. At this point, any geographical reconstruction of this region is an attempt to improve our historical knowledge, rather than an accurate reconstruction of the limits of the Neo-Elamite kingdom. At present, three major obstacles prevent to make a profound investigation of the Elamite frontier regions. Firstly, the Akkadian as well as the Elamite textual sources provide us with hundreds of toponyms especially along the Elamite-Mesopotamian western border, the so-called Trans-Tigridian corridor (i.e. the area between the Tigris and Zagros foothills, from Der in the north to the Persian Gulf), but the location of the majority of these Mesopotamian and Elamite cities are still contested or entirely unknown. Secondly, since the Trans-Tigridian region was the subject of territorial expansion for Elam, Assyria and Babylonia, this region was reshaped into a battlefield from the 8th century BC onwards. As a consequence of the many military campaigns between Assyria and the allied forces of Elam and Babylonia, the territorial boundaries shifted nearly after each confrontation, as did the ‘nationality’ of the cities and people in that region. Thirdly, the geographical names yield another identification problem. Aramean or Chaldean cities were often renamed after an Assyrian conquest (e.g. Dur-Athara/Dur-Abi-Hara into Dur-Nabu; Samūna into Enlil-iqīša). When the Babylonians regained control, the city was referred to by its original name again. For some cities we are aware of such name changes, but numerous other cases have probably escaped our attention. It is highly possible that a toponym mentioned in a Babylonian text is referring to the same location as a different toponym in an Assyrian document. To make the situation even more complicated, the Elamites had their own name-giving system for border region cities with a mixed Aramean-Babylonian-Elamite population. For example, of the more than hundred Elamite toponyms mentioned in the Susa Acropole texts (Annex 3), most of which are located in the larger Susiana region and partially in the Elamite western border zone, only a few toponyms can be identified (Samūna with Zamin; Dur-Athara/Dur-Abi-Hara/Dur-Nabu/Harâ with Haran; Din-Šarri with Dun-Sunki). As each of these problems outlined above is a research topic on its own, exceeding the scope of my current research, it is only possible to give a preliminary reconstruction. This reconstruction of the geopolitical power of the Neo-Elamite monarchy is primarily based on indigenous archaeological remains (architecture and ceramic), because it reflects the physical presence of the Neo-Elamite culture. With the help of this recent archaeological material, it was possible to define the heartland of the NeoElamite kingdom. The peripheral valleys in the north of Susiana (Deh Luran, Pušt-e Kuh) and the southern plains (Kur River Basin, Fasa & Darab) were added to make sure that no piece of the puzzle would be missing. When there were no archaeological results on a particular valley by the lack of sufficient archaeological research, the iconographical and textual sources were consulted, like for instance in the Izeh valley. If these sources could not provide decisive answers, the valley was excluded. Nevertheless, this system leaves a wide error range, because not every valley in southwestern Iran has already been subjected to archaeological research. Moreover, several archaeological surveys during the 1970s might have failed to identify Neo-Elamite ceramics, since a profound study of this material was only published as late as 1981 by P. de Miroschedji. PART 3: ON THE FORMATION

OF A

LATE NEO-ELAMITE STATE

In the third part the internal organisation of the Elamite kingdom is thoroughly re-examined. In the first chapter, the Neo-Elamite government system and the governing bodies of the Elamite state will be studied. The second chapter gives an overview of the Neo-Elamite officials employed in the government system.

PERIODIZATION AND CHRONOLOGY

13

Research on the state formation and the government system of the Neo-Elamite kingdom is very limited and characterized by a highly tentative reconstruction. The contemporary Mesopotamian textual sources give an impression of one centralised Elamite kingdom, while the Elamite sources emphasize smaller coexisting Elamite entities. Most scholars have considered the separation of the king of Elam and the king of Hidalu, together with the growing amount of source material referring to local kings within the Neo-Elamite boundaries, as a sign of fragmentation of the Neo-Elamite realm after the destruction of Susa (Cameron 1936, 167-168; Steve, Vallat & Gasche 2002/03, 477). The idea that Elam never recovered from the Assyrian destructive power remained for a long time the general accepted hypothesis. Recently, Henkelman (2003a; 2008) has portrayed the Neo-Elamite kingdom as a unitary state. In this context, a study of the relation between the central Elamite government and the local rulers at the margins of the Elamite kingdom has to be undertaken. Therefore, the kingdom of Hidalu and Zamin will be taken as case-studies. Zamin as well as Samati, Hara(n) and Zari were located in the northwestern and southwestern periphery, while Hidalu will serve as a highland example. Next to the Elamite king and the local kings, the assembly of the ‘Elders of Elam’ will be briefly addressed. Within the Elamite government system, a large number of officials were employed. There were the magnates of the king (governors and diplomats), members of the palace household, the bureaucratic apparatus, military commanders, and religious staff. However, a high number of Elamite officials are named in the Assyrian royal and administrative inscriptions. Since these texts are written in Akkadian, the Elamite officials are indicated with an Assyrian professional name that most likely corresponds to the content and responsibilities of the Elamite official. The Assyrian inscriptions hence contribute significantly to our knowledge of Elamite functionaries, but do not offer any help when it comes to linking these professionals to the Elamite official titles. In some cases, we can connect an Assyrian title to an Elamite occupation or make a well-founded suggestion, but mostly we grope in the dark.

6. PERIODIZATION AND CHRONOLOGY Scholars have not come to a general agreement on the chronology of the Neo-Elamite period, which consequently has several subdivisions based on archaeological, historical or philological material. Based on the material culture, P. de Miroschedji (1981b, 143-167; also Carter 1984, 182) divided the Neo-Elamite kingdom into two periods: NE I (1000-760 BC) and NE II (760-539 BC). Steve (1992, 21-23) established a relative chronology of the late Elamite texts based on internal linguistic (morphology and syntax) and palaeographic elements. However, the absence of consistent amount of diverse textual material for each of the subdivided periods forced Steve to rely his absolute dating on Mesopotamian sources (Stolper 1987/90, 276-281). Still, he divided the late Neo-Elamite period in two sub-phases. The division based on historical data from textual sources is tripartite (Potts 1999, 206; Waters 2000, 3; Malbran-Labat 2012): NE I (c. 1100-760 BC), NE II (760-646 BC) and NE III (646-539 BC). On the periodization of the Neo-Elamite I period or ‘the Dark Ages’, there is a broad consensus amongst Elamologists. On the contrary, the periodization of the NE II and NE III periods remains a subject of discussion. The beginning of the second phase (NE II) corresponds approximately with the first known Neo-Elamite king Huban-nikaš I through Babylonian sources, more particularly the Neo-Babylonian Chronicle (ABC 1, 9-10). Scholars have proposed two dates (653 BC and 646/645 BC) for the end of the Neo-Elamite II period, based on historical events that had a decisive impact on the Elamite civilization. Generally, the destruction of Elamite capital Susa by the Assyrian king Assurbanipal in 646 BC is taken as the end of the Neo-Elamite II phase (Vallat 1996a; Potts 1999, 260-262). Although the impact of the destruction of the Elamite capital may not have been as large as Assurbanipal claims in his Annals, this was the first time during the Neo-Elamite history that the Assyrian army could march into the political heartland of the Elamite kingdom and even reach the Elamite highlands where they captured the Elamite king Huban-haltaš III. The year 646/645 BC especially marks the point where the Assyrian information on Elamite history stops. After that date, historians are forced to work with the undated Elamite source corpus and fragmentary Neo-Babylonian references. The date therefore is set on methodological issues, because we do not know whether the impact of Assyrian sack of Susa was large enough to cause a rupture in Elamite society.

14

INTRODUCING THE LAST CHAPTER OF ELAMITE HISTORY

The alternative date for the end of the Neo-Elamite II period is the battle of Til-Tuba in 653 BC (MalbranLabat 2012, 349-352; Waters 2000, 3) when the Elamite king Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I was captured and killed. After the battle of Til-Tuba, the Assyrian involvement in internal Elamite politics increased dramatically to the point where Assurbanipal was able to place client kings on the Elamite throne. These were relatives of former Elamite kings who had fled to Assyria. Nevertheless, this Elamite defeat did not imply the end of ElamiteAssyrian rivalry. The moment Assurbanipal installed a client king on the Elamite throne, the client king would turn against him, maintaining the centuries old hostility. The year 653 BC thus marks the beginning of the political instability and the growth of Assyrian influence in Elam. Although the battle of Til-Tuba announces the beginning of the ‘rebel kings’ chapter, those kings were still connected to the royal family of the Hubanids. Until the last member of that clan, Huban-haltaš III, actually disappeared from the Elamite political scene in 645 BC, one cannot speak of a rupture in Elamite civilization. The sack of Susa is therefore considered in this work as the beginning of the late Neo-Elamite (III) period. The end of the Neo-Elamite III period has two dates: 539 BC and 520 BC. These dates mark the end of Elamite independence and the annexation of Elam by the Persians. Some scholars assume that Elam was taken during the Persian conquest of Babylonia under Cyrus the Great (539 BC). Other scholars, including myself, consider the suppression of the last Elamite rebelling in 520 BC by Darius the Great to be the end of the Neo-Elamite kingdom. de Miroschedji NE I A NE I B

c.1000-725

NE II NE III A NE III B

Steve c.1000-900 c.900-750 c.750-653

c.725-520

c.653-605 c.605- 539

MalbranLabat

Vallat

Potts

Waters

1000-c.760

c.1100-770

c.1000-744

c.1000-743

c.770-646

743-646

743-646

c.760-653 653-539

646-c.585 c.585-539

646-c.585

646-539

Álvarez-Mon c.1000-900

Gorris c.1100-760

c.900-725 725-647 647-626

c.760-646/5 646/5-520

625-520

Table 2: Periodization of the Neo-Elamite period (after Álvarez-Mon 2013a; de Miroschedji 1981a; Steve 1986, 18-21; 1992, 21-22; Vallat 1996a; Potts 1999, 260; Waters 2000, 3)

7. HOW TO USE THIS BOOK NAMES Most Neo-Elamite kings are known through the Mesopotamian sources, in which their personal name is modified to the Assyrian or Babylonian dialect. The names of Elamite kings are always written in their Elamite version, even when we know the kings exclusively from Mesopotamian documents. The personal names of the Elamite kings are written according to their attestation in the Neo-Elamite inscriptions. For example, in the theophoric element Huban/Humban the -m- is omitted, because the additional consonant is not attested in the Neo-Elamite inscriptions, even though the Neo-Assyrian and Middle Elamite inscription refer to the variant (H)umban. Also the Neo-Assyrian attestations of the Neo-Elamite royal names, for which no Neo-Elamite variant is attested, will be converted to the Neo-Elamite palaeography. In this case, Teumman and Hallušu will become Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak and Hallutuš-Inšušinak. Also the Mesopotamian variants, such as Ištarnandi, will be written in the Elamite form Šutur/Šutruk-Nahhunte. The only exception to this rule is Indabibi, because no clear Elamite alternative was found.

15

HOW TO USE THIS BOOK

TRANSLITERATIONS The transliteration system follows the method of W. Henkelman (2008, xix-xx), who refined Hallock’s system (1969) on the Persepolis Fortification texts. The determinatives are written in their logographic value, e.g. the indication of a male name (a vertical wedge) is written diš. Because the Neo-Elamite language used several determinatives be, diš, hal, aš in the same context (Steve 1988), the syllabic values are used instead of the conventional abbreviations, such as the system of W. Hinz & H. Koch (1987; also König 1965) or the system used amongst Assyriologists. Logographic value

Hinz & Koch (1987)

König (1965)

Assyriology

diš dingir/d diš d sal be GAM

v. d. vd. f. hw. GAM

I d. vd. f. hw. GAM

m d md f / /

aš hal MEŠ

h. hh. lg.

h. hh. lg.

URU [GN] KI KUR MEŠ

Table 3: Various systems for denoting determinatives

In Mesopotamian texts, there are two logographic values for the word ‘king’: LUGAL (Labat 1988, n. 151) and EŠŠANA (Labat 1988, n. 593). In Elamite language, the word for ‘king’ is always written with the cuneiform sign EŠŠANA (Steve 1992). In modern literature on Elam, one tends to refer to EŠŠANA by the alternative name LUGÀL or SUNKI, which are all the same cuneiform sign. In this dissertation all three names will be used depending on the context, e.g. in the combination DUMU.LUGAL the sign EŠŠANA will always be written LUGÀL.

PART I ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF AŠANZAN AŠŠUŠUN

1. THE DARK AGES (c. 1100-760 BC) When the late Middle Elamite king Hutelutuš-Inšušinak (c. 1120-1100 BC) lost the military battle at the banks of the Ulāi River against the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar I (c. 1125-1104 BC), the Elamite kings did not just lose control over their southern Mesopotamian territory (RIMA 2, 35:41-43; Brinkman 1968, 105110), they almost completely disappeared from the international scene for over 300 years. Until today, no early Neo-Elamite textual sources can be clearly identified. Only the Tall-i Malyan archive dates perhaps from the early Neo-Elamite period (Stolper 1984, 7; also Steve 1992, NE I A). Due to the scanty historical information, the Neo-Elamite period begins with the so-called ‘Dark Ages’ (NE I, c. 1100-760 BC). The Elamite Dark Ages, however, do not appear as dark as they initially seem to be. Mesopotamian textual sources occasionally refer to Elam, providing us with a glimpse into early Neo-Elamite history. When in the 10th century BC the Elamite capital Susa suffered from a population decrease and the settlement of the Ville Royale II was abandoned (de Miroschedji 1981a, 37), a Babylonian king Mār-bīti-apla-uṣur is said by the Dynastic Chronicle (984-979 BC; ABC 18:13; RIMA 2, 87) to be a remote descendant of Elam (ŠÀ BAL.BAL LIBIR? NIM.MA.KI). The name of Mār-bīti-apla-uṣur was even inscribed in Akkadian on several bronze arrowheads, found in Lurestan (Dossin 1962, 160 pl. 29.19; RIMA 2, 88-89). The Middle Elamite kings had conducted an inter-marriage policy with the Babylonian Kassite rulers to whom they married off their daughters. In this context, Mār-bīti-apla-uṣur might have had an Elamite princess amongst his ancestors (Brinkman 1968, 165). A similar case of mixed marriage may be attested for the parents of king Šutruk-Nahhunte I. This Elamite Šutrukid king was the son of the Elamite king Hallutuš-Inšušinak and the eldest daughter of the Kassite king Meli-šipak II (1186-1172 BC) and he resented the fact that he did not inherit the Babylonian throne even though his mother was a Babylonian princess (van Dijk 1986, 161-166; Steve & Vallat 1989, 228; Goldberg 2004, 33-42; Vallat 2006b, 123-135; contra: Paulus 2013, 429-449). Why me, who is the king, son of a king, the offspring of a king, born as a king of the lands of Babylon and of Elam, offspring of the eldest daughter of the powerful king Kurigalzu, (why) do I not sit on the throne of the land of Babylon? Berlin Letter l. 37-40 (VAT 17020 = BE 133384 = VS 24, 91)

On the other hand, Mār-bīti-apla-uṣur might have been an outsider who got help from Southern Mesopotamian tribes (Aramean, Sutean, Chaldean), dwelling on Babylonian lands along the Elamite border. Although only few archaeological findings from Susa provide indications on the artistic culture of the Dark Ages, expressions of late Middle Elamite and early Neo-Elamite rock art can be observed in the Izeh valley. Kul-e Farah and Šekaft-e Salman near Malamir in eastern Khuzestan (Calmeyer 1980, 110 n. 49; also De Waele 1973, 1981, 50 n. 4 and 52 n. 4; Stolper 1987/90, 278; Potts 1999, 253-254; Álvarez-Mon 2010b; 2013b) were also carved in the Middle Elamite period but possibly usurped and reused later in the Neo-Elamite period. The rock-cut highland sanctuaries of Kurangun and Naqš-e Rostam (Seidl 1986, 6-19) in Fars were initially constructed in the Sukkalmah period, but were expanded during the Middle Elamite II-III periods. These shrines indicate an Elamite presence in the mountains of Iran through the second half of the 2nd millennium BC and the early 1st millennium BC (Carter 1998, 320). The stratigraphy of the Ville Royale II settlement (de Miroschedji 1981a, level 9-8) shows a continued occupation in Susa from around the middle of the 9th century BC onwards. After the occupation gap in the 10th century BC, the Elamite material culture revived, resulting in the creation of original ceramic shapes, materials and designs, such as the hemispherical bowls and pixie cups. The hemispherical bowls made of frit are exclusively attested in the Neo-Elamite I period. The pixie cups made of frit already existed since the late Middle Elamite period (level 12-10), but the shape and design changed through the early Neo-Elamite period (9th-8th century BC). While the Middle Elamite pixie cups were cylindrical with raised bands, the NeoElamite ones had a cubic or conical shape, decorated with multicolored paint or with incised decoration in vegetal, geometrical and natural motives. Those ceramic innovations together with new and/or resettled inhabitants in Ville Royale II could not have taken place but in a reestablished and politically stable climate. Archaeological material supports the argument of an existing and continuous government during the 9th and the early 8th century BC, although Mesopotamian textual records only provide fragmentary evidence of this royal power.

20

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

At the end of the 9th century BC, an Elamite garrison delivered military support to the Babylonian king Marduk-balāssu-iqbi (818-813 BC) against the Assyrian king Šamši-Adad V (823-811 BC) in the battle of Dur-Papsukkal near Der (814 BC) (RIMA 3, A.0.103 iv 38; Steve, Gasche & de Meyer 1980, 78). They might have been mercenary troops that provided the contingent of bowmen, but more likely Elamite soldiers were sent by an unknown Elamite king to reinforce the Babylonian army for economic and strategic reasons. The environment of Der has always been a disputed border region between Elam and Assyria. A fragmentary letter to the Assyrian king Šamši-Adad V in the aftermath of the battle of Dur-Papsukkal (SAA 3, 41; RIMA 3, A.0.103.4) describes how the people of Der, Parsumaš and Bit-Bunakki on the border of Elam abandoned their city after the Assyrian destruction and sought shelter in Elam. Elam was considered a haven of refuge where the Assyrian king would not have attempted to intrude the territory of his strong Elamite opponent. Several documents from the reign of the Assyrian king Adad-nirari III (811-783 BC), son of Šamši-Adad V, refer to Elamites. In 784 BC, Adad-nirari III received a diplomatic visit of an Elamite ambassador (LÚ MAH KUR NIM.MA-a-a) at the court of Nimrud (Zadok 1994, 47). In the same document from fort Šalmaneser, the manufacturing of an Elamite bow for the Assyrian army is mentioned (CTN 3, 145). The Assyrian palace also employed Elamites, as is indicated in the Nimrud administration (Dalley-Postgate 1984, 145 iv 13), where they received wine rations (784 BC) for their services. The reigns of Adad-nirari’s successors, Šalmaneser IV, Ašur-Dan III and Ašur-nirari V, mark a rather obscure period in Neo-Assyrian history, in which the authority of the Assyrian kings appears to have been weakened. Military, diplomatic and political contacts with Elam were severely reduced since the Assyrian kings did not campaign anymore in the Zagros, Babylonia or Chaldea (Young 1988, 12-13). This is probably why the Mesopotamian sources become once again silent on the history of their Elamite neighbour. The weakened Assyrian empire may have contributed to the revival and expansion of the Elamite kingdom. The first sign of the growing Elamite political influence is attested in the Babylonian Chronicle during the reign of the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III and the Babylonian monarch Nabu-naṣir.

2. THE FIRST NEO-ELAMITE DYNASTY (c. 760-688 BC) 2.1. Huban-tahra (*-743 BC) & Huban-nikaš I1 (743-717 BC) It is not until the mid-8th century BC that the name of a Neo-Elamite king can be found in the Babylonian Chronicle (ABC 1:9-10; CM 16). Huban-nikaš I ascended the throne of Elam in the fifth year of Nabu-naṣir’s reign (747-733 BC). We do not possess indigenous Elamite sources on Huban-nikaš I, but the Annals of Assurbanipal (669-627 BC) give us a glimpse on his ancestry. I took away to Assyria 32 statues of kings, made of silver, gold, bronze and alabaster from Susa, Madaktu and Huradu, including the statue of Ummanigaš (Huban-nikaš I), son of Umbadara (Huban-tahra), the statue of Ištarnanhundi (Šutruk-Nahhunte II), the statue of Hallušu (Hallutuš-Inšušinak I), and the statue of the later Tammaritu (I), which I removed on the command of Assur and Ištar. BIWA 54 F v 34-39

When reading the Babylonian Chronicle and the Annals of Assurbanipal, it is difficult to tell whether Huban-tahra was an Elamite king and the founder of the first Neo-Elamite dynasty, or rather an Elamite nobleman, whose son founded such a dynasty. Most scholars (ElW 680, 1225; Vallat 1996a, 389-390; 2002a, 374) are inclined to assign Elamite kingship to Huban-tahra, in order to extend the existence of a Neo-Elamite royal family into the first part of the 8th century BC.

1

The Akkadian orthography of the Elamite name Huban-nikaš ‘Huban has blessed’: diš dḫum-ba-ni-ga-áš, dišḫu-um-ba-ni-ga-áš, dišḫu-bani-ga-áš, dišum-man-i-ga-áš, dišum-man-i-gaš, dišum-man-ni-gaš, dišum-man-ga-áš, dišum-ma-ni-ga-áš, dišum-ma-ni-i-gáš, dišum-ma-ni-gáš, dišumma-i-gaš, dišam-man-i-gáš (PNA 1382). For the Elamite name Huban-tahra (Zadok 1984, 12), there is only one Assyrian variant um-ba-dara-a (PNA 1378).

THE FIRST NEO-ELAMITE DYNASTY (c. 760-688 BC)

21

Although the Assyrian Annals of Assurbanipal mention Huban-tahra as the father of the Elamite king Huban-nikaš I, they do not refer to him as a king (Waters 2000, 12-13; Tavernier 2004, 22). Waters (2000, 12) is right in pointing out that the occurrence of the name of Huban-tahra in the fragment cited above serves as a patronymic to distinguish him from Assurbanipal’s contemporary Huban-nikaš II (653-652 BC), the son of Urtak. On the other hand, all the names of the Elamite kings are preceded by a personenkeil, without a LUGÀL logogram, which does not reveal any clarification on Huban-tahra’s kingship either. The only fact we can deduce from the structure of the passage in Assurbanipal’s Annals is that Huban-tahra had no statue, as the sumerogram ALAN.NU is not mentioned in connection to his name. Or, more precisely, there was no statue of Huban-tahra anymore or at least not one that Assurbanipal took, when he and his Assyrian army arrived in Susa (646 BC). In the fifth year of Nabu-naṣir: Huban-nikaš ascended the throne in Elam [….] The fifth year of Marduk-apla-iddina: Huban-nikaš, king of Elam, went to his destiny. For twenty-six years, Huban-nikaš ruled Elam. Šutur-Nahhunte, his sister’s son, ascended the throne in Elam. ABC 1, 9-10, 38-40; CM 16

According to Waters (2000, 12), the Babylonian Chronicle should have recorded the Elamite king Hubantahra, as the document started with the reign of Nabu-naṣir (747-733 BC), four years before Huban-nikaš I ascended the throne of Elam. However, this is not entirely correct. The Chronicle begins in the third regnal year of Nabu-naṣir with the accession of the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III, but that does not change the fact that the name of Huban-tahra is omitted. Firstly, if the accession of Huban-tahra was mentioned in the Babylonian Chronicle, his kingship should have been listed during the reign of the Babylonian king Nabu-šuma-iškun (760-748 BC), the predecessor of Nabu-naṣir, which is out of the scope of the Babylonian Chronicle. Hence, the syntax of the Chronicle — the date, cause of death and length of the predecessor’s reign followed by the accession of the new king — would have easily allowed the author to include a verse recording the death of Huban-tahra during the reign of Marduk-apla-iddina right before the sentence mentioning the accession of Huban-nikaš I. Then why did the compiler of the Babylonian Chronicle omit the end of Huban-tahra’s reign, when he decided to let the Chronicle start from the accession of the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III in the third year of Nabu-naṣir onwards?2 As far as I see, there are three possibilities: (1) he left out the passage for an undetermined reason (literary reason, correctness, …), as he did with the predecessor of Tiglath-pileser III; (2) Huban-tahra was not an Elamite king; (3) the author did not know the previous king of Elam. The latter reason is rather doubtful, because the Annals of Assurbanipal, written more than a century before this Chronicle, did record the ancestry of Huban-nikaš I (Dubovsky 2013, 451-457). This might suggest that Huban-tahra was an Elamite nobleman whose son Huban-nikaš I was able to fill in the Dark Age power vacuum by uniting the local aristocracy into a central authority, although other arguments plead against this hypothesis. Henkelman (2003a, 253; 2003b, 182 n. 3) rightfully stated that there is no reason to assume that Hubannikaš I was the founder of an Elamite dynasty, only because there is no earlier entry available in the Babylonian Chronicle. And indeed, more than fifty years after the battle of Dur-Papsukkal, the Chronicle on the Babylonian king Nabu-šuma-iškun (760-748 BC; CM 52, iii 7, 21; RIMA 2, B.6.14.1 iii 14’-15’), father of Nabu-naṣir, provides the most convincing argument for the presence of a royal authority in Elam.3 Although this document does not mention the name of an Elamite king, Elam seems to have been of great importance to Babylonia in the period prior to the reign of Huban-nikaš I. On two different occasions Nabu-šuma-iškun tried to win over Elamite sympathy. In his first regnal year, he transferred Babylonian inhabitants to Elam as a sign of respect (Cole 1994, 235-236). In his 6th regnal year, Nabu-šuma-iškun gave (women adorned with) silver, gold and precious stones that he took out of the Esagil temple in Babylon (Cole 1994, 248-249): NÍG É.SAG.GIL ma-la ba-šu-ú […] ú-še-ṣa-am-ma […] KÙ.BABBAR KÙ.GI NA4.MEŠ ni-siq-ti šu-qu-ru-ti ù mim-ma si-mat DINGIR-ú-ti ma-la ba-šú-u [DINGIR.MEŠ KUR tam-tim LÚ kal-du u LÚ a-ra-mu GIN7 bi-bil lìb-bi-šú ú-šat-ri-ṣa i-na lìb-bi MUNUS.ŠÀ.É.GAL-šú ú-za-an-a-na šul-ma-nu-ti a-na KUR ḫat-ti u KUR NIM.MA.KI i-šar-ra[k]. 2

According to Waerzeggers (2012, 289), the Chronicle was written around 500 BC, nearly 250 years after the reign of these kings. Despite the valuable information on Elam, the historical importance of this late Neo-Babylonian Chronicle can be questioned. The content frames in a late Babylonian/Seleucid tradition of monarchs remembered for their wicked kingship. 3

22

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

He took out the possessions of the Esagil, as much as there were. […] He made offerings of silver, gold, valuable precious gems and all the symbols of divinity, as much as there were, to the gods of Sealand, of the Chaldeans and of the Arameans, as his heart desired. In the same way, he would adorn the women of his palace with them (and) give (them) to the Hatti and Elam as gifts. Chronicle on Nabu-šuma-iškun (iii 36-45)

From the syntax of the passage, it remains difficult to determine whether he gave precious stones or rather women adorned with those precious stones as a gift to Elam. A possessive suffix after the verb šaraku would have clarified the passage. On the other hand, those lavish gifts of women and/or precious gems to please the Elamites might predict the later political and military power of the Neo-Elamite kingdom. Within the context of the international Near Eastern relations of that time, one can suspect that the Babylonian king Nabu-šuma-iškun intended to establish an alliance with the Elamites, perhaps with the contemporary Elamite king Huban-tahra, against the weakened Assyrian rulers. This initial approach resulted a generation later in a coalition between Huban-nikaš I and Merodach-baladan II against the Assyrian king Sargon II in the battle of Der (720 BC), after which the Elamite influence in Southern Mesopotamia was restored once again. On an archaeological level, Huban-nikaš I seems to have been a transition figure, introducing a new Elamite era with territorial expansion and military coalitions with the Babylonians.4 De Miroschedji (1981a, 39) dates level 7B in Ville Royale II around 725/700 BC, which corresponds with the end of Huban-nikaš I’s reign.

2.2. Huban-immena & Šutruk-Nahhunte II (717-699 BC)5 2.2.1. Mesopotamian sources on the royal descent of Šutruk-Nahhunte II Šutruk-Nahhunte II inherited the Elamite throne from his uncle Huban-nikaš I, who had made the Elamite kingdom once again an international player in Near Eastern politics through economic and territorial reinforcement. According to the Babylonian Chronicle, Šutruk-Nahhunte II was the elder brother of HallutušInšušinak I (ABC 1, ii 32-34 = CM 16), the son of Huban-nikaš I’s sister (mār aḫātišu) and therefore the nephew of Huban-nikaš I (ABC 1, i 38-40). The translation of the Elamite construction ruhu šak, based on the Akkadian mār aḫātišu (sister’s son) has often been a subject of discussion (Glassner 1994, 220-221 n. 4, 226 n. 30; Vallat 1997b, 65-66). Unlike Elamite, the Akkadian language makes a clear difference in gender relations in connection to kinship. Its vocabulary for appointing kinship was so detailed that even the family branch was mentioned. The word nephew could be expressed with two constructions (CAD M/2, 200); the first, mār aḫišu (ABL 280; ABL 830), highlights the male side of the family to be distinguished from mār aḫi abišu ‘cousin’ (CAD M/2, 200), whereas the second mār aḫātišu (MDP 2, 1; MDP 23, 282-284; MDP 28, 296-297; ABL 282) refers to the female branch. The construction mār aḫātišu clearly includes a female player, being the sister. The word sister is used in several other components of kinship terms (CAD A/1, 171), such as aḫāt abi ‘paternal aunt’ and aḫāt ummi ‘maternal aunt’. All aforementioned constructions were frequently used in Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian phrases, often referring to Elamite events (CAD M/2, 171, 200). Therefore, it cannot be a coincidence that the compiler of the Babylonian Chronicle wrote mār aḫātišu to indicate the descent of Šutruk-Nahhunte II. As the Akkadians had no tendency to feminize grammar constructions, they actually meant: the male offspring of the sister, who founded with her husband a side-branch to the royal genealogy. 4 Before the battle of Der, Huban-nikaš I had already attempted to lay his hand on the region of Der. A Nimrud letter, written during the reign of Tiglath-pileser III, described the approaching army of the Neo-Elamite king under command of the general Zineni (ND 2761= CTN 5, 41 = Saggs 2001; PNA 1446-1447). The letter states that Zineni had already crossed the river bridge with the entire Elamite army and had made their camp on the territory of an allied Aramean tribe. Apparently, the Elamite army posed a real threat, since the governor of Arrapha was summoned to join the battle. Since the allied Elamite-Babylonian forces returned to Der in 720 BC, the outcome of the first Elamite attempt to conquer the Der region must have failed. 5 Mesopotamian orthography of the Elamite name Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte (PNA 1296): diššu-túr-dna-ḫu-un-di, diššu-túr-na-ḫu-un-di, diššutúr-dna-ḫu-du, diššu-tur-dna-ḫu-un-di, dišiš-tar-na-an-ḫu-un-di, dišiš-tar-na-an-di, iš-tar-ḫu-un-du. Huban-immena is only attested in Elamite sources (EKI 71-73).

THE FIRST NEO-ELAMITE DYNASTY (c. 760-688 BC)

23

Elamite language had no ability to express gender differences; it only distinguished animated versus inanimated forms (Stolper 2004a, 73-74; Tavernier 2011a, 321). This makes the reference to kinship less accurate and the interpretation of kinship constructions much harder for modern scholars. The expression ruhu šak is a combination of the Elamite words for mother’s son ruhu and father’s son šak (ElW 1045-1046) and is often used to indicate the legitimate heir to the Elamite throne (Vallat 2006a; Tavernier 2003, 202-203). According to Waters (2000, 26; Vallat 1995b, 1029; Malbran-Labat 1995, 176) the primary legitimacy to the Elamite throne passed through the sons of the king’s daughter, if the king had no successors of his own. However, it is doubtful that this was the case, because the sons of the king’s daughter, his grandsons, were probably too young to succeed the king at his death. Therefore, the first-born son of the king’s (eldest?) sister, who belonged to the same generation as the king’s daughter, would have been the most appropriate heir by age and by royal bloodline. If Huban-nikaš I remained childless or only had daughters, his nephew Šutruk-Nahhunte was the first legal heir to the Elamite throne. Concerning the Mesopotamian information on the ancestry of Šutruk-Nahhunte II, Vallat (1997b, 65) convincingly argued that the Akkadian-speaking author of the Babylonian Chronicle (ABC 1, i 40) wrote the mār aḫātišu passage for a Mesopotamian audience. The Elamite parallel construction ruhu šak, having a secondary meaning ‘legitimate heir’, does not occur in the Elamite inscriptions of Šutruk-Nahhunte II and can therefore not be used in connection to the descent of Šutruk-Nahhunte II. The only Neo-Elamite attestations of ruhu šak can be found in late Elamite legal texts from Susa (S. 301; S. 306) in connection to a witness list. Thus, mār aḫātišu can only mean ‘nephew’ in the case of the Babylonian Chronicle. 2.2.2. Elamite sources on the royal descent of Šutruk-Nahhunte II On a Neo-Elamite foundation tablet (EKI 72; IRS 57), Šutruk-Nahhunte II explains his patrilineal ancestry. The structure of this Elamite text — presentation of the king, patronymic, titulary, patrilineal descendance, purpose of the inscription, and the dedication to the gods — presents some remarkable features. ŠutrukNahhunte II describes his full patrilineal ancestry, which is highly exceptional in royal Elamite texts. An Elamite king usually limits his genealogy to the patronymic in the first two lines of the inscription. Here, ŠutrukNahhunte II identifies himself as the son of Huban-immena. After the general titulary, Šutruk-Nahhunte II dedicates two more lines to his connection to the Middle Elamite kings Hutelutuš-Inšušinak and Šilhina-hamruLagamar of the Šutrukid dynasty and a yet unknown king Huban-immena. I (am) Šutruk-Nahhunte, son of Huban-immena, who enlarged the kingdom, heir to the throne of Elam, the ruler protecting the dynasty of Elam, the loving servant of the gods Napiriša and Inšušinak. The king Hutelutuš-Inšušinak, the king Šilhina-hamru-Lagamar, the king Huban-immena, in total 3 kings were surrounding me. EKI 72:1-6

The name Huban-immena appears twice in the passage; once as the father of Šutruk-Nahhunte II and once as the last king in the lineage of Šutrukid kings (EKI 72; IRS 58:1-6). Despite several proposals to give these gentlemen their place in history, the identification of the father and/or the king (EKI 72-73) Huban-immena remains disputed (Vallat 1996a; Tavernier 2004). In my opinion, only two possible solutions can be offered: either the father of Šutruk-Nahhunte II was indeed king Huban-immena or the inscription refers to two different individuals from another era. 1) Following the first hypothesis, Šutruk-Nahhunte II places his father Huban-immena just after a lineage of Middle Elamite kings. Elamologists (König 1971a, 226; Waters 2000, 16-18) often considered Hubanimmena a king, based on the simple fact that his son was a king. Vallat (2002a, 375) went a step further by claiming that Huban-immena, father of Šutruk-Nahhunte II, is to be identified with the king mentioned in Šutruk-Nahhunte’s Middle Elamite royal triad. Despite this persuasive idea, numerous reasons can be found to counter this argument. In the Ancient Near East, the father’s name was applied in the same way as modern society uses the family name. The patronymic did not necessarily indicate the status or the profession of the father. The fact that Šutruk-Nahhunte II was a king does not have to imply that the father exercised the same office, only because the anthroponym appears twice in the same inscription.

24

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

If king Huban-immena was the same person as the father of Šutruk-Nahhunte II, then why would Elamite and Mesopotamian sources not give a coherent image of Šutruk-Nahhunte’s descent? In his analysis of the Neo-Elamite inscriptions, Vallat (1996a, 389-340) tries to give Huban-immena a place amongst the early Neo-Elamite kings by introducing Huban-immena as the elder brother and predecessor of Huban-nikaš I. In this way, the reign of Huban-immena fell out of the scope of the Babylonian Chronicle. Elsewhere however, Vallat (1997b, 65) defends the mār aḫātišu (sister’s son) passage of the Babylonian Chronicle, in which Šutruk-Nahhunte II is the son of Huban-nikaš I’s sister. If this were true, the sister of Huban-nikaš I, would have married her own brother Huban-immena. Nevertheless, marriage between siblings is rarely the case in Elamite culture. As far as I know, the late Middle Elamite princess Nahhunte-utu is the only Elamite woman who presumably married her brothers (Yusifov 1974, 326-327). Another argument to exclude Huban-immena, the father of Šutruk-Nahhunte, from the Neo-Elamite king’s list is the passage in the Annals of Assurbanipal (BIWA 54 F v 34-39, 241), where the three (four if Hubantahra is included) successive kings of the first Neo-Elamite dynasty Huban-nikaš I, Šutruk-Nahhunte II and Hallutuš-Inšušinak I are listed without a reference to Huban-immena. If Šutruk-Nahhunte II wanted to enlarge his claim to the Elamite throne by adding the name of his father to the Šutrukid dynasty, then he would have taken the effort to insert the full lineage of ancestors with his immediate predecessors, Hubantahra and Huban-nikaš I. To my knowledge, there is no other example of an Elamite king who refers to two distant predecessors, and then jumps to his immediate predecessor. Either Ancient Near Eastern kings listed all the predecessors in their family, as did the Achaemenid king Darius the Great (DBp i 3-6), or they only referred to their immediate predecessor. Šutruk-Nahhunte II perhaps placed his father in a lineage of Middle Elamite kings to enlarge his claim on the Elamite throne, because he might not have been the biological heir to the Elamite throne. Consequently, he felt the need to affiliate his own ancestry with the great rulers of Elam. To place his father amongst the Elamite Šutrukid kings, he ought to compensate his family background and strengthen his legitimacy as the monarch of Elam. A similar example of implementing the lineage of an usurper into a royal genealogy is attested in the Achaemenid dynasty. In the Bisitun inscription (DBp i 3-6), Darius the Great claimed to be the ninth king of the Achaemenid dynasty, even though Hystaspes, the father of Darius, had never been a king (Hdt. vii.11). Of course, we cannot exclude that Huban-immena was a distant descendant of the Šutrukid dynasty (Potts 1999, 255), who had married into the ruling Neo-Elamite royal family, and that Šutruk-Nahhunte II therefore chose to emphasize this ancestral affiliation in this royal titulary. On the other hand, Hutelutuš-Inšušinak and Šilhina-hamru-Lagamar were perhaps the last great Elamite rulers, who lived in the collective memory of the Elamites, and were therefore added. 2) In the second suggestion, the name Huban-immena refers to two different individuals: the father of ŠutrukNahhunte II and a yet unknown Elamite king. In that case, king Huban-immena must have been the last reference to the Middle Elamite dynasty before the beginning of the Dark Ages. Perhaps Huban-immena was the successor of the last known Šutrukid kings Hutelutuš-Inšušinak and Šilhina-hamru-Lagamar, since our knowledge on the final days of the Šutrukid dynasty is rather limited. Therefore, it is useful to return to these final days. The late Middle Elamite king Hutelutuš-Inšušinak (c. 1120 BC), son of Šilhak-Inšušinak I, fled to Anšan after Nebuchadnezzar I’s Babylonian army succeeded in entering the Elamite capital Susa. Accordingly, the center of the Elamite power moved to Anšan, a mountain city, which was the second town of the Middle Elamite kingdom. The retreatment of the royal household to Anšan corresponds probably with the late Qaleh occupation level EDD IV (11th century BC; Sumner 1988, 308; Carter & Stolper 1984, 40), in which a large building was found. Carter (1996, 16) proposed the construction date of the building around c. 1250-1150 BC and a destruction date around c. 1100-1000 BC, based on C14 dating. The late Middle Elamite kings must have used the large EDD building before it was eventually destroyed by fire (Pons 1994, 50). Across the surface of the Tall-i Malyan site, more than seventy bricks of Hutelutuš-Inšušinak I (IRS 51-53; EKI 60; Lambert 1972, 64:20; Reiner 1973a, 59; Stolper 1984, 7, 144) were found, commemorating the construction of several temple buildings. In a filling layer of the EDD building 246 administrative tablets were uncovered, the so-called Tall-i Malyan archive (Stolper 1984, 6), mentioning several Elamite royalties.

THE FIRST NEO-ELAMITE DYNASTY (c. 760-688 BC)

25

One of the documentary tablets refers to [Ku]tir-dHuban (Stolper 1984, n. 102:4), who probably was the son of Šilhak-Inšušinak I and the brother of Hutelutuš-Inšušinak. A second tablet informs us on the silver of king Hu[telutuš-Inšušinak] (Stolper 1984, n. 86:30). In the Anšan text M-603, Stolper (1984, 7; 2013, 404, 411) reconstructed the name of the Middle Elamite king Šutruk-Nah[hunte] I, but recently revised his theory to Šutruk-[ša-…], an unknown Elamite, perhaps Anšanite king (Stolper 2013, 404). After the Tall-i Malyan archive, Elamite textual sources disappear. The Neo-Elamite royal inscription of Šutruk-Nahhunte II (EKI 72) refers to the (Middle) Elamite king Šilhina-hamru-Lagamar, most likely the younger brother of Hutelutuš-Inšušinak, who is mentioned in the brick inscriptions of Šilhak-Inšušinak I (IRS 43, 45, 47-50). As there are no disturbances in the Susian stratigraphy (transition level 11-10) of the Ville Royale II site, the royal family must have returned to Susa after their stay in Anšan (Vallat 1996b; Malbran-Labat 1995, 119-122). Šilhina-hamru-Lagamar succeeded his brother, bringing the Middle Elamite dynasty into the 11th century BC. The Elamite king Huban-immena, presented in the bloodline of the last Šutrukid kings, could have been a Middle Elamite king (11th century BC), who ascended the throne after Šilhina-hamru-Lagamar (Potts 1999, 255). Perhaps he even was his son, of whom we unfortunately do not possess any record, except for the above-mentioned reference in EKI 72. His reign during the first half of the 11th century BC might even have directly preceded the Dark Ages, or the end of level 10 before the occupation gap in the stratigraphy of Ville Royale II (de Miroschedji 1981a, 40). Not only the regnal name of Šutruk-Nahhunte II refers to the late Middle Elamite period, the titulary of the king, the description of the family and the archaic use of the cuneiform signs all connect the inscriptions of Šutruk-Nahhunte II to the late Middle Elamite kingdom (cf. I.2.2.3.). Šutruk-Nahhunte II re-used several royal titles of the Middle Elamite Šutrukid dynasty (Tavernier 2004, 10), especially those of his namesake Šutruk-Nahhunte I and of Šilhak-Inšušinak I: sunkik anzan šušunka ‘king of Anšan and Susa’, likume rišakka ‘expander of the realm’ (de Meyer 2002, 107-114; Anthonioz & Malbran-Labat 2013, 425-426), katru hatamtuk ‘heir to the throne of Elam’ and libak hanik ‘beloved servant’. Only one new title menku likki hatamtik ‘the ruler protecting Elam’ was added to the Šutruk-Nahhunte II titulary (EKI 72-73). Moreover, the reference to the family of the king is exclusively attested in building inscriptions of the last-known Middle Elamite kings Šilhak-Inšušinak I (IRS 43, 45, 47-50; EKI 34-35, 38, 41, 47, 60) and HutelutušInšušinak (Vallat 1985, 43-45; IRS 51-52; EKI 60, 62). Šilhak-Inšušinak I added all the family members by name, while Hutelutuš-Inšušinak only appointed them by their family relation towards him (sons, daughters, nephews & nieces). In both solutions Huban-immena, father of Šutruk-Nahhunte II, cannot have been a Neo-Elamite king. Either he was a late Middle Elamite ruler, of whom no inscription has survived, or he was an Elamite nobleman who had married the sister of the Neo-Elamite king Huban-nikaš I and who might have been a distant relative of the Middle Elamite Šutrukid family. As a nephew of the Huban-nikaš, Šutruk-Nahhunte II would have added his father to the lineage of the last Middle Elamite kings to reinforce his legal claim on the Elamite throne. Perhaps a tentative suggestion is the identification of the Elamite herald Umman-minâ (SAA 15, 129:9-10; 130:9) with Huban-immena, brother-in-law of the Elamite king (SAA 15, 32:7), who went to Merodachbaladan II to negotiate in name of the king of Elam. The Assyrian name Umman-minâ seems a reasonable onomastic variant of the Elamite name Huban-immena (contra Zadok 1984, 28; PNA 1385), which is only attested in the royal inscriptions of Šutruk-Nahhunte II (EKI 71-73). Huban-immena, the father of ŠutrukNahhunte II, was the husband of the sister of the king and therefore also the brother-in-law of the Elamite monarch Huban-nikaš I. To the king, my lord: your servant Nabu-belu-ka’’in. Good health to the king, my lord! Nabu-iqiša sent me the following report on Elam: ‘Two messengers of the son of Yakin went to meet the king’s brother-in-law, saying: ‘Go to the city of HAR.’ The king’s brother-in-law did not agree to return, but said: ‘I have reached the border, how can I return unopposed from a used-up territory without the king’s permission?’ […] The ki[ng]’s brother-in-law w[r]ote [to ...]: ‘Bring us [the ...], so we shall give you [yo]ur men.’ This report is not how the source of the scribe of the palace has it. If the king my lord (so) commands, he should send another one. SAA 15, 32

26

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

In the Assyrian fragment, one can read that Nabu-iqiša first reported political activities in Southern Babylonia to Nabu-belu-ka’’in, probably a higher ranked Assyrian official. Then, Nabu-belu-ka’’in transferred the message to Sargon II that two messengers of Merodach-baladan II were meeting the spokesman of the Elamite king. Nabu-iqiša was an Assyrian administrator positioned in eastern Babylonia (PNA 836). Nabu-belu-ka’’in, a high official allowed to correspond directly with the Assyrian king, operated in the Diyala region and was the governor of Kar-Šarrukin. Nabu-belu-ka’’in’s activities were often connected to those of Il-Yada’ (SAA 15, 36), governor of the Der province. He was the predecessor of Mannu-ki-Ninua as governor of Kar-Šarrukin before 708 BC. Il-Yada’ was probably a vizier, whose duties were focused on the Diyala region and Elam. It is very likely that the letters from the Diyala region predate those of his governorship in Kar-Šarrukin. Fuchs and Parpola (SAA 15, xl) dated the letters to 710 BC. According to Mattilla (PNA 816), this date is supported by the association with the Assyrian official Il-Yada’, whose term as governor of Der ended the latest around 710 BC, when Šamaš-šarru-uṣur took his place. Hence, Il-Yada’ started his mandate in the province of Der around 724 BC in the third year of Šalmaneser V. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to date this letter to the early reign of Sargon II, when he faced a coalition of Elamite and Babylonian soldiers in the battle of Der (720 BC). At that time, the Elamite army was still under the command of king Huban-nikaš I. Since we know that his nephew Šutruk-Nahhunte II succeeded Huban-nikaš I on the throne, it is not entirely unthinkable that the king’s brother-in-law Hubanimmena, the father of Šutruk-Nahhunte, was an important official within the Elamite court. It is known that close royal family members of the Elamite king were bestowed with important diplomatic positions, for example the one of herald (cf. I.3.2.). Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak negotiated with the Elders of Sealand to install the Chaldean Nabu-ušallim during the reign of his older brother Huban-haltaš II (SAA 18, 86). Therefore, the assignment of Huban-immena as herald to lead negotiations with Merodach-baladan II in the name of king Hubannikaš may have been standard procedure. When his son Šutruk-Nahhunte II ascended the Elamite throne, Hubanimmena probably kept his position of royal herald to assist his son in the Ellipi conflict (SAA 15, 129, 130).

2.2.3. Onomastic variations in the name Šutruk-Nahhunte Not only the descent of Šutruk-Nahhunte II has caused confusion amongst elamologists, the orthographic variations of the first particle of the royal name, respectively šu-ut-ru-uk- dPÍR and šu-tur-dPÍR, also raised fierce discussion. Already by the end of the 19th century, elamologists put forward the question whether ŠutrukNahhunte and Šutur-Nahhunte are one and the same person, namely the king succeeding Huban-nikaš I. Usually, the Mesopotamian references offer some support, but in the Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte case they have difficulties with the name as well. In the Babylonian Chronicle (ABC 1 i 40; ii 32-34), Šutruk-Nahhunte II is called Ištarhundu, while the Assyrian Annals use the variants Šutur-nahundi (Fuchs 1994, 128-129; Sar. Ann. 303:6), Šutur-nahundu (RINAP 3 1:5), Ištarnanhundi (BIWA A vi 53) and Ištarnandi (BIWA 299). Therefore, a re-assessment of the sources may contribute to a better understanding of this homonymic confusion. When Scheil (MDP 5, 62-66) edited the inscriptions uncovered at the Susa excavations during the missions of the Délégation Française en Perse only three different texts of the Elamite king Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte II were identified: (1) two alabaster horns of Šutur-Nahhunte (MDP 3, 90-91; EKI 71) were found during the 1898/99 expedition in trench 17 on the southeastern side of the Susian Acropole hill. (2) the foundation charter of the Inšušinak kukunnum (EKI 72; IRS 57; MDP 8, 34) was uncovered in January 1901 on the same slope. (3) three fragments of a red marble stele (EKI 73) were excavated during the campaign of 1898/99 in level I of trench 18 on the southwestern flank of the Susian Acropole hill (MDP 1, 136). Since Šutruk/ŠuturNahhunte had the same patronymic Huban-immena, Scheil was convinced that they belonged to the same person (MDP 5, 64 n. 84).

THE FIRST NEO-ELAMITE DYNASTY (c. 760-688 BC)

27

In the 20th century, additional Neo-Elamite fragments with the name Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte have been published and/or re-dated to the Neo-Elamite period. The redating of inscriptions is especially popular for the Šutruk-Nahhunte II texts, because of the confusion with the homonymous Middle Elamite king Šutruk-Nahhunte I. Apart from the traditional texts attributed to the reign of the Neo-Elamite king Šutruk-Nahhunte II — the stela (EKI 73), the foundation brick (EKI 72) and a stela of an Elamite priest Šutruru (EKI 74) — several other inscriptions in the Susiana region have been added to the corpus: (1) Elamite building bricks from Susa (IRS 54), (2) Akkadian building bricks and inscribed glazed wall ornaments from Susa (IRS 55; Amiet & Lambert 1967, 29, 47-48), and (3) an Akkadian wall ornament from Deh-i Now (MDP 53, 11-12). Malbran-Labat (IRS 54; MDP 3, n. 27 pl. 7.2) has recently re-dated the first series of Elamite building bricks to the reign of Šutruk-Nahhunte II, whereas König (EKI 17) initially contributed these rectangular bricks to the reign of Šutruk-Nahhunte I (1185-1155 BC). Malbran-Labat based her new dating on the observations of Amiet (1967, 27-28), who identified the bricks with those pieces catalogued in the unpublished inventory of the 1898/99 excavation season. (1) [ú] diššu-ut-ru-uk-dnah-hu--te su-un-ki-ip ur-pu-(2) up-pá ak-ka4-ra ú-pa-at ak-ti-ip-pa in-ri hu-uh-(3) tanra ú hu-ut-tah a-ak DINGIR.GAL a-ak din-šu-(4) ši-na-ak i du-ni-ih. (1-2) I (am) Šutruk-Nahhunte, the kings, my predecessors, no one has made glazed bricks. (3-4) I, I made (them) and I gave a sacrifice to Napiriša and to Inšušinak.

Steve (1968, 292-293) points to some historical and archaeological aspects that can contribute to an early dating of these bricks. In the inscription, Šutruk-Nahhunte claimed to be the first king to build with akti (glazed) bricks. Šilhak-Inšušinak I (c. 1155-1120 BC) used this type of bricks to construct the entrance gate of the Inšušinak temple at Susa (IRS 43), while his predecessors applied baked bricks (IRS 50). Since the akti bricks were already produced during the reign of the Middle Elamite king Šilhak-Inšušinak I, Šutruk-Nahhunte I must have been the first Elamite king to manufacture the new type of brick as he claimed in his inscriptions (IRS 54). Moreover, de Morgan (1900, 105, 123 pl. II) found these 53 identical brick fragments in trenches 7, 7α, 15 and 15α at the southwestern slope of the Acropole at Susa. In these trenches, the Middle Elamite Inšušinak temple was uncovered, but there were no Neo-Elamite bricks. The Neo-Elamite building materials were found at the southeastern and southern slope of the Acropole. Paleographic elements strengthen Steve’s historical and archaeological arguments. The palaeography of the cuneiform signs has a Middle Elamite style: the inverted horizontal wedges, the multitude of small wedges in the signs AK, IN, IP, UN, and the star shape of the DINGIR sign. The signs NA, IH, RI, PU, TE have a typical Middle Elamite shape, clearly distinguishable from the Neo-Elamite palaeography (Annex 1). Also the sign NAH occurs almost exclusively in the late Middle Elamite period (Steve 1992, 94-95 n. 321). In the Neo-Elamite period, this sign is only attested in the provincial inscription of Hanne under a modified shape (EKI 75-76), and not within an anthroponym. The classical spelling is another valuable argument for dating the bricks to the Middle Elamite era. These linguistic features are especially prominent in the Elamite onomastics. Firstly, the theophoric particle of the king’s name Nahhunte is written in syllabic values, which corresponds to the classical spelling of the Middle Elamite period, whereas during the Neo-Elamite period the syllabic combination is replaced by the logogram d PÍR. Only the stela of Šutruru (EKI 74) is an exception on this rule. Despite the fact that the theophoric element was written in syllabic values, the stela of Šutruru can formally be dated to the Neo-Elamite period. The stela was no official royal composition and probably not even drafted by the court scribes. The social background of Šutruru may explain the variation in the theophorous element. This man was a high official of the sacerdotal class, managing the sanctuaries on the Acropole. The most impressive building in this religious city quarter was the temple of Inšušinak, for which the Middle Elamite ruler Šutruk-Nahhunte I ordered several architectural modifications (IRS 33). The bricks for the building constructions and the statues that Šutruk-Nahhunte I placed

28

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

in the temple carried his name and were visible to his subjects. If Šutruru had assigned the temple scribes to manufacture a stela, these scribes were more familiar with the Middle Elamite orthography of Šutruk-Nahhunte, because the name was marked on many bricks and statues of buildings in their daily environment. Secondly, the god Inšušinak is written in-šu-ši-na-ak in the late 2nd millennium BC. In the early NeoElamite period the spelling shifts from in-šu-uš-na-ak to the logogram MÙŠ.LAM and the broken spelling in-suiš-na-ak by the early 6th century BC. Thirdly, the orthography of the word for king differs in IRS 54 from the Neo-Elamite variants. On the Elamite bricks (IRS 54) su-un-ki-ip is written with the traditional Middle Elamite signs, whereas IRS 57/EKI 72 uses su-un-kip in plural or su-gìr in singular. The first attestation of the spelling su-gìr occurs in the Tall-i Malyan texts, while the late Neo-Elamite texts refer to the king with the logogram LUGÀL/EŠŠANA. Finally, the Elamite brick fragment displays perfect classical Elamite grammar characteristics, which is not the case in Neo-Elamite inscriptions. These arguments taken together, König’s (EKI 17) chronology is probably more accurate than the one of Malbran-Labat. Malbran-Labat, following Amiet (1967, 29) and M. Lambert (1967, 47-48), assigns the numerous Acropole bricks inscribed with the Akkadian formula ša LUGÀL diššu-ut-ru-uk-dnah-hu-un-te i-pu-šu (IRS 55; MDP 2, 118 pl. 25; EKI 7) also to the Neo-Elamite period. One brick found at the Acropole had a longer variant ša LUGÀL diššu-ut-ru-uk-dnah-hu-un-te i-pu-šu-ma a-na TI.LA-šu a-na diš-ni-ka-ra-ab […] (IRS 56). Išnikarab, a Meso-Elamite deity connected to the netherworld (RlA 5, 196-197; Tavernier 2013b, 481), was worshipped especially during the Middle Elamite Igihalkid and Šutrukid dynasties (ElW 790; Henkelman 2005a, 139-140). The Middle Elamite king Untaš-Napiriša dedicated a small temple to Išnikarab at Chogha Zanbil (MDP 39) and Hutelutuš-Inšušinak restored the Išnikarab temple of Kipû (IRS 51; Potts 1999, 447). After the 2nd millennium BC, Išnikarab does not occur anymore in the Elamite royal inscriptions. Therefore, it is very likely that this Acropole temple of Išnikarab is a late Middle Elamite construction instead of an early Neo-Elamite building, as suggested by Malbran-Labat. A similar brick was inscribed with the Akkadian formula ša LUGAL diššu-ut-ruuk-dnah-hu-un-te i-pu-šu-ma a-na TI.LA-šu a-na MÙŠ.EREN (MDP 2, 118). Here, the god Išnikarab was replaced by Inšušinak, written with the logogram MÙŠ.EREN. In order to assign this fragment to the Neo-Elamite period, M. Lambert (1967, 47) read the signs NINNI.LAM, which is a late logographic orthography of the god Inšušinak (8th-7th century BC). However, the correct reading MÙŠ.EREN re-dates the fragment in the Middle Elamite period (MDP 53, 50 n. 157) and can be excluded from the Šutur/Šutruk-Nahhunte II discussion. On a historical level, the Middle Elamite king Šutruk-Nahhunte I conducted several military campaigns against Babylonia (Potts 1999, 233-236). An Akkadian inscription of the Elamite king in conquered border regions would be a visible symbol of his actual power. In a later reassessment of the Neo-Elamite architectural decoration, Amiet re-dated two wall ornaments6 with the Akkadian formula ša LUGÀL diššu-ut-ru-uk-dnah-hu-un-te i-pu-šu (MDP 1, 126) to the 8th century BC. M. Lambert (1967, 48) supported this date based on paleographic grounds, but this argument is rather weak (Annex 1). Vallat (2011a, 190) assigned a cultic bronze dagger from the Schøyen collection, inscribed with ša LUGÀL diššu-ut-ru-uk dnah-hu-un-te, to the reign of the Middle Elamite king Sutruk-Nahhunte I. He based his dating on the orthography of the royal name. Even though the language of the formula is Akkadian, the palaeography on the dagger is clearly Elamite, identical to the wall ornaments and bricks. Confusion in dating the Neo-Elamite palaeography is easily made if one bases his conclusions on a comparative study with the Akkadian palaeography. Late Middle Elamite signs are closely related to Kassite and early NeoAssyrian variants, but after the Dark Ages Elamite signs go through a much more radical evolution than the Mesopotamian script, resulting often in variation of forms compared to the rather simplified Mesopotamian presentation.7 The most convincing arguments against a Neo-Elamite dating are provided by the archaeological stratigraphy of the Acropole. At the southeastern slope of the Acropole, the upper level of a square Neo-Elamite building was uncovered at a depth of two to three meters in trench 17 (extension of trench 8) at the conjunction 6 7

On the various names used for the wall decorations in the scientific literature, see: Tourtet 2013, 173-174. Compare the Middle Elamite signs UH, NA, LA, … in Neo-Elamite (Steve 1988; 1992) and Mesopotamian (Labat 1988) script.

THE FIRST NEO-ELAMITE DYNASTY (c. 760-688 BC)

29

with trench 16 (MDP 1, 128). The entrance of the building was orientated to the west (MDP 12, 73), towards the center of the Acropole. The walls, which still had a height of about one meter (MDP 7, 23), were constructed of small glazed bricks. However, the glazed bricks of the kukunnum walls were not inscribed. Therefore, J. de Morgan had to dig through the floor, made out of paved tiles covered with a layer of plaster, to expose the foundations of the building, including the foundation brick (MDP 5, 64 n. 84; EKI 72; IRS 57), at a depth of four meters, through which he could finally identify the construction as the temple of ŠutrukNahhunte II (MDP 8, 34). The glazed bricks used for the construction of the Šutruk-Nahhunte II kukunnum corresponded stylistically to the bricks inscribed with the name Hallutuš-Inšušinak, son of Huban-tahra, assigned to the large buildings at the southern slope (MDP 1, 128) of the Acropole. These constructions were uncovered in exactly the same stratigraphic level (trench 17, niveau I: 2,5m – 4m) as the Šutruk-Nahhunte II kukunnum, which is the Neo-Elamite period. Amiet (1967, 27-29) combined Jéquier’s description of the artefacts found in trench 16 with the 66 objects in the unpublished inventory of the Susa excavation and concluded that the Akkadian Šutruk-Nahhunte wall ornaments must have been part of the Inšušinak kukunnum. In trench 16, the prolongation of trench 7 to the east, a series of glazed objects was found at a depth of five meters: small wall knobs of Šilhak-Inšušinak, large glazed wall tiles in green and yellow with an inscription of Šutruk-Nahhunte, smaller wall knobs in rosette shape that had to be inserted into a tile, and some animal shaped figurines (MDP 1, 126). The small wall knobs were comparable in style and dimensions to those found at a similar depth in trench 7 (MDP 1, 103-105). In trenches 7, 7α, 7β, 7γ at a depth of four to five meters, the team of de Morgan found some considerable amounts of bricks with rather small dimensions, attributed to the reign of Untaš-Napiriša, Šutruk-Nahhunte I and his sons (MDP 1, 115-116). Many of these bricks were entirely preserved and inscribed with cuneiform script on two sides. For the first time, a large amount of glazed bricks was uncovered with clear blue, green and white enameling on one or multiple sides. In the same level, glazed wall knobs with tiles were found in similar colors. The several exemplars had all different dimensions. Many of these artifacts were also inscribed with a cuneiform text (MDP 1, 103-105). On the other hand, inscribed bricks in trenches 16 and 16α are extremely rare (MDP 1, 124). All this leads to the conclusion that the inscribed bricks of Šutruk-Nahhunte were found on a different stratigraphic level as the Šutruk-Nahhunte II temple, which is clearly described as the ‘niveau I’ in the excavation reports of de Morgan. The most recent layers of the Inšušinak temple at the western slope of the Acropole became visible at a depth of five meters, assigning most part of the construction to the stratigraphic level II. Moreover, trench 16 and 17 did not run into one another, as Amiet conveniently argues; trench 16 stood perpendicular to trench 17, a deepening of trench 8, in which de Morgan uncovered the Achaemenid rampart. What Jéquier meant (MDP 1), was that the Šutruk-Nahhunte temple became visible at the height of trench 16. The artifacts found during the demolition of the buttress between trench 16 and 17 when both trenches had reached the bottom height (5m) of level I in order to create a plateau can impossibly serve to date the Šutruk-Nahhunte objects. As trench 16 was a prolongation of trench 7 and was about 80 meters in length, the Šutruk-Nahhunte objects described in the inventory could have been derived from the center of the tell as well. Comparable Šutruk-Nahhunte objects were found in the wider Susiana region. A survey in Deh-i Now (MDP 53, 11-12) yielded decorative elements; a square wall tile and a wall knob with an identical Akkadian inscription: ša LUGÀL diššu-ut-ru-uk-dnah-hu-un-te i-pu-šu. Originally, the Deh-i Now fragments were dated to the reign of Šutruk-Nahhunte I (Amiet 1966, fig. 261; MDP 53, 11-12), based on the resemblance with the exemplars of Susa and Chogha Zanbil (Tourtet 2013, 182-183). The Middle Elamite kings Attar-Kittah and Untaš-Napiriša inscribed their name in the formula ša LUGÀL PN i-pu-šu on wall knobs and wall tiles at the temple complex of Chogha Zanbil (MDP 39, pl. XIX, XXXVI, LI, LIII, LVII). Especially the square wall ornaments of Untaš-Napiriša (Amiet 1966, n. 300; Lambert 1967, 47, fig. 15) from Chogha Zanbil provided a good parallel. Since, however, Malbran-Labat re-dated the Akkadian Susa ornaments to the reign of ŠutrukNahhunte II, Vallat (1995a; Potts 1999, 264) classified without any justification the Deh-i Now fragments to the era of Šutruk-Nahhhunte II as well. However, Steve’s dating is supported by the archaeological findings of de Miroschedji (1981c, 170), who labeled Deh-i Now as a Middle Elamite II occupation with no extension

30

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

into the early Neo-Elamite period. Also Chogha Zanbil was a Middle Elamite center, built during the reign of the Igihalkid king Untaš-Napiriša, that was abandoned when the Šutrukid dynasty disappeared around 1000 BC (Carter 1992b, 9-13). As both Deh-i Now and Chogha Zanbil were Middle Elamite cities, the inscriptions on the wall ornaments must have referred to Šutruk-Nahhunte I. This time frame, together with the stylistic and paleographic arguments, gives the wall decorations a convincing Middle Elamite dating. This conclusion brings the number of Šutruk-Nahhunte II inscriptions back to the total of two royal texts, i.e. the stela (EKI 72; IRS 57) and the foundation charter (EKI 73), and the stela of Šutruru (EKI 74) in which Šutruk-Nahhunte II is mentioned. Six more Neo-Elamite texts were inscribed with the name Šutur-Nahhunte8 in addition to the two alabaster horns (EKI 71) uncovered in the Inšušinak kukunnum, but dedicated to the goddess Pinigir: (1) [ú] diššu-tur-dPÍR šá-ak dišhu-ban-im-me-na-gi-ik-ki su-un-ki-ik (2) ašan-[za-an] aššu-šu-un-ka4 li-ku-me ri-šá-ak-ka4 si-ia-an ak-ti-im-ma (3) ku-ši-ih [a-ak] ka4-as-suMEŠ ma-al-ši-ia ha!-li-ih a-ak a-ha da-(4) ad-da-ah [a-ak d]pi-ni-gìr ki-ik-ki gi-lì-ir-ra na-pír-ú-ri (5) i du-ni-i[h]. I Šutur-Nahhunte, son of Huban-immena, king of Anšan and Susa, expander of the realm, have built a sanctuary out of glazed bricks and has manufactured an alabaster horn, placed it there and given it to the goddess Pinigir, the great commander, my goddess.

1) A green-yellow faience wall figurine (Sb 6708) was found on the Acropole of Susa, near the sanctuary of Šutruk-Nahhunte II. On the bottom of this figurine, invisible to the public, a short Elamite text ú šu-tur-dPÍR šá-a[k diš dhu-]ban-im-me-na-gi[-ik …] is written (Amiet 1967, 36-37 fig. 8). 2) The Hanne relief (EKI 75:10), a large rock inscription in the Kul-e Farah valley (Izeh/Malamir), refers to SUNKI šu-tur-dPÍR šá-ak in-da-da-ri-na. Although the king mentioned in Kul-e Farah I has the same anthroponym, the patronymic excludes kinship. 3) A short inscription assigns the cornelian bead (MS 2879; Vallat 2011a, 191), preserved in the Schøyen collection, to Šutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada. The reference to Šutur-Nahhunte is probably related to the Hanne relief of Kul-e Farah I. 4) A cylinder seal from the Hahn-Voss collection and held in the Jerusalem museum belonged to a certain diš d hu-ban-ki-tin DUMU SUNKI diššu-tur-dPÍR-na (Kahane 1965, n. 6, 90 pl. III-g; Amiet 1967, 44-45, fig. 14; 1973, 18-19). This seal was probably manufactured in a royal workshop as the design is engraved with extraordinary precision. 5) An Apadana text (MDP 11, 301:4) found in Susa, refers to the name šu-tur-dPÍR, son of Huttete, in the list of witnesses. 6) An Acropole texts from Susa (S. 24:5’) mentions a certain šu-tur-dPÍR without further affiliation. The names in the Acropole and Apadana texts (nos. 5 and 6) date from the late Neo-Elamite period, and are not accompanied by the logogram SUNKI. Therefore, these individuals can be omitted from the discussion on the royal names (Waters 2000, 114), as well as Šutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada, on the Kul-e Farah I relief (nos. 2) and the cornelian bead (nos. 3). The inscription on the cylinder seal (nos. 4) uses three logograms DUMU, SUNKI AND dPÍR, indicating a late Elamite dating (Steve 1992, 36). Moreover, the glyptic of the seal shows iconographical similarities to the Neo-Babylonian exemplars (de Miroschedji 1982, 61). The remaining objects, the alabaster horns (EKI 71) and the wall figurine (nos. 1), are the only references that can be included in the Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte discussion. By the end of the 1960s, M. Lambert (1967, 48) launched the idea of the existence of two Elamite kings, based on linguistic arguments. Although Šutruk-Nahhunte (participle-DN) and Šutur-Nahhunte (noun-DN) are constructed with the same root šut(u), the first parts of the name have a different grammatical structure. Grillot (1984, 190 n. 25) even went a step further, declaring that the names had different roots. Šutruk would be the nomino-verbal compound of šut(u).ru+k (passive participle) ‘judged by Nahhunte’, whereas Šutur would 8

Tavernier (2004, 16 n. 16) indicated that the variant Šutur (EKI 71) could have been a scribal error, since the name Šutruk was spelled šu-tur-uk on the Persepolis Bronze Plaque (Schmidt 1957, 64; ElW 680). He admits, however, that this suggestion is rather weak.

THE FIRST NEO-ELAMITE DYNASTY (c. 760-688 BC)

31

belong to šutu+r (singular animated delocutive) ‘the judge Nahhunte’. Since the 1970s the idea of two kings has been generally accepted, although the grounds of the division remained disputed. A new problem arose when these two kings had to be assigned their place in Neo-Elamite history. Amiet (1967, 37; also De Waele 1972, 28-31) assumed that they were brothers who reigned simultaneously as co-regents or in successive order during the late 8th century BC. According to de Miroschedji (1982, 61-62; 1985, 278), Šutur-Nahhunte I (717-669 BC) was the successor of Huban-nikaš I, because the first particle of his name is a pseudo-homonym of the late Elamite king Šutur-Nahhunte II who reigned after the sack of Susa (Amiet 1973, n. 34). Therefore, Šutruk-Nahhunte II must have ruled Elam between 668 and 653 BC. Nevertheless, the hypothesis of de Miroschedji is highly problematic, because he omits the fact that the second regnal date is irreconcilable with the Elamite king’s list of the 7th century BC (Tavernier 2004, 8). Šutruk-Nahhunte II would have reigned Susa simultaneously with Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I (664-653 BC). The only two Šutur-Nahhunte inscriptions that can be dated to the end of the 8th century BC on their paleographic features are the alabaster horns (EKI 71) and the wall figurine (Sb 6708). Whereas the texts mentioning Šutruk-Nahhunte were monumental inscriptions of the Inšušinak temple, the Šutur-Nahhunte objects could have been secondary depositions. The alabaster horn was deposed in honor of Inšušinak at the already existing sanctuary, (re-)constructed by the Neo-Elamite king Šutruk-Nahhunte II. The wall figurine could have been inserted in an existing building as well. If Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte would have been two different NeoElamite kings, Šutur-Nahhunte must have been in power after Šutruk-Nahhunte II. Vallat (1995a; 1996a, 390-391) used this argument to identify Šutur-Nahhunte with the son of Hubanimmena III (692-689 BC), who would have reigned after the sack of Susa. Since there is no other Hubanimmena from a noble descent attested during the Neo-Elamite period, Vallat has modified the royal name of the Elamite king Huban-menanu (692-689 BC), an anthroponym that exclusively occurs in the Mesopotamian sources under dišUmmanmenanu or the hypocoristicon dišme-na-nu (PNA 1348), into Huban-immena (III) in order to connect Šutur-Nahhunte to the first dynasty of the Neo-Elamite period. Another reference to a king Šutur-Nahhunte is attested as owner of the Jerusalem cylinder seals (end 7th – early 6th century BC): diš dhu-ban-ki-tin DUMU SUNKI diš dšu-tur-dPÍR-na (Amiet 1973, 29). De Miroschedji (1982, 60-63; 1985, 278; 1986, 218-219) assigns the Jerusalem cylinder with certainty to the first half of the 6th century BC on stylistic grounds. Additionally, a Susa Acropole tablet (MDP 9, 5:10-11) reads: hu-ban-kitin DUMU SUNKI […]. Scheil considered SUNKI as first particle of a name, while Yusifov (1963, n. 6, 202, 231) translated the logogram as ‘king’ followed by a personal name, because no determinative is used before SUNKI. On the base of Yusifov’s hypothesis, which is accepted by de Miroschedji (1982, 61 n. 64) and Steve (1986, 15), the parallel with the Jerusalem cylinder is easily made. According to Vallat (1995a), this king is the son of Huban-menanu as well as the father of Huban-kitin who lived during the end of the 7th century BC. Vallat states that the son Huban-kitin ruled Elam during that period rather than Šutur-Nahhunte who governed Susa a generation before. However, if Huban-kitin would have ruled around the end of the 7th century BC and the Jerusalem seal could be dated to his kingship, then the titulary should have stated diš dhu-ban-ki-tin DUMU šu-turd PÍR-na SUNKI.9 Therefore, it is more likely that Huban-kitin was crown prince when this seal was used. Since Huban-menanu lived during the beginning of the 7th century BC and Šutur-Nahhunte with certainty in the late 7th century BC, there is at least half a century in between them, which makes the identification rather hard to explain. Waters (2000, 111-116) reconciled the two kings into one person again by pointing out that the first particle of the name does have the same root, contesting Grillot’s hypothesis. Vallat (1995a) identified the shifting sign use of ša into šá in the royal inscriptions as a chronological marker. The sign ša would represent a classical tradition, used until the reign of Šutruk-Nahhunte II (Steve 1992). The more modern variant šá, applied on the horn (EKI 71), would indicate a younger dating. Vallat’s observation that the inscription on the horn uses only šá and the foundation tablet (EKI 72; IRS 57) the sign ša is indeed correct. It is highly possible that at that time Šutruk-Nahhunte II used the archaic sign ša to accentuate his connection to the Middle Elamite 9

When comparing the Jerusalem seal with the seal of the Achaemenid king Darius I (BM 98.132), one sees that on the Darius I seal the sign is written after the name and descent of the king at the end of the titulary (Schmitt 1981, 19).

LUGÀL

32

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

dynasty, because in his stela (EKI 73) the scribes used both ša variants randomly (Tavernier 2004, 12). Moreover, the horn text consisting of four short lines is too short to determine the identification of a king. The sign šá occurs only twice in the words šak and riša. Despite the exclusive attestation of the sign šá in the stela of Šutruru (Steve 1992, n. 597), the reference to Šutruk-Nahhunte II (EKI 74:35’, 40’) underlines the contemporaneous character of the several inscriptions. Waters (2000, 111-116), and later Tavernier (2004, 16), therefore reject Vallat’s argument that dates the Šutur-Nahhunte inscription to a younger era. According to Vallat (1995a), not only the difference in the sign use, but also the royal titulary is a decisive chronological marker. Vallat assumed that Šutruk-Nahhunte II was the son of Huban-immena (II), because he uses Old- and Middle Elamite titles in his own titulary. Šutur-Nahhunte, son of Huban-immena (III), called himself only sunkik anzan šušunka and likume rišakka like Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak (EKI 86-89), so he must belong to a more recent period. However, those two titles are also commonly designated to Middle Elamite kings. If one compares the titulary of Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte with the inscription of Šutruk-Nahhunte I (EKI 22), they look indeed nearly identical. ú diššu-ut-ru-uk-dnah-hu-un-te ša-ak dišhal-lu-du-uš-din-šu-ši-na-ak-gi-ik li-ba-ak ha-ni-ik din-šu-ši-na-ak-gi-ik su-unki-ik AŠan-za-an AŠšu-šu-un-ka4 li-ku-me ri-ša-ak-ka4 ka4-at-ru ha-tàm-ti-ik hal-me-ni-ik ha-tàm-ti-ik. I (am) Šutruk-Nahhunte, son of Hallutuš-Inšušinak, the beloved servant of Inšušinak, king of Anšan and Susa, expander of the realm, heir to the throne of Elam, ruler of Elam. EKI 22:1-4 ú diššu-ut-ru-uk-dPÍR šá-ak diš dhu-ban-im-me-na-gi-ik-ki su-un-ki-ik an-za-an šu-šu-un-ka4 li-ku-me ri-šá-ak-ka4 ka4at-ru ha-tàm-tuk me-en-ku li-ik-ki ha-tàm-tuk. I (am) Šutruk-Nahhunte, son of Huban-immena, king of Anšan and Susa, expander of the realm, heir to the throne of Elam, ruler protecting Elam. EKI 73:1-2

Šutruk-Nahhunte II used the title sunkik anzan šušunka ‘king of Anšan and Susa’ twice (EKI 71-72), as did the Middle Elamite king Untaš-Napiriša and nearly all Šutrukid kings did (Tavernier 2004, 10: except Hutelutuš-Inšušinak). In EKI 72, the Middle Elamite title is omitted because Šutruk-Nahhunte II implicitly refers to his late Middle Elamite ancestors. The title likume rišakka ‘expander of the realm’ was used by the king Huban-umena and nearly all the kings of the Šutrukid dynasty (Tavernier 2004, 11: except Kutir-Nahhunte II). We can assume that ‘expander of the realm’ was Šutruk-Nahhunte II’s most important title after ‘king of Anšan and Susa’, as it occurs in all three of his inscriptions. Šutruk-Nahhunte II identified himself twice (EKI 72-73) as katru hatamtuk ‘heir to the throne of Elam’, a title that was also popular with the Middle Elamite kings Huban-umena, Šutruk-Nahhunte I and Šilhak-Inšušinak. All Šutrukid kings applied the title libak hanik ‘beloved servant of DN’ in brick inscriptions for temple buildings, as well as Šutruk-Nahhunte II (EKI 72) who did so to commemorate the erection of the Inšušinak kukunnum at Susa. Therefore, one can conclude that Šutruk-Nahhunte II reused the titulary of the Middle Elamite Šutrukid dynasty, especially those of his namesake Šutruk-Nahhunte I and Šilhak-Inšušinak I: sunkik anzan šušunka, likume rišakka, katru hatamtuk and libak hanik. Only one new title menku likki hatamtik ‘the ruler protecting Elam’ was added (EKI 72-73) to the ŠutrukNahhunte II titulary. The titles of Šutur-Nahhunte are identical to those of the Šutruk-Nahhunte II stela (EKI 72; IRS 57). If one takes the linguistic analyses of EKI 71 into account and looks at the locutive -ak, the syllabic writing of words for king and son, and the use of classical determinatives (no BE), then EKI 71 still has classical linguistic features compared to the late Neo-Elamite Acropole texts. On the other hand, the inscriptions of Atta-hamitiInšušinak and Hallutuš-Inšušinak are not that classical anymore (cf. I.5.4/5.). The titulary on the horn is shorter, because it was intended as a dedicatory phrase to identify the votive donator. The hypothesis of Hinz (1964, 116-117) suggesting that the Neo-Elamite king Šutur-Nahhunte wanted to connect himself to the Middle Elamite Šutrukid king Šutruk-Nahhunte I (1190-1155 BC) does not sound unrealistic, taking into account that Šutruk-Nahhunte (II) appears on official charters and monumental stela and that Šutur-Nahhunte is written on two miscellaneous objects, invisible to the public. Therefore, Šutur-Nahhunte modified his name to Šutruk-Nahhunte in official building and monumental inscriptions.

33

THE FIRST NEO-ELAMITE DYNASTY (c. 760-688 BC)

2.3. Hallutuš-Inšušinak I10 (699-693 BC) The reign of Šutruk-Nahhunte II ended abruptly when Hallutuš-Inšušinak I (699-693 BC) seized the throne of Elam. According to the Babylonian Chronicle Hallutuš-Inšušinak I was the brother of Šutruk-Nahhunte II. Biologically, Hallutuš-Inšušinak I belonged most likely to the male offspring from the marriage between Huban-nikaš I’s sister and Huban-immena. The first year of Ašur-nadin-šumi: Šutruk-Nahhunte (II), king of Elam, was seized by his brother Hallušu (HallutušInšušinak I) and he shut the door in his face. For 18 years, Šutruk-Nahhunte ruled Elam. Hallušu, his brother, ascended the throne in Elam. ABC 1 ii 32-35

In the past, the ancestry of Hallutuš-Inšušinak I has been debated, based on wrongly dated building inscriptions of a later homonymous Elamite king (Vallat 1996a, 390, 393). These inscriptions describe HallutušInšušinak (II) as son of Huban-tahra (EKI 77, IRS 58). König (1971a, 225-226; 1965, 8 n. 110, 147 n. 9, 168 n. 10) concluded therefore that Huban-tahra was the father of Huban-nikaš I, Hallutuš-Inšušinak I and — as Hallutuš-Inšušinak and Šutruk-Nahhunte II were brothers — also Šutruk-Nahhunte II. To be able to match the sequence of succession of the Elamite kings with the Mesopotamian inscriptions, König made Huban-immena and Huban-tahra brothers, who married the same woman. Huban-immena, the eldest brother, had a son ŠutrukNahhunte II, who later was adopted by Huban-tahra to succeed his eldest son Huban-nikaš I on the Elamite throne. Nevertheless, König ignored the mar ahātišu paragraph in the Babylonian Chronicle (ABC 1 i 40), identifying Šutruk-Nahhunte II as the sister’s son of king Huban-nikaš I, which is impossible to reconcile with his own theory. Unknow father

Huban-immena

X

Šutruk-Nahhunte II

wife

X

Huban-tahra

Hallutuš-Inšušinak I

Huban-nikaš I

Family tree 1: Genealogy of Hallutuš-Inšušinak I (after König 1971a; 1965)

In order to incorporate this mar ahātišu passage of the Babylonian Chronicle in the Elamite succession, Waters (2000, 25-27) expanded the theory of König, making the family tree of king Hallutuš-Inšušinak I extremely complicated. Huban-nikaš I and his sister were probably born in the first marriage of Huban-tahra. Then, Huban-nikaš’s sister would have married her older uncle king Huban-immena, of whom she bore a son Šutruk-Nahhunte II. After the death of king Huban-immena, Huban-tahra claimed the Elamite throne and married his own daughter in a second marriage, in which another son Hallutuš-Inšušinak was begot. By the time of king Huban-tahra’s death, only Huban-nikaš I, the son of Huban-tahra’s first marriage, would have reached the appropriate age to ascend the throne of Elam. If Huban-tahra had adopted the son of his brother with his daughter, Šutruk-Nahhunte II would have been both brother and nephew of Hallutuš-Inšušinak. The adoption would give Šutruk-Nahhunte priority to the Elamite throne by his superior age, making him the successor of king Huban-nikaš I. After a reign of eighteen years, king Šutruk-Nahhunte II was put aside by his brother/cousin Hallutuš-Inšušinak, who was capable to pass the Elamite throne to his own sons. 10 Several variants on the first part of this name are attested; in Elamite dišhal-lu-du-uš-din-šu-ši-na-ak, behal-lu-taš-dMÙS.LAM, behal-lu-iš and in Akkadian dišḫal-lu-si, dišḫal-lu-ši, dišḫal-lu-su, dišḫal-lu-šú, which are all hypocoristics of the name Hallutuš. According to the onomastic study of Tavernier (2014), the name Hallutuš is the most plausible form for this name.

34

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

Unknown father

Huban-immena

X

wife 2

Šutruk-Nahhunte II

wife 2

X

Huban-tahra

Hallutuš-Inšušinak I

X

daughter (= wife 2)

wife 1

Huban-nikaš I

Family tree 2: Genealogy of Hallutuš-Inšušinak I (after Waters 2000)

Unfortunately, Waters (2000, 27) did not explain his theory in a clear, structured and detailed way, resulting in a devastating review by Vallat (2002b, 274). Firstly, Huban-immena and Huban-tahra had to be siblings, as König (1971a, 226; 1965, 8 n. 100) had already stipulated. If not, Šutruk-Nahhunte and Hallutuš-Inšušinak could never be nephews. Secondly, Waters described the family relation between Šutruk-Nahhunte and HallutušInšušinak in a wrong way. They were not nephews, but cousins. Šutruk-Nahhunte was the son of HallutušInšušinak’s uncle Huban-immena. On the other hand, in Waters’ lineage Šutruk-Nahhunte is the nephew of Huban-nikaš, as mentioned in the Babylonian Chronicle. Thirdly, Waters also forgets to indicate the adoption of Šutruk-Nahhunte by Huban-tahra (König 1971a, 226; 1965, 8 n. 100), which would make Šutruk-Nahhunte and Hallutuš-Inšušinak half-brothers instead of brothers (Vallat 2002b, 274). This detail might have had serious implications on the order of succession to the Elamite throne as well. As plausible as Waters’ theory may sound (Tavernier 2003, 203-204), Vallat (2002b, 274) noticed correctly that l’inceste est plus souvant fictive que réel. In Susa, fifteen inscribed brick fragments of HallutušInšušinak, son of Huban-tahra (EKI 77; IRS 58), and another very similar text on a piece of glazed wall knob, where the likumena rišah is omitted (MDP 53, 25), were found in the remains of a small temple in honor of the god Inšušinak on the southern flank of the Acropole (König 1965, 22; MDP 53, 25 pl. 9: 6). The palaeography of the cuneiform signs (especially ki and ku; Steve 1992), the grammar and the orthography of these texts suggest a Neo-Elamite III dating (Vallat 1996a, 390, 393; 2002b, 374; Waters 2000, 27) and therefore cannot be attributed to Hallutuš-Inšušinak I, brother of Šutruk-Nahhunte II. ú behal-lu-taš-dMUŠ.LAM šá-ak11 dhu-ban-tah-ra-ah-ha ašan-za-an aššu-šu-un li-ku-me-na ri-šá-ah, li-ba-ak ha-ni-ik DINGIR.GAL dMUŠ.LAM-ah-ha-an. si-ia-an dMUŠ.LAM-na šu-mu-na e-ri-en-tim ú-uh-in-na ti-pi-ha a-ak šil-ha-ah a-ak d MUŠ.LAM na-pír-ú-ri i du-nu-uh. I (am) Hallutuš-Inšušinak, son of Huban-tahra, I expanded the kingdom of Anšan and Susa, beloved servant of the gods Napiriša and Inšušinak. I restored the sanctuary of Inšušinak with bricks that I manufactured out of limestone, and gave it to my god Inšušinak. EKI 77:1-4

The use of the logograms dMÙS.LAM and DINGIR.GAL instead of the syllabic orthography in-šu-ši-na-ak and na-pi-ri-ša refers to the late Neo-Elamite period (Steve 1992). The determinative in front of personal names shifts from diš to be or hal (Steve 1988; Tavernier 2004, 13) by the end of the 7th century BC and the theophoric particle remains indicated with the dingir determinative. In the Hallutuš-Inšušinak inscription the determinative in front of personal names is be. After the reign of Šutruk-Nahhunte II, the orthography of the word šak and riša- is modified by the replacement of the sign ša into the sign šá (Vallat 1995a). The locutive + genitive suffix -ik-ka4 is modified to the Achaemenid form -ah-ha in the words dhu-ban-tah-ra-ah-ha and dMUŠ.LAM-ahha-an. An alternative possessive postposition -na in the words likumena and dMUŠ.LAM-na is attested next to 11 On the wall knob fragment, the royal titulary of Hallutuš-Inšušinak can be restored. F. Vallat (2002b, 274) probably added ru-hu after the restoration of dMÙŠ.LAM, to identify Hallutuš-Inšušinak as nephew (sister’s son) of Huban-tahra. However, the photograph of this wall knob indicates clearly that no such restoration is possible. There is only space for two to three cuneiform signs in the lacuna (MDP 53, pl. 9: 6).

THE FIRST NEO-ELAMITE DYNASTY (c. 760-688 BC)

35

the modified Elamite grammar form -ah-ha (Stolper 2004a, 74). For all these reasons, EKI 77 must be dated to the end of the 7th or the beginning of the 6th century BC and must have been commanded by another king Hallutuš-Inšušinak. Accordingly, Huban-tahra in the Hallutuš-Inšušinak (II) inscriptions cannot be identified with the father of the first known Neo-Elamite king Huban-nikaš I, which would solve the genealogical problem concerning the descent of Hallutuš-Inšušinak I. The Babylonian Chronicle also describes the end of the reign of Hallutuš-Inšušinak (ABC 1 iii 6-8). On 26 tašrîtu 693 BC (September-October), his subjects ‘shut the door in his face’ and killed him. On the twenty-sixth day of the month tašrîtu (September-October), the subjects of Hallušu (Hallutuš-Inšušinak), king of Elam, rebelled against him. They shut the door in his face and killed him. For six years Hallušu ruled Elam. Kudur (Kutur-Nahhunte) ascended the throne in Elam. ABC 1 iii 6’-9’

Although the Babylonian Chronicle attributes a reign of only six years to Hallutuš-Inšušinak, a legal text on the adoption of a girl (OIP 122, 1), found in Nippur, was drafted in the 15th regnal year of Hallutuš-Inšušinak (Weisberg 1984, 215): ITI.ŠE.UD.15 KÁM hal-lu-šu [LUGÀL N]IM.MA.KI. In the past, several attempts have been made to reconcile the regnal years mentioned in the Babylonian Chronicle with the legal text from Nippur. Weisberg (1984, 216-217) suggested that Hallutuš-Inšušinak first was a local king, who climbed the social ladder (cf. the cursus honorum of de Miroschedji 1986, 216-218; 1990a, 75-78) to finally become the king of Anšan and Susa. The last six years of his reign, he was recognized as the paramount king. Stolper (1986, 37) explained the chronological discrepancy as a sign of a decentralized kingdom with several political centers and rulers as early as the 8th century BC. Waters (2000, 105) even proposed a scribal error in the date formula. The Elamite inscriptions of Hallutuš-Inšušinak, who had been identified with the Hallušu of the Mesopotamian sources, appear to be nearly a century younger on paleographic and orthographic arguments. Perhaps this legal text did not belong to the reign of Hallutuš-Inšušinak I, brother of Šutruk-Nahhunte II, either. Therefore, it seems plausible that the legal text of Nippur and the two Akkadian economic documents, attributed to the reign of Hallušu (VS 4, 1; PTS 2713; Tavernier 2017, 339 n. 11), were written during the reign of HallutušInšušinak II. The only remaining references to Hallutuš-Inšušinak I are then the Babylonian Chronicle and the Annals of Sennacherib (705-681 BC).

2.4. Kutur-Nahhunte (693-692 BC) & Huban-menanu (692-688 BC)12 The reign of Hallutuš-Inšušinak I already proved to be militarily weakened, when the Neo-Assyrian king Sennacherib was able to penetrate the Elamite border regions that had been consolidated by the predecessors of Hallutuš-Inšušinak I. After a failed foreign policy, the Elamite subjects had put Hallutuš-Inšušinak I aside in favor of his ‘then’ eldest son Kutur-Nahhunte. Hallutuš-Inšušinak I had at least three sons: one of them was killed in a battle against Sennacherib around 694 BC (Luckenbill 1924, 89:30), the other two, Kutur-Nahhunte and Huban-menanu, would both succeed their father as king of Elam. Two Mesopotamian inscriptions confirm the family relations between Hallutuš-Inšušinak I, Kutur-Nahhunte and Huban-menanu. The Walters Art Gallery inscription of Sennacherib mentions Huban-menanu as son of Hallutuš-Inšušinak I and brother of KuturNahhunte (Grayson 1963, 13-19), while the Annals of Sennacherib13 refer to Huban-menanu as the younger brother of Kutur-Nahhunte (RINAP 3, 22 v 14-16).

The Assyrian hypocoristic dišku-du-ru, dišku-dúr-ru, dišku-dúr (PNA 632) and Assyrian name NÌ.DU-dna-hu-un-di/du, ku-tur-na-an-huun-di, ku-tur-dna-hu-un-di refers to the Elamite name Kutur-Nahhunte, which means ‘The protector, Nahhunte’. The element kutur is a typical Neo-Elamite particle that replaces the Middle Elamite Kutir (Zadok 1984, 24-25). The Mesopotamian variants of the Elamite name Hubanmenanu (PNA 1348): dišum-ma-an-me-na-nu, dišum-man-me-na-nu, or the hypocoristic dišme-na-nu. According to Vallat (1996a, 390-391), the Mesopotamian names should be read Huban-immena (II). 13 The Annals of Sennacherib are recorded on at least three hexagonal prisms: the Oriental Institute Prism (RINAP 3, 22), the Taylor Prism (RINAP 3, 22), and the Israel Museum Prism (RINAP 3, 23). 12

36

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

(These things) they had conveyed to Ummanmenanu, the king of Elam. […] He, the king of Elam, was a rash fellow who had neither insight nor counsel. A first time, in the time of Hallušu (Hallutuš-Inšušinak I), his father, I (Sennacherib) went down to his province. […] A second time, in the time of Kuduri(-Nahhunte), his brother, I went to Elam. Grayson 1963, 13-19

After the sudden death of Hallutuš-Inšušinak I, his eldest son Kutur-Nahhunte (693-692 BC), ascended the throne of Elam. Not only did Kutur-Nahhunte inherit the Elamite kingdom, he also received from his father a military conflict with the Neo-Assyrian king Sennacherib. Kutur-Nahhunte had moved his royal city to Madaktu, probably because Susa was located too near to the Elamite-Babylonian border that was under attack by the Assyrians. In 692 BC, Kutur-Nahhunte had to take refuge in the mountain city of Hidalu to escape the approaching NeoAssyrian army that was heading for Madaktu (RINAP 3, 22 iv 81-v 16). The location of Madaktu and Hidalu is still unknown, which might explain why no Elamite records of Kutur-Nahhunte have been found yet. Waters (2000, 32) cannot explain why in the Babylonian Chronicle Kutur-Nahhunte reigned for nearly ten months, whereas the Annals of Sennacherib report a reign of only three months. When carefully reading the passage in Sennacherib’s Annals, one can conclude that Kutur-Nahhunte had less than three months to live after Sennacherib’s retreat to Nineveh. According to the Babylonian Chronicle, Kutur-Nahhunte reigned roughly from October 693 BC until July 692 BC. The first year of Mušezib-Marduk: On the 17th day of the Month Ab (July-August), Kudur-(Nahhunte), king of Elam, was taken prisoner in a rebellion and killed. ABC 1 iii 13’-14’

Sennacherib’s 7th campaign probably started in the autumn of 693 BC, when he marched against the Elamite cities near Der and incorporated them into the Assyrian empire. Then he advanced to the south, conquering an additional 34 Elamite cities. When Sennacherib finally headed to Madaktu, he ended his campaign fearing the cold, the heavy storms, the rain and the snow that resulted in swollen rivers. As the snow was already melting, the Assyrian army might have reached the Elamite lowland by the spring of 692 BC. Whether Kutur-Nahhunte eventually made it all the way to Hidalu in the mountains remains uncertain. Three months later, on the 8th day of Âb 692 BC (July-August), he was taken prisoner in a rebellion and killed. This rebellion might be connected to the irrational character of his younger brother Huban-menanu (Grayson 1963, 14; RINAP 3, 22: v 15), who was eager to replace Kutur-Nahhunte as king of Elam. Kudur-nahundu, the king of the land Elam, did not last three months and suddenly died a premature death. After him, Huban-menanu, who does not have sense nor insight, his younger brother, sat on his throne. RINAP 3, 22:12-16; 23:4-8

Once Huban-menanu (692-688 BC) came into power, he offered help to the Chaldean prince MušezibMarduk of the Bit-Yakin tribe, who ascended the throne of Babylon. In 691 BC, this political interference in Southern Mesopotamia resulted in the battle of Halule against the Assyrians. Huban-menanu ascended the throne in Elam. In an unknown year, Huban-menanu mustered the troops of Elam and Akkad in Halule and he battled against Assyria. He effected an Assyrian retreat. The fourth year of Mušezib-Marduk (689/688): On the fifteenth day of the month Nisannu (March-April) Huban-menanu, king of Elam, suffered a stroke and his mouth was so affected that he could not speak. […] On the 7th day of the month Adar, Huban-menanu, king of Elam, died. For four years, Huban-menanu ruled Elam. ABC 1 iii 14-27

The outcome of the battle is problematic, as Sennacherib claimed to have defeated the Babylonian king and Huban-menanu with an overwhelming power (Grayson 1963, 95, 109-110), whereas the Babylonian Chronicle recounts that Huban-menanu was able to push the Assyrian army back to the north. Unsatisfied with the situation in Southern Mesopotamia, Sennacherib sieged Babylon in early 689 BC. After the battle of Halule and presumably also after the attack on Babylon, Huban-menanu suffered a stroke (15th Nisannu March-April 689 BC) and was not able to speak anymore. Eleven months after the stroke (7th Addaru February/March 688 BC) he died from this medical condition. Huban-menanu actually reigned for three years and six months rather than the four years described in the Babylonian Chronicle. Whether Huban-menanu operated from the royal city of Madaktu, Hidalu or Susa is not known. If Hubanmenanu still resided in the cities Madaktu or Hidalu as his predecessor, due to continuous military threat of the

37

THE SECOND NEO-ELAMITE DYNASTY: THE HUBANIDS (c. 688-650 BC)

Neo-Assyrian army in Mesopotamia, the royal court at Susa was left for ten years out of direct political control. The absence of the king in the Elamite lowland capital could have enhanced court intrigues of Susian nobility, since Elam was left undisturbed after the battle of Halule (691 BC). Moreover, the premature death of three subsequent Elamite kings Hallutuš-Inšušinak I, Kutur-Nahhunte and Huban-menanu, would have weakened the royal authority considerably and may have opened the doors for a new dynasty in Susa, the Hubanids. Aššur-dan III (772-755) Aššur-nirari V (754-745)

Huban-tahra (?-743)

Tiglath-pileser III (744-727) Šalmaneser V (727-722)

Huban-nikaš I (743-717)

Sargon II (721-705) Sennacherib (705-681)

Šutruk-Nahhunte II (717-699)

Sennacherib (705-681)

daughter

X

Huban-immena

Hallutuš-Inšušinak I (699-693)

Kutur-Nahhunte (693-692)

son killed in battle

daughter

X

Merodach-baladan

Huban-menanu (692-688)

Family tree 3: New proposition for the genealogy of first Neo-Elamite dynasty

3. THE SECOND NEO-ELAMITE DYNASTY: THE HUBANIDS (c. 688-650 BC) 3.1. Huban-haltaš I (688-681 BC) & Huban-haltaš II (681-675 BC)14 Except for an accurate report in the Mesopotamian sources on the regnal years of Huban-haltaš I, very little is known about the reign of this Elamite king. Neither Elamite nor Mesopotamian sources record a family relation between Huban-menanu (692-689 BC) and Huban-haltaš I (688-681 BC). Hinz (1964, 125) assumed that Huban-haltaš I was one of Huban-menanu’s cousins, implying that the Elamite throne remained within the same family. This assumption, however, cannot be proven. In the Babylonian Chronicle (ABC 1, iii 27-31) a line marks a clear distinction between the reign of Huban-menanu and that of Huban-haltaš I, indicating a new chapter. This argument might suggest that another Elamite aristocratic family, the Hubanids,15 came into power after the death of Huban-menanu (Waters 2000, 36; 2006b, 60), a suggestion, however, which in turn cannot be confirmed due to the absence of historical sources on the reign of Huban-haltaš I. Scholars remain in the dark not only on Huban-haltaš I’s connection with the previous Elamite royal family, but also on his political achievements in Elam. According to the Babylonian Chronicle, a certain country — the name of which is unfortunately severely damaged in the text — returned cult statues of the gods of Uruk. According to Grayson (ABC 1; also Levine 1982, 44-45 n. 52; Stolper 1984, 94 n. 382), that country might have been Elam. Returning cult statues that were taken as war booty generally happened in connection to a concluded peace treaty. Perhaps Huban-haltaš I attempted to restore the diplomatic relations after his predecessor Huban-menanu had headed the battle of Halule against the Assyrian king. After eight years, Huban-haltaš I died from a stroke and Huban-haltaš II came into power. On the twenty-third day of the month Tašrîtu (Sept.-Oct.), Huban-haltaš (I), king of Elam, became paralyzed at noon, and died at sunset. For eight years Huban-haltaš (I) ruled Elam.16 ABC 1 iii 30’-32’ 14 In the Babylonian Chronicles the name Huban-haltaš is written ḫum-ba-ḫal-da-šú, whereas the compilers of the Assyrian Annals used the orthography dišum-man-al-daš, dišum-man-al-da-su/si, dišum-man-al-da-a-še, dišum-man-al-ta-áš, dišum-man-ḫal-da-šú, dišum-ma-ḫal-da-a-šú or dišum-ma-ḫal-da-šú (PNA 1379). 15 Vallat (apud Gasche, Steve &Vallat 2002/03, 470-471) proposed the dynastic name of Hubanids, collecting the Neo-Elamite kings of the late Elamite period, from Huban-nikaš I to Tammaritu, under a single dynastic name. Due to the inexplicable relation between Hubanmenanu and Huban-haltaš I, I personally favor the name Hubanids from Huban-haltaš I onwards. 16 There is no accession year counted for Huban-haltaš I in the Babylonian Chronicle, because his reign started in the last month of the Babylonian calendar.

38

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

Waters (2006a, 499) argues that the cause of death of the successive Neo-Elamite kings revealed a pattern of curious medical conditions that might point to the incestuous royal family. Nevertheless, the Babylonian Chronicle mentions the cause of death for most Elamite rulers and not all of them are described as having suffered illness. The fact that two subsequent kings, Huban-menanu and Huban-haltaš I, suffered from a stroke does not reveal a pattern yet. Moreover, it is presumptuous to speak of an incestuous family when the kinship between Huban-menanu and Huban-haltaš I is not established. The family ties between Huban-haltaš I and Huban-haltaš II are subject to discussion because the crucial passage in the Babylonian Chronicle, describing the family relation between Huban-haltaš I and Huban-haltaš II, is damaged (ABC 1 iii 33’). Both Neo-Elamite kings were most likely related to each other in a lineage of first degree, meaning that Huban-haltaš I was either the father or brother of Huban-haltaš II. Traditionally, the missing sign is read as the logogram DUMU ‘son’ (Grayson 1975, 81; Glassner 2004, 183). More recently, however, Waters (2006a, 499; 2006b, 60-62) has favored the reading ŠEŠ or brother, based on a collation by E. Leichty, who identified two winkelhaken at the end of the broken space. Waters (2006a, 499-500) therefore assumed that Huban-haltaš I was the elder brother of Huban-haltaš II. This would mean that Huban-haltaš I, Huban-haltaš II, Urtak and Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak were all brothers who successively ruled Elam for about thirty-six years, since the brotherhood connection between Huban-haltaš II, Urtak and Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak is well established in the sources (BIWA B iv 79/C v 85). That all brothers suffered from strokes, as Waters states, would reinforce the latter’s argument that all four Elamite kings came from the same incestuous royal family. However, it is known that Huban-haltaš II died of a natural cause and that Urtak and Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I were most likely murdered. If they were brothers, the question remains from whom did they descend. Still according to Waters (2006a, 501), the Elamite inscriptions of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak might reveal the answer. Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak (EKI 79-85; IRS 59-62) describes himself as the son of Šilhak-Inšušinak II (EKI 78), who would be the potential father of four successive Elamite kings. However, the identification of Šilhak-Inšušinak II as the father of four kings poses chronological problems. Šilhak-Inšušinak II would then have ruled Elam simultaneously with Huban-menanu, which Waters (2000, 40-41, 48-50) tried to explain by co-regency (Susa-Hidalu) over Elam. In that case, Huban-menanu would have ruled in the Elamite highlands and Šilhak-Inšušinak II at Susiana since a bronze door socket with his engravings was found there (Cameron 1936, 167 n. 32). However, it is unlikely that the compilers of the Babylonian Chronicle would have chosen a highland king over the one in Susa to nominate as king of Elam. Moreover, Waters does not take into account that the inscriptions of Šilhak-Inšušinak II and Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak (II) are nearly a century younger than those of Huban-menanu, as Vallat (1996a, 391) and Tavernier (2004, 33-39) rightfully demonstrate on linguistic grounds. This argument rejects the identification of Šilhak-Inšušinak as forefather of the Hubanid kings.

Ḫum-ba-ḫal-da-šú IIú [x]-šú AŠ AŠ.TE.DÚRab Huban-haltaš II, his [x], ascended the throne BM 92502, iii 33 (84-2-11, 356)

Fig. 1: Detail of lacuna in BM 92502 (© Trustees of the British Museum)

Some arguments clearly plead against the reading ŠEŠ and favor the traditional reading. Firstly, looking at the photograph of the damaged tablet, one can see a rather small ú before the break, a gap in which more than one cuneiform sign can fit, and a large šú. One of Leichty’s winkelhaken is part of the sign šú. Before the

THE SECOND NEO-ELAMITE DYNASTY: THE HUBANIDS (c. 688-650 BC)

39

sign šú, one can notice traces of a vertical wedge, which excludes the reading ŠEŠ.17 Although the break can easily contain two cuneiform signs, the gap is too narrow to restore [DUMU a-ḫa-t]i-šú (ABC 1 i 40). Furthermore, the Assyrian royal inscriptions remain silent about a possible brotherhood between Hubanhaltaš I and Huban-haltaš II, while at least two younger brothers of Huban-haltaš II are identified in the patchwork of Assyrian documents. They do connect Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak with his elder brother and immediate predecessors Huban-haltaš II and Urtak. um-man-ni-gaš, dišum-man-ap-pa, dištam-ma-ri-tu DUMU.MEŠ dišur-ta-ki LUGÀL KURNIM.MA.KI dišku-dúr-ru dišpa-ru-u DUMU.MEŠ dišum-man-al-da-še LUGÀL a-lik pa-ni dišur-ta-ki 60 NUMUN LUGÀL AŠ la me-ni LÚ.ERIN2.MEŠ GIŠPAN DUMU. MEŠ ba-né-e ša KURNIM.MA.KI la-pa-an da-a-ki dište-um-man ŠEŠ AD-šu-nu in-nab-tu-nim-ma. diš

Huban-nikaš, Huban-appa, Tammaritu, sons of Urtak, king of Elam, Kutur-Nahhunte, Paru, sons of Huban-haltaš, king who preceded Urtak, 60 members of the royal household, numerous archers, free subjects (litt. sons) of Elam fled for the murders of Teumman, the brother of their father. BIWA B iv 79/C v 85; K2867+BM 98982:20-22, 1’18

The fact that Huban-haltaš I is omitted among the elder brothers of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak may mean that either he did not have children, which would explain the succession on the Elamite throne by his younger brother, or that he had deceased in the meantime. However, a more probable hypothesis is that Huban-haltaš I simply did not belong to the same generation as Huban-haltaš II, Urtak and Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak. A final argument against the brotherhood of Huban-haltaš I and Huban-haltaš II may be their identical personal name. To my knowledge, there is not a single example in Ancient Near Eastern documentation, in which a father calls his two successive sons by the same name. Instead, tradition was to assign the paternal name to the eldest son. Therefore, the best restoration orthographically and historically remains DUMU or mar (Glassner 2004, 199). Following the reading of Grayson (ABC 1) and Glassner (2004, 199), Huban-haltaš I had at least three sons, Huban-haltaš II, Urtak and Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak. Huban-haltaš II (681-675 BC), the eldest son of Huban-haltaš I, succeeded his father as king of Elam and came into power at the same time as his Assyrian rival Esarhaddon (681-669 BC). Ancient records document the end of his tenure. Huban-haltaš II likely died from a natural cause in his Susa palace. Two Mesopotamian chronicles contradict each other on the length of his reign. According to the Babylonian Chronicle (ABC 1 iv 11’), Huban-haltaš II passed away on the seventh day of the month Ulûlu after a reign of five years, while the Esarhaddon Chronicle (ABC 14, 16-17) notes that he deceased on the fifth day of the month Ulûlu after six regnal years. Since Huban-haltaš II ascended the throne in Esarhaddon’s accession year and since he died after his attack on Sippar (675 BC) in the sixth regnal year of Esarhaddon, Huban-haltaš II must have ruled Elam for six years (Grayson 1975, 84).

3.2. Urtak (675-664 BC)19 Despite the fact that Huban-haltaš II left at least two sons, Kutur-Nahhunte (Kudurru) and Paru, upon his death (BIWA 97 B iv 81) the kingship of Elam went to Urtak, the brother of Huban-haltaš II (ABC 1 iv 12-14, 17-18; CM 16, 18). The reason for this succession is not entirely clear. De Miroschedji (1986, 216-218; 1990a, 75-78) tried to explain the dynastic succession by implementing the sukkalmah principle of the cursus honorum on the Neo-Elamite sequence of kings and especially on the brotherhood succession during the second

17 The sign ŠEŠ is written in the first column (l. 13) of BM 92502. If one compares the ŠEŠ sign in column i to the severely damaged sign of column iii (l. 33), one notices the different ending. 18 For a variation of this passage, see Borger (1996), K 3140: 1 = Streck 1916, 220. 19 Since there are no indigenous inscriptions available of this Elamite king, so one had to rely on Mesopotamian onomastic variations (PNA 1418): dišur-ta-ki, ur-ta-ku, dišur-tag, dišur-ta-gi, dišur-ta-gu. Urtak’s Elamite name was probably Urtagu (Zadok 1976a, 63; 1984, 42, 46). In the Susa Acropole tablets (MDP 9, 120:7), a city ašú-ir-tak-(ra) is a possible variation on the name (Waters 2000, 42 n. 1).

40

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

Neo-Elamite dynasty of the Hubanid kings. In this cursus honorum, an Elamite king would promote from the office of king of Susa or king of Hidalu to the office of king of Madaktu. Nevertheless, a more plausible explanation can be found in the political behavior of Urtak. He did not follow his brother’s foreign policy of hostility against the Assyrians, but made a friendship request (ABC 1 iv 17-18; RINAP 4, 1 v 26-33a) to the Assyrian king Esarhaddon soon after his accession (Brinkman 1984, 79 n. 382; Frame 1992, 83 n. 99). Urtak returned the statues of Ištar and other gods of Akkad to Babylonia in the month Addaru (XII) 674 BC. With this gesture of goodwill, one wonders whether the Neo-Assyrian interference in the Elamite succession started perhaps as early as the reign of Esarhaddon (Cameron 1936, 168; Gerardi 1987, 130-131), as will be explained below. Huban-haltaš II’s ongoing mingling in the Sealand region, the attack on Sippar (675 BC) and the Elamite support to Southern Mesopotamian tribes, made Babylonia an unstable factor in the Assyrian empire. The Babylonian problems inflicted by the Elamites and the sudden unexpected death of Huban-haltaš II (ABC 1 iv 11’; ABC 14 16-17) may have encouraged Esarhaddon to convince Urtak to commit a coup d’état against his own brother. Waters (2000, 42 n. 5) suggests that Urtak’s changing attitude towards the Assyrian rulers frames in a more general effort for keeping peace in the Zagros region. Several Median rulers had already conducted a succession treaty with Esarhaddon (SAA 2, xixx-xxx) and the newly appointed Elamite king Urtak may have followed that example. However, the Zagros tribes concluded the treaty from a subordinated position (SAA 2, 6). Waters (2000, 43) correctly states that Elam was seen as an equal partner of Assyria (CT 54, 580), because Assurbanipal bestowed Urtak with Assyrian gifts and returned the Elamite temple treasures (SAA 7, 60). As stipulated by the adê-agreement (ABL 328), some of Urtak’s children were living at the Assyrian court at Nineveh, while some of Esarhaddon’s children resided at Susa. A letter of Essarhaddon (ABL 918:1-8 = SAA 16, 1) describes that Urtak had sons and daughters, which guaranteed his succession. Huban-nikaš was his eldest son (Weidner 1932/33, 179; BIWA 299, K2867+BM 98982:20-22, 1’), followed by Huban-appa and Tammaritu (BIWA 97 B iv 79-80). Urtak had two grandchildren, Huban-kitin (BIWA 317, K4457:20 and K2642:iv 7’) and Huban-amni (Streck 1916, 206, K2825:5’), the offspring of his second son Huban-appa: um-man-am-ni DUMU um-man-pi-’ DUMU ur-ta-ki. An Assyrian letter (SAA 10, 341 = ABL 476), concerning the construction of a temple at Der, informed Esarhaddon on an Elamite crown prince making trouble in the border region in the year 671 BC. Undoubtedly this prince was Urtak’s eldest son Huban-nikaš, who had traveled to the city of Uruk (ABL 998; Dietrich 1970, 166-167 n. 71) before the Elamite attack on Babylonia. Šamaš-šum-ukin described Huban-nikaš as having a very aggressive personality (ABL 1385:13’-15’; Frame 1992, 110-111, 129 n. 150). These sources make it clear that Huban-nikaš had become an experienced politician, actively involved in Elamite foreign politics and as such well prepared to succeed his father on the throne of Elam. However, Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak, the brother of Urtak, had his own ambitions. During the reign of Hubanhaltaš II, he had major responsibilities in political decisions. He was probably one of the envoys of the king when the latter tried to install Nabu-ušallim as governor of Sealand. More than once messenger[s] of Teumman, the king of Elam’s brother, of the herald, and of Zineni have come to us, saying: ‘Come and embrace Nabu-ušallim, your lord’s son, so that he may lead you!’ SAA 18, 86 = K1009 = ABL 576:8-9

During the reign of Urtak, Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak may also have been one of the brothers who tried to persuade the Elamite king to take over Chaldea (SAA 2, xvii = ABL 328:9-15; Waters 1999b, 476). With the accession of the Assyrian king Assurbanipal (669-627 BC), Urtak’s attitude towards Assyria changed, presumably under influence of the Elamite court officials, amongst whom his brother Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak. When Urtak, as a result of this changing attitude, invaded Babylonia in 664 BC, an advancing Assyrian army forced him to retreat. The Elamite army was haunted down to the Elamite border where it was defeated (Waters 2000, 45-47). Urtak died that same year ‘on a day not appointed by fate’ (ina ūmê la šimtišu: BIWA B iv 54-73).

41

THE SECOND NEO-ELAMITE DYNASTY: THE HUBANIDS (c. 688-650 BC)

3.3. Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I (664-653 BC) & Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte, king of Hidalu (*-653 BC)20 3.3.1. The Elamite Realm is-ki-pu, be-lut KURNIM.MA.KI ú-šal-qu-u šá-nam-ma They overthrew the rule of his kingship, and they let another take over the government of Elam. BALA-e LUGAL-ti-šú

BIWA B iv 72-73

The construction of the phrase with the verb in plural is subject to various interpretations. Those considered to be responsible for the dethronement of the Elamite king Urtak presumably were the gods Marduk, Assur and Ištar, who are described in the previous passage of the Annals as being ill pleased (BIWA B iv 62-71). As Marduk, Assur and Ištar were accredited for the downfall of Urtak and the accession of ‘another’ king, several persons or groups may have been involved in the appointment of the new Elamite king, helping the gods. Unfortunately, it is not known who was responsible for the coup d’état on the Elamite throne. Possibly, the council of the Elders of Elam handed the kingship of Elam to a member of a side branch of the royal Hubanid family, who was not in a direct line to the succession of the Elamite kingship. With the accession of TeptiHuban-Inšušinak I, the three sons of Urtak, Huban-nikaš II, Huban-appa and Tammaritu, were put aside. As such, this succession shows a deep internal impasse that divided the Elamite court into two fractions, one in favor of a peaceful agreement with the Assyrians (Urtak & sons) and another (Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak & family) determined to keep Elam independent and to defend the existing territorial boundaries. Initially, the anti-Assyrian fraction that nominated Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I for the kingship of Elam held the reins of power. In 664 BC, on the twelfth day of the month Tašrîtu (VII) in the fourth year of Šamaš-šum-ukin, an Elamite crown prince was forced to flee to Assyria (ABC 15; CM 19:3). Although the Šamaš-šum-ukin Chronicle does not identify the prince by name, the Annals of Assurbanipal relate him to Huban-nikaš, son of Urtak. From an Assyrian point of view, Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I was such a malicious ruler that the offspring of the previous Elamite kings had no other option than escaping their homeland in order to survive. Huban-nikaš, Huban-appa and Tammaritu, the sons of Urtak, Kutur-Nahhunte (Kudurru) and Paru, the sons of Huban-haltaš II, sixty members of the royal family, numerous archers, and many Elamite noblemen fled to the Assyrian court at Nineveh (BIWA B iv 72-86, K2867), where a large community of Elamites was settled since the reign of Esarhaddon. If the children of Urtak, living in exile at the Assyrian court, had not returned to Elam after the death of Esarhaddon or after the adê-agreement between Urtak and Assurbanipal, the siblings of Huban-nikaš, Huban-appa and Tammaritu were still residing in Assyria. They may have received the Elamite refugees, who were driven out of Elam by Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak. With the exception of the battle of Til-Tuba (653 BC), the Mesopotamian sources reveal few details on the reign of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I. In the past, scholars (Cameron 1936, 186; Hinz 1964, 154; Stolper 1984, 50; IRS 172) connected the Elamite inscriptions of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak (EKI 79-85; IRS 59-62) to the Elamite king Teumman described in the Assyrian sources. However, Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak was the son of an elsewhere unattested Šilhak-Inšušinak, whereas Teumman descended of a lineage of Hubanid kings. Therefore, Waters (2000, 40-41; 2006a; 2006b), still trying to reconcile Teumman with Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak, read the genealogical passage of the Babylonian Chronicle hum-ba-hal-da-šú IIú [ŠEŠ]-šú AŠ AŠ.TE DÚRab (cf. supra). Huban-haltaš I, Huban-haltaš II, Urtak and Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak would then be brothers with an unknown pater familias. Šilhak-Inšušinak II would have been the missing link as the father of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak and his brothers and the connection to the last king of the first Neo-Elamite dynasty, Huban-menanu. As stated above, however, Huban-haltaš I was most likely the father of Huban-haltaš II, Urtak and TeptiHuban-Inšušinak. Therefore, Waters’ identification of Šilhak-Inšušinak II as an unknown pater familias is probably incorrect. Equally, his alternative explanation of a diplomatic marriage between Huban-haltaš I and the sister-wife of Šilhak-Inšušinak II (Waters 2000, 48) cannot be maintained any longer if one takes Vallat’s (1996a, 391) and Tavernier’s (2004, 33-39) arguments into account. 20

The orthography in the Mesopotamian sources dište-um-man, dištú-um-man (PNA 1323) is a hypocoristicon of the Elamite name TeptiHuban-Inšušinak, written dte-ip-ti-dhu-ban-dMÙŠ.LAM or dte-ip-ti-dhu-ban-din-su-iš-na-ak (Zadok 1984, 13; Waters 2000, 47).

42

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

Based on linguistic and orthographic arguments, Vallat (1996a, 393) and Tavernier (2004, 33-39) argue persuasively that the Elamite inscriptions of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak should be dated to the late Neo-Elamite period. Therefore, the Teumman of the Assyrian sources will hereafter be called Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I, while the Elamite king Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II, who dedicated several inscriptions to Inšušinak, Napiriša and Pinigir, ruled somewhere after the Assyrian sack of Susa (646 BC) and before the integration of Elam in the Achaemenid empire (521 BC). The account of the battle of Til-Tuba (653 BC), the main event of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I’s reign, gives us an insight into the downfall of his rulership and family. The eldest son of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I, Tammaritu, participated in the battle of Til-Tuba. In room 33 of the Southwest palace (Gerardi 1988, 31, slab 3: 2), Assyrian reliefs depict Tammaritu’s escape into the forest after his chariot had been wrecked. The epigraphs describe the fate of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I and his son Tammaritu. Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I demanded his son to take up his bow after he was wounded by the frame of the chariot that had fell on him (Gerardi 1988, 30; Russell 1999, 170). Tammaritu took his father by the hand and they fled into the forest to save their lives, but Assyrian soldiers captured and decapitated them in front of each other (Weidner 1932/33, 181:9; BIWA 300; Russell 1999, 159, 170-172). The other family members of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I, the queen and the other children, did not leave Elam after the battle of Til-Tuba, but sought shelter in the frontier fortress Bit-Imbi (BIWA 47 A v 6-10). They remained on this location until 647 BC, when Assurbanipal captured them in the siege of Bit-Imbi during his first military campaign against the Elamite king Huban-haltaš III. The other children of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I consequently persisted their political involvement. A second son Untaš (BIWA 109, 229, B vii 32) held a military office during the reign of Huban-nikaš II and headed the Elamite army against the Assyrians in the battle of Mangisu (652/1 BC), trying to liberate the Elamite kingdom from the Assyrian interference. Untaš was captured and decapitated on the battlefield. Huban-haltaš, a third son of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I, is introduced in an Assyrian document of the Elamite king Tammaritu (K2825): dišum-man-al-da-si DUMU dište-um-man LUGÀL KURNAM.MA.KI ‘Huban-haltaš, son of Teumman, (who is) king of Elam’. A fragmentary line of the same text identifies Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I most likely as the grandfather of Para and another Huban-haltaš (Streck 1916: 206, K2825:5’ and BIWA 317 n. 74 = K4457:19). Those two individuals were part of the fleeing company of Tammaritu, king of Elam (650 BC). Apparently, they remained at the Elamite court after the death of their grandfather until the rebel king Indabibi came into power. The epigraph on one of the Assyrian reliefs in the Southwest palace states: urtaki ḫatanu teumman or Urtak son?-in-law of Teumman (Weidner 1932/33, 182 n. 31; Gerardi 1988, 30; BIWA 302: 15, Russell 1999, 172, 175 fig. 85). This Elamite commander begged an Assyrian soldier to be beheaded after an arrow had caused a fatal injury. The commander Urtak was probably related to Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak by marriage, indicating that Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak had at least one daughter. However, this noble man cannot be confused with the previous Elamite king Urtak (Waters 2000, 49 n. 52).

3.3.2. The Realm of Hidalu An Assyrian account on the transportation of Elamite captives to Nineveh after the battle of Til-Tuba (653 BC) is possibly the first attestation of co-regency in the Neo-Elamite kingdom, for not only Tepti-HubanInšušinak I, the king of Elam, was beheaded, but also Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte (Ištarnandi), the king of Hidalu. In the account (BIWA B vi 49-51), the head of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I was attached to the neck of his ally Danunu, ruler of the Gambulu tribe, whereas the head of Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte was tied to the neck of Samgunu, the younger brother of Danunu. On an epigraph of an Assyrian palace relief, depicting the battle of Til-Tuba, this Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte is identified as the king of Hidalu (Weidner 1932/33, 179:3; BIWA 306; Russell 1999, 158). The Assyrian sources do not explain king Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte’s descent, nor his social background and political connection to Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I. Yet, based on the literary parallel construction (Fuchs 2003, 133) — Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I tied to Danunu and Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte to Samgunu — one might expect

THE SECOND NEO-ELAMITE DYNASTY: THE HUBANIDS (c. 688-650 BC)

43

that Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte was either a family member of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I or someone with a similar social status. Since the passage in the Annals and the Assyrian epigraph are the only references to the reign of Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte, the reconstruction of his identity depends largely on the interpretation of the political status of Hidalu in relation with the kingdom of Elam. During the reign of Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte, Hidalu could have (1) obtained a semi-independent status, in which the king of Hidalu was the viceroy of the Elamite king (co-regency), (2) belonged to the Elamite kingdom with a semi-autonomous tributary status, or (3) had a politically independent status.21 1) Henkelman (2003a, 254-255; 2008, 12-13) and Fuchs (2003, 135) suggested that the kingship of Hidalu was a governorship intended to improve the Elamite political control over the strategically important highland region. The active participation of the king of Hidalu in the battle of Til-Tuba under the command of TeptiHuban-Inšušinak I reinforces the idea that king Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte was a subordinated partisan of the Elamite king. Therefore, Henkelman (2008, 20) concludes that the title of king of Hidalu was the second highest rank within the Elamite political system. Similar actions to strengthen the Neo-Assyrian empire were undertaken by king Esarhaddon, who divided the Assyrian empire amongst his two sons. Esarhaddon’s third son Assurbanipal ruled Assyria after his eldest son suffered a premature death, whereas his second son Šamaš-šum-ukin became viceroy of Babylon (Frame 2007, 109). Following this Assyrian succession model, Šutruk/Sutur-Nahhunte must have been a member of the royal family that was bestowed with the title of king of Hidalu and co-regent of the king of Elam (Henkelman 2003a, 254-255; 2008, 12-13). If the Elamite king appointed a relative to the position of king of Hidalu, then the offspring of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I is immediately excluded as possible candidates. Tammaritu, the eldest son of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak and successor to the Elamite throne, was beheaded in the battle of Til-Tuba (Gerardi 1988, 31 slab 3:2). The two other known sons of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak, Untaš and Huban-haltaš, cannot be identified with Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte. Moreover, the kin of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak survived in the western outskirts of the kingdom in the city of Bit-Imbi after the death of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak. If a son of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I ruled Hidalu, the queen-mum would certainly have fled after the battle of Til-Tuba (653 BC) with her remaining offspring to her son, the king of Hidalu. However, the fact that the family of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak fled to the Elamite-Babylonian border region indicated that they were not orientated towards the highlands, which excludes the offspring of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak from the Hidalu crown. Maybe Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte was an otherwise unattested younger brother of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I (Fuchs 2003, 135). According to Waters (2000, 38 n. 44), who investigated their palace household, Zineni, one of the court representatives who sent a messenger to Sealand (SAA 18, 86 = ABL 576) during the reign of Huban-haltaš II, may be the same person as the Hidalu palace supervisor (ša pān ekalli) depicted on the Assyrian reliefs watching the defeat of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I and Šutruk/Sutur-Nahhunte of Hidalu (BIWA 299; Russell 1999, 158). Since the personal name Zineni is attested only twice during the Hubanid dynasty, this is a highly plausible identification.22 After Zineni had served the Elamite king Huban-haltaš II as messenger, he probably continued his career as palace manager of Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte in Hidalu. Accordingly, Zineni must have followed Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte to Hidalu at the latter’s appointment as king. That would mean that Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte, king of Hidalu, governed Hidalu from either the late reign of Huban-haltaš II or from the reign of Urtak onward and remained in office during the kingship of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I. The migration of Zineni from the Susa court to Hidalu suggests the close connection of the staff and by consequence the king of Hidalu with the Elamite capital. The king of Hidalu was therefore a loyal partner of the Hubanid dynasty and could have been an elsewhere unattested son of Hubanhaltaš I and the second in line to the Elamite throne after Huban-haltaš II, if one follows the Assyrian model in which the rule of the empire is divided between siblings. 21

The analysis of the political status of the kingdom of Hidalu throughout the Neo-Elamite period, is discussed extensively in Part 3: III.1.1.3. 22 Zineni is mentioned in an Assyrian text as an Elamite military official marching against Tiglath-Pileser III (PNA 1446-1447). A second Zineni negoticated the appointment of Nabu-ušallim with the Elders of Sealand (Zadok 1983, 2120154). An epigraph at the Southwest palace presents Zineni as the palace supervisor (BIWA 299).

44

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

If Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte belonged to the same generation as Huban-haltaš II, Urtak and Tepti-HubanInšušinak I, the nagīru-official Huban-kitin, who carried the head of his overlord Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte, king of Hidalu (Russell 1999, 180-181 fig. 66), could have been his grown-up son. The name of ‘prince’ Huban-kitin corresponds to the inscription on the famous cylinder seal of Jerusalem (Amiet 1973, 29; Steve 1986; Waters 2000, 54). This cylinder seal, bearing an inscription dišhu-ban-ki-tin DUMU LUGÀL diššu-turd UTU-na, would match the official position of Huban-kitin as herald of the king.23 According to the sibling succession model, the prince of Hidalu could never become king by descent, since the kingdom of Hidalu would have been reserved for the second son of the king of Elam. Therefore, the sons of the king of Hidalu were probably assigned important offices within the royal administration. In general, however, the Jerusalem seal of Huban-kitin is dated to the end of the 7th - early 6th century BC, based on comparative glyptic evidence (Amiet 1967, 44-45; 1973, 18-19; de Miroschedji 1982, 61). This dating contests the identification of the prince Huban-kitin with the homonymous royal messenger and therefore the association of Ištarnandi, king of Hidalu, with Šutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada, the Elamite overlord of Hanne. Moreover, if Šutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada, had been the king of Hidalu, then the Ayapir region (Malamir/Izeh) would have belonged to the jurisdiction of the highland kingdom. It seems unlikely that the auxiliary king would have ruled such a large territory, when his primary engagement was to safeguard the southeastern boundaries of the Elamite kingdom from intruding (Indo-Iranian) tribes. Henkelman (2008, 12-13) and Fuchs (2003, 135) based their reconstruction of Ištarnandi’s identity mainly on the sibling kings Huban-nikaš II and Tammaritu, whom the Assyrian king Assurbanipal had installed in Elam and Hidalu as client kings after the battle of Til-Tuba (653 BC). Henkelman (2012a, 432) especially suggests that the Assyrian king modeled this co-regency to an already existing precedent in the previous generation of Elamite kings Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I and Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte. However, Assurbanipal presumably restyled the Elamite government system for his client kings to an Assyrian model (SAA 3, 31) that had no connection to the political situation in Elam and Hidalu during the reign of Tepti-HubanInšušinak I and Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte. 2) Another option is that the kingdom of Hidalu had a semi-autonomous political status within the Elamite kingdom before the battle of Til-Tuba. De Miroschedji (1986, 218) suggested that the political government of Elam was based on the sukkalmah succession principle. However, all evidence for such a cursus honorum system is lacking with regard to the Neo-Elamite period (Quintana 1996, 109; Waters 2000, 32-33). The fact that the Elamite kings switched between the ancient capital Susa and the stronghold capital Madaktu should therefore be seen as a defensive tactic (Gerardi 1986; 1987, 221, n. 82), rather than part of the bureaucratic hierarchy. For the late Neo-Elamite period, several local Elamite kings have been attested to be united in a political structure that Potts (2010a, 123) describes as ‘a situation in which considerable autonomy was exercised by regional leaders who nevertheless still acknowledged the paramount position of the Elamite king at Susa.’ Although there is no conclusive evidence to confirm this theory before 653 BC, nothing in my point of view contradicts the fact that this had been the federal government model in the kingdom of Elam before the Assyrians mingled in the political structure (cf. III.1.1.3.). It is, however, remarkable that only Hidalu in the titulary of Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte, dišiš-tar-na-an-di LUGAL kurḫi-da-lu (BIWA 306:C6’), is exclusively preceded by the determinative kur, whereas in the titulary of his servant Huban-kitin dišum-ba-ki-den-nu LÚ.NÍM.GIR šá uruḫi-da-lu (BIWA 306: B10’, B4’; contra BIWA 299:3), Hidalu is written with the determinative uru.24 If Elam had a federal government model, this still does not exclude a family connection between Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte, king of Hidalu, and the ruling Hubanid family in Elam. However, the fact 23 In her elaborated PhD dissertation on the DUMU LUGÀL title in the Hittite empire, Lebrun (2014, 278-293) demonstrated that DUMU LUGÀL could have been an honorary title as well, granted to high ranked officials of the royal entourage, next to its literal translation ‘son of the king’. 24 In the Neo-Babylonian documents from that era (Zadok 1985a, 146; ABL 280:19’; ABL 281:15; ABL 1311:7, 25; ABL 1309:17; ABL 961:5), Hidalu is always preceded with the determinative URU. Therefore, the Babylonians must have seen Hidalu as a city, rather than a country.

45

THE SECOND NEO-ELAMITE DYNASTY: THE HUBANIDS (c. 688-650 BC)

that the family of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I did not flee to Hidalu may point to a not so close relationship between the two rulers. If the kingdom of Hidalu was located on the outskirts of the Elamite highlands, the king of Hidalu presumably had the second largest military force within the Elamite kingdom, since he protected the southern border. Therefore, he must have been the second named ruler in the Assyrian Annals. 3) On the other hand, it is possible that Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte had no family connection to the Hubanids at all, but was an independent king that seized power over Hidalu. In the description of the Elamite districts and cities, the Annals of Assurbanipal refer to Hunnur as an Elamite highland district on the border with Hidalu (BIWA F iv 57-58 = A v 115-116). 20-àm URU.MEŠ ina na-ge-e ša URUḫu-un-nir ina UGU mi-iṣ-ri ša URUḫi-da-lu ak-šu-ud I (Assurbanipal) conquered 20 cities in the district of Hunnir at the frontier of Hidalu BIWA F iv 57-58

At least from the Assyrian point of view, Hidalu did not belong to the Elamite kingdom in 646 BC. This would be the emergence of what most scholars consider the political fragmentation of the Elamite kingdom (Waters 2000, 107) into a multitude of city-states with a cultural Elamite identity (Potts 2010a, 124). As such, the king of Hidalu would operate independently from the Elamite king and the participation in the battle of Til-Tuba could have been a temporary alliance in which he had recognized the authority of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I. In case of extreme threat, the Zagros tribes, like the Medes, became allies in a unified army (Waters 1999c, 103). Once the danger on their territorial boundaries had passed, each one went their own way. A family connection with the Hubanid dynasty then becomes unlikely. Although one cannot entirely exclude the existence of an independent kingdom of Hidalu, it is more likely that the Assyrian king considered Hidalu to be a separate kingdom, because it fell beyond the physical power of the Assyrian army to control this highland area. Taking all the arguments into account, we may assume that Ištarnandi (Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte), king of Hidalu, was a ruler from the same generation as the brotherhood Huban-haltas II, Urtak and Tepti-HubanInšušinak I. However, conclusive evidence for the identification of Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte as a member of the extended Hubanid family, as Fuchs (2003, 135) argues, is still missing. Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte may still have been a highland ruler of a semi-autonomous or independent kingdom of Hidalu, with no family connection at all to the Hubanid clan.

3.4. The Sibling Kings: Huban-nikaš II (653-652/1 BC) & Tammaritu, king of Hidalu25 (653 BC-*) Assurbanipal rewarded the sons of Urtak, who had participated in the battle of Til-Tuba against the Elamite king Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak, for their loyalty by granting them the throne of Elam. On the reliefs of the battle of Til-Tuba in the Nineveh Southwest palace, one can identify prominent members of Assurbanipal’s army wearing Elamite dresses. Those figures are most likely the sons of Urtak and their subjects (Reade 1976, 100). The eldest son of Urtak, Huban-nikaš II, who had fled Elam during the reign of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I, received the Elamite kingship (Weidner 1932/33, 179; BIWA B v 6-7; 299). The crowning of the Elamite king Huban-nikaš II as king of Susa and Madaktu was portrayed on slab 6-7 of room 1 in the North palace at Nineveh (Barnett 1976, 42, pl. 25; Gerardi 1988, 32; BIWA 302; Russel 1999, 175, 177-178 fig. 61-62, 184). Tammaritu, the third son of Urtak and younger brother of Huban-nikaš II, was installed on the throne of Hidalu (BIWA B vi 8, B iv 85-86). The second brother in line, Huban-appa,26 died very likely in exile at the 25

Akkadian orthography of the name Tammaritu: tam-ma-ri-tu/tú/ti/te, tam-ma-ri-i-ti, tam-mar-i-tu/ti/te, tam-mar-ít, tam-mar-[tu], tamre-e-ti, ta-am-ma-ri-tú/ti, ta-am-ma-ri-it-tu, ta5-am-mar-ti, ta-am-ri-ti (PNA 1306). Elamite variant: te-em-ti-ri-di (MDP 23, 289:6). For a study on the name Tammaritu, see Zadok (1983, 115). 26 The name of Huban-appa is spelled in different ways: um-man-pi-’ (K2825:5; Streck 1916, 206), um-man-ap-pi (Borger 1996, 317 K4457:20), um-man-ap-pa, um-man-ab-ba (Zadok 1984, 6).

46

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

Assyrian court.27 Although Assurbanipal claimed to have created this government system himself (SAA 3, 31), Waters (2000, 56) and Henkelman (2012a, 432) suggest that he modeled the co-regency policy on an existing precedent established by the previous generation of Elamite kings. More likely, however, Assurbanipal imposed the Assyrian succession model on the Elamite client kings. I established kingship for them, a creation of my own hands. By the command of Aššur, Bel, Nabu, Nergal, Ištar of [Nineveh], and the Lady of Arbela I unified (the whole) of Elam; I settled Assyrians [there], and imposed tax and tribute upon them. SAA 3, 31

By granting the Elamite kingdom to Huban-nikaš II and Tammaritu, Assurbanipal expected a certain level of Elamite loyalty, following the example of their father (RINAP 4, 1 v 26-33a). During the reign of Esarhaddon, the offspring of the pro-Assyrian king Urtak lived at the Nineveh court as a confirmation of the adê-agreement and later they returned to the court as refugees during the reign of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak. This could mean that Assurbanipal spent some years as crown prince with the Elamite royalty in Nineveh. Since the children of both Huban-haltaš II and Urtak fled together to the Nineveh court (BIWA B iv 79/C v 85; K2867+BM 98982:20-22, 1’), it would have been appropriate to restore the lineage of the Elamite kings to Huban-haltaš II, who had ruled Elam prior to Urtak. However, the loyalty issue might explain why Assurbanipal preferred the sons of Urtak as Elamite rulers instead of the offspring of Huban-haltaš II, who had been the most prominent opponent of the Assyrian king in the Sealand succession. The position of Huban-nikaš II as Elamite ruler appears to have been rather weak. A letter of Nabu-belšumati described how Assurbanipal appointed the Elamite princes as governors of Elam and Sealand (ABL 839). This suggests that Huban-nikaš II and Tammaritu had a similar position as the princes of the Sealand dynasty, making Elam a satellite state rather than a province (Waters 2000, 57). The conclusion of the adê-agreement (ABL 1380; Frame 1992, 123-124 n. 117), in which Huban-nikaš II was the subordinated partner (BIWA 104 B vi 4-5; ABL 961) who had to pay tribute (SAA 3, 31 = K 8016), as well as the installation of Assyrian officials in Elam (CT 64, 490 = ABL 1007+) point to the vassalage of Huban-nikaš II. Despite the fact that the Assyrian king had some partisans in Elam, the Assyrian control of Elam, however, proved to be short-lived. When Huban-nikaš II broke the adê-agreement by accepting gifts from the rebellious Šamaš-šum-ukin (BIWA F iii 6-9, C vii 128-129), the ruler of Babylon and brother of Assurbanipal, the latter felt betrayed. Šamaš-šum-ukin convinced Huban-nikaš II to liberate Southern Mesopotamia from the Assyrian yoke. Hubannikaš II consequently persuaded Zazaz the mayor of Pillatu, Paru the mayor of Hilmu, Attametu the commander of the archers, and Nešu the commander of the infantry to form a coalition with Šamaš-šum-ukin. Untaš, the son of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak, headed the army of Huban-nikaš II, but was defeated near Mangisu (652/1 BC). The army officials were taken prisoners and later decapitated (BIWA B vii 9-35). The identity of Paru is not specified, but we cannot exclude that he was the son of the former king Huban-haltaš II, who together with Huban-nikaš II and Tammaritu had returned from Assyrian exile to Elam and to whom was assigned the rule over the important Hilmu territory in the Elamite western frontier region. The flight of Huban-nikaš II and his unnamed son to Hidalu was possibly an attempt to escape the Assyrian reprisal for his treachery (ABL 1309; Waters 2000, 60). Since Huban-nikaš II had left the command of the army to Untaš, son of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak, he probably planned to withdraw his royal entourage from the Elamite capitals while the Elamite army was battling at Mangisu. If the Assyrian army had approached the Elamite capital Madaktu from the north and the east, the only escape route would indeed have been into the Elamite highlands to the city of Hidalu, which was probably inaccessible for the Assyrian army. As Hidalu was a refugee resort for Elamite kings, Tammaritu, king of Hidalu and brother of Huban-nikaš II, most certainly gave shelter to the king of Elam. 27

Ummanabba (-appa) writes a letter (SAA 18, 96) to his brother Aplaya. Radner (PNA 118 n. 44) enlisted Aplaya as an unidentified brother of Huban-appa, prince of Elam (on the names: Waters 2001). Since the fragmentary letter was written in the Babylonian dialect and the affiliation ‘brother’ is often used to refer to a companion of equal social status, Aplaya was more likely the son of Nabu-ušallim and grandson of Merodach-baladan II, who lived in Elam and was extradited by Huban-nikaš II to Assurbanipal as a pledge of alliance (PNA 117 n. 27).

THE SECOND NEO-ELAMITE DYNASTY: THE HUBANIDS (c. 688-650 BC)

47

Although Huban-nikaš II may have survived the battle of Mangisu by taking refuge at Hidalu, the Assyrians were not his most prominent enemies. By leaving his army, he lost the loyalty of the Elamite people. Soon afterwards, Huban-nikaš II was overthrown by the Elamite Tammaritu (BIWA A iv 1-2), who killed both him and his family (K4457:11’; Smith 1871, 194; Frame 1992, 183). Remarkably, Tammaritu, king of Hidalu,28 is not included in the list of royal people fleeing to Assyria after the younger Tammaritu takes over the government in Elam (K2825). This means that either Hidalu remained out of the direct scope of the Elamite palace intrigues, or Tammaritu had already deceased. Taking the source material into account (BIWA A iv 1-2; K4457:11’), it could be suggested that supporters of the newly appointed Elamite king Tammaritu killed Tammaritu of Hidalu and his brother Huban-nikaš II together with their relatives in the highland city Hidalu. By overthrowing Tammaritu of Hidalu, the Elamite king Tammaritu was able to incorporate the Hidalu territory and to reunite Elam. 3.5. Tammaritu, king of Elam (652/1-650 BC) Tammaritu took over the kingship of Elam during the power vacuum created by Huban-nikaš II when the latter abandoned his army, and succeeded in raising a rebellion among the Elamite people (BIWA B vii 43-46/C viii 33-36). Assurbanipal failed to control the internal political changes in Elam, revealing that his claim on Elam was rather weak, as was the authority of Huban-nikaš II. In this light it is difficult to assume that within a year Assurbanipal succeeded in turning Elam into a province (Waters 2000, 57-59), despite Assurbanipal’s (propagandic) account pointing in that direction (ABL 839; Mattila 1987, 27-30; SAA 3, 31). If Tammaritu of Hidalu was killed by the supporters of Tammaritu, king of Elam, then the latter presumably ended the coregency system and combined the kingship of Elam and Hidalu. This assumption is supported by the only reference to the highland region during the short reign of the Elamite king Tammaritu. A Neo-Babylonian legal document (BM 79013/Bu 89-4-26, 309) was drafted in Hadalu (= Hidalu) in the accession year of Tammaritu. In this document, Bel-epuš, son of Balaṭu, made up his testament, in which he donated half of his inheritance to his wife, in front of the assembly of the Babylonians in Hidalu. Leichty (1983, 153-155; also Brinkman & Kennedy 1983, 61) dated the testament to the reign of Tammaritu, king of Hidalu, who was appointed by Assurbanipal shortly after 653 BC (BIWA B vi 8, B iv 85-86). However, the final clause of the legal document (l. 25-28) refers to Tammaritu, king of Elam: ha-a-da-lu ITI.DIRI.ŠE UD.6.KAM MU.SAG.NAM.LUGAL dištam-ma-ri-[tu] LUGAL NIM.MA.KI ina IM.KIŠIB diš dEN.DÙ-[uš] (28) A-šú šá dišba-la-tu IM.KIŠIB ba-ri-mu. In the city Hidalu, month Addaru (XII), 6th day, accession year of Tammaritu, king of Elam. Sealed with the seal of Bel-epuš, son of Balaṭu. BM 79013:25-28 URU

The king Tammaritu, who reigned shortly after 653 BC, received the royal titulary ‘king of Hidalu’. A few years later (652/1 BC), another Tammaritu became king of Elam. Other documents from the 650s BC written in the Neo-Babylonian dialect clearly make a distinction between Hidalu and Elam (KUR.NIM.MA.KI ‘highland’; Zadok 1985a),29 meaning that the Babylonians were well aware of the political situation in Elam. Based on the titles of both Tammaritus, this legal document can therefore be situated within the reign of the second Tammaritu (Waters 2000, 56-61; Henkelman 2003a, 256 n. 6). Since the Babylonians recognized Tammaritu as king of Elam, he must have ruled the highland region as well. This text gives therefore additional evidence that Tammaritu, king of Hidalu, was no longer ruler of the highlands and that the latter most likely suffered the same fate as his brother Huban-nikaš II. 28 Fuchs (2003, 135) and Henkelman (2003a, 254-255; 2008, 12 n. 20) stated that Tammaritu, son of Urtak and king of Hidalu, never ruled Elam and can therefore not be identified in scholarly literature as Tammaritu I. There is only one Tammaritu that was crowned king of Elam after he had overthrown Huban-nikaš II. Agreeing with their arguments, I will not refer to Tammaritu I and Tammaritu II, but to Tammaritu, king of Hidalu, and Tammaritu, king of Elam/Tammaritu I. As a result of all this, Tammaritu, son of Urtak, should be mentioned in a separate list of kings of Hidalu. 29 Neo-Babylonian documents mentioning Hidalu: ABL 280:19’; ABL 281:15; ABL 1311:7, 25; ABL 1309:17; ABL 961:5.

48

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

Extispicy reports on the attack on Nippur provide a relative date for Tammaritu’s accession to the Elamite throne. In an omen text (SAA 4, 281), the Assyrians wondered whether the Elamite army would join them for battle. However, the omen does not clarify which Elamite king is meant. Since we do not know when Tammaritu ascended the Elamite throne, the report can refer either to the Elamite king Huban-nikaš II or to Tammaritu. The negative answer was obtained between the 8th day of the month Ab (V) and Ululu (VI) in 651 BC (Frame 1992, 145 n. 56). Frame (1992, 184) convincingly argues that Assurbanipal commanded this extispicy to know whether the new Elamite king would act in his favor. Another prediction (SAA 4, 282) on the possible escape of the Babylonian king Šamaš-šum-ukin to Elam after the attack on Nippur was made in the month Tašritu (VII) during the eponymy of Sagab (651 BC). A third omen text (SAA 4, 289) speculated on a possible counterattack of Tammaritu on Nippur. Such a raid would probably have occurred after Nippur fell to the Assyrians, sometime between the months Kislīmu (IX) and Šabatu (XI) of that year (Frame 1992, 145-147). Hence, Tammaritu must have been in office by the ninth month of 651 BC at the latest. However, there are arguments to move up the accession of Tammaritu to an earlier date. Since Tammaritu concluded an alliance with Šamaš-šum-ukin soon after his accession (BIWA B vii 47-51/C viii 37-42/ F iii 37-42), he was presumably in power as soon as the rumors on the escape of Šamaššum-ukin to Elam circulated (VII/651 BC). Moreover, by accepting Šamaš-šum-ukin’s presents from the Esagil temple, Tammaritu, king of Elam, chose the Babylonian camp, which inevitably lead to the rejection of the Assyrian proposal to join forces. This refusal would shift the latest accession date for Tammaritu to the fifth month of 651 BC. Defining Tammaritu I’s identity appears to be one of the more challenging cases of Neo-Elamite genealogy. The royal name Tammaritu caused confusion among the Assyrian scribes. In several documents they noted that Tammaritu, king of Elam, was not the same person as Tammaritu, king of Hidalu and brother of Huban-nikaš II (K 1364: 14 = CT 53 48; Stolper 1984, 51 n. 51; Gerardi 1988, 177-179; BIWA 320; Tavernier 2007a, 23).30 When Assurbanipal described the plundering of the Acropole temples in Susa, he took a statue of the later Tammaritu (ṣalam Tammaritu arkû: BIWA A vi 55), referring to the second ruler by this name, i.e. Tammaritu the king of Elam. The numerous documents on the flight of Tammaritu, king of Elam, and his family to Assyria, contain references to Tammaritu’s ancestry. A letter of the Assyrian general Bel-ibni indicates that Tammaritu had several brothers (ABL 284; de Vaan 1995, 252; BIWA 315 n. 69). A fragmentary epigraph [Umman]aldasu, ŠEŠ-šú šá tam-[ma-ri-t]ú [LUGAL] KUR [NIM.MA.KI] ‘Huban-haltaš, brother of Tammaritu, king of Elam’ (BIWA 314 n. 57) identifies one of them (Fuchs 2003, 132-133). This brother takes a prominent place in the account on Tammaritu’s escape from Elam in the Annals of Assurbanipal (BIWA F iii 21-26; B vii 58-63). tam-ma-ri-tu LUGAL KUR.NIM.MA.KI a-di um-man-al-daš dišpa-ra[-x-x-x DUMUMEŠ] dišum-man-al-da-si DUMU dište-um-man LUGAL KUR.NIM.MA.KI diš um-man-am-ni DUMU dišum-man-pi-‘ DUMU dišur-ta-ki LUGAL.NIM.MA.KI diš um-man-am-ni DUMU DUMU šá dišum-man-al-da-si LUGAL.[NIM.MA.KI] diš diš

Tammaritu, king of Elam, together with Huban-haltaš, Para[-x] [sons of] Huban-haltaš, the son of Teumman, the king of Elam, Huban-amni, the son of Huban-pi, the son of Urtak, the king of Elam, Huban-amni the grandson of Huban-haltaš (II), king of Elam K2825

The structured composition of this fragment (son(s) + father + grandfather, king of Elam) makes it possible the restore the gap in connection to the descent of Huban-haltaš and Para[-x]. The fragment names the grandchildren of the three successive Hubanid brothers who ruled Elam, Huban-haltaš II, Urtak and TeptiHuban-Inšušinak I. The grandson of Huban-haltaš II31 was Huban-amni. Apparently the Assyrian scribe did not 30

This damaged fragment could also be translated as Tammaritu, the unbrotherly brother of Huban-nikaš (Frame 1992, 183 n. 264). Several scholars have stated that it is uncertain whether the grandfather of Huban-amni is Huban-haltaš I or II (Streck 1916, 206; K2825). In my opinion, the structure of the fragment can only point to three successive kings. Other fragments (e.g. BIWA B iv 81), that refer to the Hubanid family, also explicitly mention the offspring of Huban-haltaš II. 31

49

THE SECOND NEO-ELAMITE DYNASTY: THE HUBANIDS (c. 688-650 BC)

know the father of Huban-amni. Since Huban-haltaš II had several sons, one cannot determine the father of Huban-amni with certainty. The genealogy of Urtak poses no problems at all. Huban-amni was the son of Huban-pi, who was the offspring of Urtak. Maintaining the same pattern, one can assume that Tammaritu, Huban-haltaš and Para[-x] were three brothers (Smith 1871, 195; Fuchs 2003, 132),32 descending from Hubanhaltaš, who was the son of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I. Huban-haltaš, Para[-x], and the two Huban-amnis belonged most likely to the same generation as Tammaritu, king of Elam. This genealogical connection to the TeptiHuban-Inšušinak clan may explain the strong condemnation of Tammaritu against the Assyrian decapitation of his grandfather Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak before the eyes of the Elamite troops (BIWA A iv 12-20; B vii 58-60 = C viii 48-50) and the support of Tammaritu by a large anti-Assyrian political fraction. Since the early 20th century, scholars have based the discussion on the descent of Tammaritu on an Akkadian fragment with a debatable content, suggesting that either Huban-nikaš II or a yet unattested homonymous person was the father of Tammaritu. ina ŠUII dištam-ma-ri-tu IBILA dišum-man-ni-gaš-ma ŠEŠ AD-šú um-mu-ú-šú dištam-ma-ri-tu ša EGIR-šú ú-ši-bu ina gišGU. ZA KUR.NIM.MA.KI. šá ki-ma šá-a-šu-ma They delivered him (Huban-nikaš II) in the hands of Tammaritu, heir of Huban-nikaš, and the brother of his father. Tammaritu, who installed his own rulership on the throne of Elam after him K2654:18’, translation CAD M/10, 226

The two problematic passages in the sentence, hampering a straightforward translation, are situated in the uncertain reading of the cuneiform sign DUMU/IBILA and in the fact that Tammaritu as well as Huban-nikaš can be connected to the genitive chain ‘brother of his father’ (ŠEŠ AD-šu). The assignment of the genitive chain to either anthroponym has significant consequences for the family connections of Tammaritu and consequently his ancestry. Huban-haltaš I, king of Elam

Huban-haltaš II, king of Elam

Huban-nikaš II, king of Elam

Huban-appa

Urtak, king of Elam

Tammaritu (Hidalu)

Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak, king of Elam

*Huban-nikaš

Tammaritu, king of Elam

Family tree 4: Genealogy of Tammaritu, king of Elam (after Streck 1916; Cameron 1936; Fuchs 2003)

Most scholars, who preferred the translation ‘son’ (DUMU) instead of ‘heir’ (IBILA), decided that Hubannikaš could not be identified with the king Huban-nikaš II and must therefore be a yet unattested brother of Huban-nikaš II, Urtak and Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I (Streck 1916, 34 n. 15, 54 n. 2; Cameron 1936, 192 n. 24; Fuchs 2003, 135-137). Hinz (1964, 152) went a step further in this direction by calling Huban-nikaš II the father of the Elamite king Tammaritu and Huban-nikaš III the royal predecessor of Tammaritu. 32

Smith (1871, 195) already indicated that the broken gap could fit five cuneiform signs. He partially restored the passage with ŠEŠ-šu, suggesting a brotherhood between Huban-haltaš and Para[-x]. Fuchs (2003, 132) connected the dots to Huban-haltaš and Para[-x] being both brothers of Tammaritu, king of Elam. However, none of these authors did make the evident link with Huban-haltaš, son of Teumman (Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak). It is unfortunate that Fuchs (2003, 135-137) does not take this information into account in his own reconstruction of Tammaritu’s ancestry.

50

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

Huban-haltaš I, king of Elam

Huban-haltaš II, king of Elam

Huban-nikaš II, king of Elam

Urtak, king of Elam

Huban-appa

Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak, king of Elam

Tammaritu (Hidalu)

Tammaritu, king of Elam Family tree 5: Genealogy of Tammaritu, king of Elam (after Gerardi 1988)

Gerardi (1988, 178) prefers the reading IBILA ‘heir’ (Streck 1916, 180; CAD A/2, 173). The sign IBILA is composed out of two cuneiform compounds DUMU+NITA (Labat 1988, n. 144) and can therefore lead to confusion, as it is similar to DUMU. According to this theory, the Elamite king Tammaritu was the heir of Hubannikaš II, who was the brother of Tammaritu’s father. His unnamed father must have been either Tammaritu of Hidalu, Huban-appa (Potts 1999, 281), or a yet unattested brother. Waters (2000, 62), following Gerardi, describes Tammaritu, king of Elam, consequently as the nephew of Huban-nikaš II. This reconstruction seems quite plausible, were it not for a few flaws on a historical level. To my knowledge, there is not a single precedent of an Elamite king succeeding his paternal uncle on the throne. In times of war and instability it was not inacceptable to pass the crown to a side branch of the royal family. But in such case it was the son of the sister of the king who had the first claim, like the Neo-Elamite king Šutruk-Nahhunte II, who had come into power in a similar succession (cf. supra). Furthermore, this hypothesis is difficult to reconcile with the text fragment on the escape of the Elamite king Tammaritu to Assyria (K2825). If Tammaritu, king of Elam, was the son of Huban-appa, then one can wonder why Huban-amni, his brother, was listed on the second line after the children of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak. In general, the closest kin of the king is mentioned in order of importance, being first the brothers and then the nephews. The offspring of Tammaritu, king of Hidalu, is not attested. Finally, if the Elamite king Tammaritu killed his two uncles, Huban-nikaš II and Tammaritu of Hidalu, and their family members, then who was the unknown anti-Assyrian uncle? Tammaritu would have been the first member of the Urtak branch to collaborate with the Assyrians, which seems rather doubtful. Fuchs (2003, 135-137; also Waters 2006b, 63), disagreeing with this more recent hypothesis of Gerardi, developed the suggestion of Cameron (1936, 192 n. 24), claiming that Tammaritu’s father Huban-nikaš was the uncle of Huban-nikaš II. Therefore, Tammaritu’s father Huban-nikaš was an otherwise unknown brother of Urtak. Firstly, Fuchs (2003, 136) reads the sign specifying the family relation between Tammaritu and Hubannikaš as DUMU, following the transliteration of Borger (BIWA 83). As such, Tammaritu was the son of Hubannikaš. Since Tammaritu probably did not kill his father and most of his family members, Huban-nikaš cannot be identified with Huban-nikaš II, king of Elam. Therefore, Huban-nikaš must have been a yet unattested member of the Hubanid family. Secondly, in an attempt to corroborate his own theory that the father of Tammaritu has a different identity than Huban-nikaš II (direct object of the sentence), Fuchs (2003, 136) points to the grammatical significance

THE SECOND NEO-ELAMITE DYNASTY: THE HUBANIDS (C. 688-650 BC)

51

of the postposition -ma in dišum-man-ni-gaš-ma. Von Soden (AHW II, 570) describes in his Handwörterbuch that -ma is added to the second anthroponym in order to differentiate the two individuals when two homonyms are stated in the same sentence. However, all examples given by von Soden are two identical names in the same sentence, but the name Ummanigaš is attested only once in the Tammaritu phrase. If -ma was added to distinguish the name Ummanigaš from the direct object -šú connected to the verb, then -ma should have been attached to -šú since this is the second reference. If Fuchs would have meant that the -ma was added to differentiate Ummanigaš from the previous paragraph on king Huban-nikaš II, then the proposed construction is not applicable. Since this sentence has only a single reference to the name Huban-nikaš, the hypothesis of Fuchs cannot be maintained. In my opinion, the -ma marks, as enclitic particle (GAG §123), the end of Tammaritu’s titulary and makes the connection to the second person of the indirect object ŠEŠ AD-šu. Then the phrase becomes ‘they delivered him (Huban-nikaš II) in the hands of Tammaritu, the heir of Ummanigaš, and of his uncle’. In this interpretation the genitive chain ŠEŠ AD-šu is consequently connected to Tammaritu. In his translation of the sentence, Fuchs indirectly supports -ma ‘und zwar’ as a connecting element. ‘Sie lieferten ihn [Huban-nikaš II.] dem Tammaritu aus, dem Sohn wiederum eines Ummanigaš, (und zwar) eines Bruders seines (des Ummanigaš II.) Vaters (= Urtak)’

Thirdly, in order to give this additional Huban-nikaš, father of Tammaritu, a place in the Hubanid family tree, Fuchs (2003, 136) connects the genitive chain ŠEŠ AD-šu to the direct object -šú ‘him’, being Huban-nikaš II. In fact, Fuchs claims that both -šú suffixes, the possessive postposition in the genitive chain and the direct object added to the verb, refer to the Elamite king Huban-nikaš II. In the case of the direct object, connecting the sentence to the previous paragraph on the reign of Huban-nikaš II (BIWA 83, K2654:29-32), the identification with Huban-nikaš II is secure. However, since the second -šú is used in an entirely different context within the sentence, there is no reason to assume that the postpositions represent a single reference. Instead, as stated above, -šú should neither be connected to Huban-nikaš II (direct object) nor to the other Huban-nikaš, but to Tammaritu. In my opinion, the analysis of Fuchs has to be rejected on literary as well as on historical grounds. The most significant historical objection is the fact that he reconstructs the Hubanid family tree in an upward direction instead of downwards. By adding yet another brother to the second generation of Hubanids (Huban-haltaš, Urtak, Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak), of which Huban-haltaš II had reached an adult age by 681 BC, Fuchs has to bridge a gap of about 30 years in a single generation. By the time Tammaritu came into power, most third generation Hubanids had already deceased. If Tammaritu belonged to the third generation, as Fuchs suggests, he would certainly have reached an old age taking into account the average life expectancy in the 1st millennium BC.33 If we keep in mind Tammaritu’s future, taking over power, fleeing on rafts to Assyria, regaining the throne by returning to Elam with the Assyrian army, taken hostage during his second tenure and pulling the chariot of Assurbanipal in 645 BC, he must have been a young man during his first tenure. Since Tammaritu’s companions at his escape to Assyria were fourth generation Hubanids, it is highly likely that Tammaritu belonged to the same generation. Therefore, the transliteration IBILA is most accurate. If we read IBILA or ‘heir of Huban-nikaš II’, the family is reconstructed in a downward direction. In order to reconcile the two text fragments (K2825 and K2654), Tammaritu must be considered the heir of Huban-nikaš II by force, not by descent. Nevertheless, Tammaritu was a full blood descendant of the TeptiHuban-Inšušinak branch of the Elamite royal house of the Hubanids, as he was the biological son of Hubanhaltaš, son of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I. If one looks for the brother of Tammaritu’s father, the passage might refer to an unattested brother of Huban-haltaš, son of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I. Since the Assyrian Annals confirm that several sons of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I were still alive during the siege of the frontier fortress Bit-Imbi in 647 BC (BIWA F iii 57-61), it is not unlikely that Tammaritu’s uncle was living in Bit-Imbi and 33

In the Ancient Near East, people had a short life span, having to live with little food and many illnesses. The average life expectancy, according to Liverani (2013, 24), is not more than 25 to 30 years old. Van Driel (1998, 173), on the other hand, expected that if children managed to get past the age of 10, they had a good chance of reaching the age of 40. If one takes the living conditions of the Hubanid family into account (famines in Elam, permanent war threat, continuous travels between Elam and Assyria), it is hard to imagine that the second generation of Hubanids was still alive when the fourth generation was old enough to claim the Elamite throne.

52

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

Huban-haltaš I, king of Elam

Huban-haltaš II, king of Elam

Tammaritu, commander Til-Tuba

Tammaritu, king of Elam

Urtak, king of Elam

Untaš, commander Mangisu

daughter X

Šuma-iddin

Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I, king of Elam

Huban-haltaš

Para

unnamed son

Huban-haltaš

Šuma Family tree 6: New proposition for the genealogy of Tammaritu, king of Elam

had sufficient political power to support his nephew. The sons of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak that are known through the Assyrian sources, Tammaritu and Untaš, were both killed in battle. The description of Tammaritu’s character in the Assyrian Annals as dangerous/evil (ekṣu) provides an interesting parallel to the representation of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I’s nature (BIWA B vii 45). The fact that the family branch had never fled Elam, but had built up their life after the death of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak in the frontier fortress Bit-Imbi (BIWA F iii 57-61) means they still had a strong claim on the throne. The overthrowing of Huban-nikaš II and Tammaritu of Hidalu may have been perceived as the restoration of Elamite kingship. This Hubanid branch probably chose Bit-Imbi as refugee place because it was near to the territory of their Babylonian allies and offered therefore more protection than the highlands. It was only during the first reign of Huban-haltaš III that Assurbanipal seized Bit-Imbi (BIWA F iii 46-48). Another illustration of this strong connection with the Babylonian ruling elite is the marriage of Tammaritu’s sister to Šum-iddina, a member of the Gaḫal family. The Gaḫal family descended from the Babylonian king Nergal-ušezib (694-693 BC), who had seized the throne of Babylon with the help of the Elamites (PNA 418-419). Presumably the flight of Šuma, the son of the sister (DUMU.NIN, mar aḫātišu) of Tammaritu and a descent of the Babylonian Gaḫal family, from Elam (ABL 282) has to be seen in the light of political unrest in Elam (651-650 BC). Frame (1992, 168 n. 175) suggested that Šuma’s paternal ancestry was significant to strengthen ties between the Babylon and Elam, since an Elamite princess was married into the pro-Elamite Gaḫal family. According to the letter of the Assyrian general Bel-ibni (ABL 282; K524; de Vaan 1995, 248249), Šuma was living in the country of his mother, which may imply that contrary to the Mesopotamian matrimonial traditions, Šuma’s father Šum-iddina was actually married into the Elamite royal family of the Hubanids. When the Elamite king Tammaritu was dethroned after an internal revolution incited by his pro-Assyrian servant Indabibi (BIWA A vi 11; F iii 19-20), Šuma fled most likely from Elam into the arms of Bel-ibni. He must have feared for his life under the regime of Indabibi. The use of the Akkadian term mar aḫātišu in Bel-ibni’s letter could suggest that this Šuma had a genealogical claim on the Elamite throne (Brinkman 1984, 30 n. 34; Waters 2000, 64 n. 53), comparable to the Elamite king Šutruk-Nahhunte II (cf. supra). The combination

53

THE SECOND NEO-ELAMITE DYNASTY: THE HUBANIDS (C. 688-650 BC)

THE SECOND NEO-ELAMITE DYNASTY

Huban-haltaš II, king of Elam

Šutur-Nahhunte, king of Hidalu

Kutur-Nahhunte Paru

Huban-amni

Huban-kitin (?)

Huban-nikaš II, king of Elam

unnamed son

Huban-amni Urtak, king of Elam

Huban-appa Huban-kitin Tammaritu, king of Hidalu unnamed son

Huban-haltaš I, king of Elam

several daughters

Tammaritu, commander Til-Tuba Untaš, commander Mangisu Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I, king of Elam

daughter

X

Urtak

Tammaritu, king of Elam daughter

X Šuma-iddin

Šuma

Huban-haltaš Para-x unnamed son, uncle Tammaritu

Huban-haltaš

Probable affiliation King of Elam Family tree 7: New proposition for the genealogy of the Hubanid dynasty

54

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

of Šuma living in Elam and the description of his kinship as to the Elamite king Tammaritu reinforces the hypothesis that, if Tammaritu, king of Elam, remained childless, Šuma was the actual successor of Tammaritu and heir to the throne of Elam Not only Šuma fled for Indabibi, also the Elamite king Tammaritu and the royal family escaped Elam. Two epigraphs are related to Tammaritu’s escape from Elam (BIWA 315). In the first epigraph Tammaritu sailed to Southern Babylonia (ina qereb marrati), probably via the Persian Gulf, where Assurbanipal granted him and his subjects asylum. A second epigraph recounts on the stranding of Tammaritu’s boat in muddy waters, which most likely refer to the marshes of Southern Babylonia. Upon arrival, the Assyrian general Bel-ibni (ABL 284; de Vaan 1995, 252) sent the Elamite king Tammaritu and his entourage, including his brother (not known by name), his family, the descendants of his father’s house and 85 Elamite dignitaries (rubê; CT 54, 187: 2-4 states 40 dignitaries), together with the Assyrian eunuch Marduk-šar-uṣur34 to the Assyrian court (BIWA B vii 58-76, C viii 48-68, F iii 17-32, A iv 9-41). According to Baker (PNA 728), the journey must be dated in the late 650s after the appointment of Bel-ibni in the month Ayaru (II) of 650 BC (Waters 2000, 65).

4. THE ELAMITE REBEL KINGS (650-645 BC) During the five years following the end of the reign of Tammaritu, the last king of the Hubanid dynasty, Elamite internal politics escalated in a struggle for power between pro- and anti-Assyrian political and military fractions. The Elamite kings, consequently representing the opposing ideologies, failed to calm down the rivaling parties and bring stability to the Elamite political landscape. The Assyrian king Assurbanipal happily took advantage of the internal impasse to strengthen his own influence on Elam. 4.1. Indabibi (650/49-648 BC)35 Indabibi came into power after a coup d’état (BIWA B vii 54 = C viii 60; A iv 11) instigated by members of the royal entourage. Since Indabibi was referred to as a servant of Tammaritu I in the Annals of Assurbanipal (BIWA 42, 110), he was most likely not a blood relative of the ruling Hubanid royal family, but a member of the rebellious court nobility. After he had expelled the royal family from Elam, he proclaimed himself king of Elam and recognized the Assyrian supremacy (BIWA B vii 77-8 = C ix 45-46). Bel-ibni’s correspondence kept the Assyrian king informed on Indabibi’s revolt (ABL 1459; de Vaan 1995, 326). The initial ElamiteAssyrian coalition might imply that Indabibi received Assyrian support for his coup d’état (CT 54 520; de Vaan 1995, 352-353). The regnal dates of Indabibi are difficult to establish. Three historical references provide a relative date for his accession. Firstly, edition C of the Assurbanipal’s Annals (BIWA C viii 69-ix 44) inserts the Assyrian offensive against the Babylonian king Šamaš-šum-ukin between the flight of Tammaritu and the installation of Indabibi as king of Elam. If the Annals give a chronological account of the events, Indabibi came into power during the Šamaš-šum-ukin rebellion (652-648 BC). Secondly, Indabibi’s accession date must be situated after Bel-ibni’s appointment in Sealand (second month of 650 BC), since Indabibi is mentioned regularly in the latter’s correspondence to the Assyrian king. Thirdly, a letter (ABL 1151) from Assurbanipal to Indabibi in which he calls the latter ‘my brother’ provides a terminus ante quem for the beginning of Indabibi’s reign. The letter is dated to 649 BC in the eponymy of Aḫu-ilāya (Millard 1994, 62), which assures us that by then Indabibi was already in power. Indabibi sent greeting gifts to Assurbanipal (BIWA B vii 77-78), which led Waters (2000, 66) to assume that there was an adê-agreement, with Assurbanipal as the dominant partner. Assurbanipal’s friendly salutation 34

The role of Marduk-šar-uṣur in the flight of the royal Elamite family to Assyria is difficult to determine. For a more detailed description, see PNA 278-279, n. 21-22. 35 In early publications the name of this king was usually read in-da-bi-gaš. Based on the Persepolis writing of the Elamite in-da-pi-pi (Hallock 1969, 702), the name should be read Indabibi in the Assyrian sources (Brinkman 1984, 101 n. 506; PNA 542-543).

THE ELAMITE REBEL KINGS (650-645 BC)

55

in his letter to Indabibi (ABL 1151) confirms an alliance between the two kings by 649 BC. As perhaps agreed in the treaty, Indabibi promised to release Assyrian prisoners that had been sent to Elam by the Sealand prince Nabu-bel-šumati, grandson of Merodach-baladan II (BIWA B vii 78-92 = C ix 46-58, also Malbran-Labat 1975). With the kingship of Indabibi, a pro-Assyrian fraction controlled Elam. Two years later, at the most, by the end of the reign of Indabibi, not much was left over of the ElamiteAssyrian alliance. The Elamite king apparently changed his opinion and did not release the Assyrian prisoners nor did he arrange the extradition of Nabu-bel-šumati, who had fled to Elam (BIWA C ix 59-86). Consequently, Assurbanipal threatened to march upon Elam, attack the royal cities Susa, Madaktu and Hidalu, dethrone Indabibi and make him suffer the same fate as Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I. When consequently the inhabitants of Elam got news of the Assyrian menace and impending raid, they revolted against their king and murdered him (BIWA C ix 83). The change in Indabibi’s attitude is corroborated by an Assyrian report recounting how Bel-ibni presumably intercepted a letter from an Elamite messenger to the palace herald of Indabibi, in which the plans for an anti-Assyrian Elamite revolt were revealed (ABL 622+; de Vaan 1995, 276). 36 Frame (1992, 185) suspects that Indabibi’s hostile attitude had much to do with the political asylum that Assurbanipal had granted to the Elamite royal Hubanid family. When Indabibi heard that his ally had welcomed Tammaritu in his palace, he probably felt betrayed and may therefore have changed his opinion on the release of the prisoners to Assurbanipal.

4.2. Huban-haltaš III (648-647 BC) Throughout the period 648-645 BC, the Assyrian sources consider Huban-haltaš III the most prominent figure in Elam. His reign, however, was repeatedly interrupted by internal Elamite uprisings and Assyrian military campaigns against Elam. The exact date of Huban-haltaš III’s accession is not clearly given in the Mesopotamian source material (Frame 1992, 186). Huban-haltaš III’s first tenure of office started most likely after the Assyrians had put down the Šamaš-šum-ukin insurrection in Babylon, which took place at the earliest in 648 BC (Frame 1992, 155-156). The last Babylonian economic document (BM 40577; Waters 2000, 68), assigned to the reign of Šamaš-šum-ukin, is dated to 30-V-648 BC, which is accordingly the earliest date for the end of the Šamaš-šum-ukin revolt. The circumstances in which Huban-haltaš III rose to power remain vague as well. The conquest of Babylon might have accelerated the Elamite rebellion against Indabibi, because the Assyrian army had defeated the Babylonian king Šamaš-šum-ukin, who had been the most loyal ally of the Elamites. If the Elamites did not agree upon the wishes of the Assyrian king to extradite Nabu-bel-šumati, there was now an imminent threat of an Assyrian raid (Frame 1992, 186; Waters 2000, 66). In Edition A of the Annals (BIWA A iii 100-102), Assurbanipal claims to have installed Huban-haltaš III, son of Attametu, on the Elamite throne in Madaktu. It is, however, possible that Assurbanipal takes too much credit for Huban-haltaš III’s appointment. All depends on the date of the letter (ABL 460; de Vaan 1995, 259-261; Waters 2000, 68) in which the Assyrian general Bel-ibni reports to his king that the Elamite nobility led by Ummanšibar had started a widespread revolt. Waters (2000, 69) wondered whether Ummanšibar revolted against the Elamite king Indabibi or Huban-haltaš III. De Vaan (1995, 61, 261) dated the letter (ABL 460), in which the Ummanšibar revolt is described, to the winter of 649 BC. Nevertheless, the letter also indicates that Nabu-bel-šumati imprisoned Bel-ibni’s brother, Belšunu, for four years. Belšunu belonged to the group of Assyrian prisoners that Nabu-bel-šumati had sent to Elam during the initial phase of the Sealand rebellion against Assyria. Since the rebellion of Nabu-bel-šumati started most likely in 651 BC and Belšunu was according to this letter already a prisoner for four years, the letter must be dated to either 648 or 647 BC (Waters 2000, 68). Therefore, the dating of de Vaan is incorrect (PNA 331-332). For the period 648-647 BC, the Assyrian Annals register a revolt of the Elamite inhabitants against Indabibi (BIWA C ix 85-86), whereas the Elamite population remained loyal to Huban-haltaš III until 36

Despite the lack of conclusive evidence on the subject, it is tempting to identify the palace herald with Ummanšibar (Waters 2000, 68-69; ABL 521). The insurrection described in ABL 622+ could then refer to the Ummanšibar revolt against Indabibi in ABL 460 (cf. infra).

56

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

after the second Assyrian retaliatory attack (646 BC; BIWA A x 6-10). Hence, the Ummanšibar rebellion must have been directed against Indabibi based on the information in the Assyrian Annals. In this case, the Elamite Ummanšibar was responsible for the dethronement of Indabibi. Despite Assurbanipal’s claim, the accession of Huban-haltaš III proves to be the result of an internal Elamite power struggle, in which the Assyrians may have had a hand, but not the final responsibility. More evidence favoring this interpretation can be found in a fragmentary letter from Assurbanipal to Ummanšibar (ABL 1170) describing the revolt. This letter is dated to 25-IV-648 BC, establishing the approximate accession date for the reign of Huban-haltaš III. In addition, it is likely that Ummanšibar was already politically active during the last months of Indabibi’s reign (CT 54 282). Several other Assyrian letters referring to Ummanšibar belong to the reign of Huban-haltaš III (ABL 281, 460, 792; Waters 2002a, 85-86). Keeping in mind the political climate in Elam, it is highly unlikely that Ummanšibar supported both kings. Since Ummanšibar’s political commitment continued during the reign of Huban-haltaš III, he assumedly revolted against Indabibi. Ummanšibar was probably counselor of Huban-haltaš III (ABL 521), perhaps even palace herald (ABL 281), and must have belonged to the same political fraction. Even though the Assyrian Annals assign Huban-haltaš III’s nomination as king of Elam to the failure of his predecessor to deliver Nabu-bel-šumati to Assyria, Huban-haltaš III’s own political background and connections may have largely contributed to his royal appointment. As suggested by the historical sources, Huban-haltaš III was a member of the military apparatus, rather than a member of the Elamite Hubanid dynasty. The father of Huban-haltaš III, Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak (Attametu), may have been the commander of the archers (rab qašti) during the reign of Huban-nikaš II (Waters 2000, 69). Years later, he fought under the command of Untaš, son of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak, in the battle of Mangisu.37 Since the office of commander of the archers was one of the prominent military positions in the Elamite army, it was probably assigned to a member of the royal family or of the closely related nobility. This may connect the father of Huban-haltaš III to the royal family of the Hubanids. His son, Huban-haltaš III probably was married to a daughter of Imbappi, the commander of the archers and prefect of Bit-Imbi. diš

Im-ba-ap-pi LÚ qe-e-pu šá URU É dišim-bi-i

LÚ

ḫa-tan dišum-man-al-da-si LUGAL KUR.NIM.MA.KI BIWA A v 1-2

Borger (BIWA, 46-47) interpreted LÚ ḫatanu as ‘son-in-law’, which would mean that Imbappi was the son-in-law of Huban-haltaš III and that Imbappi was married to a daughter of Huban-haltaš III. If Imbappi, commander of the archers (BIWA F iii 53), and the prefect Imbappi (BIWA A v 1) were the same person and Huban-haltaš III was the son of Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak, commander of the archers, then Huban-haltaš III would still have been a relatively young man when he was crowned king of Elam. Imbappi on the other hand must have been of a certain age to be entrusted with one of the most important frontier fortresses of Elam, being the gate to the kingdom. Taking this into account, the most appropriate translation for LÚ ḫatanu in this passage is father-in-law, resulting in Imbappi being the father-in-law of Huban-haltaš III, king of Elam. It is therefore highly possible that Imbappi helped his son-in-law Huban-haltaš III to conquer the Elamite throne. Since Imbappi served in Bit-Imbi where Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak’s family resided, Imbappi and Huban-haltaš III must have belonged to the same anti-Assyrian fraction as Tammaritu and they must have had political allies amongst the highest court officials. Through this political and military connection, Huban-haltaš III could have been the primary benefactor of the palace revolt of Ummanšibar. During Huban-haltaš III’s first tenure, Assurbanipal launched a large military campaign against Elam, which was mainly directed towards Bit-Imbi (BIWA A iv 126-132; G 1E II’ 29’-37’). Since Assurbanipal had to get past the Elamite frontier fortress Bit-Imbi before he could invade the Elamite kingdom, the Assyrian army must have advanced from the direction of Babylon. Assurbanipal conducted his fifth campaign38 in the month Simanu (III) of 648 or 647 BC, accompanied by Tammaritu, the former king of Elam. Assuming that 37

The inscriptions of the Elamite king Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak (EKI 86-89) are dated to the late Neo-Elamite period based on linguistic and palaeographic grounds (cf. infra). An identification of Attametu in the Assyrian Annals with the late Elamite king Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak is therefore excluded. 38 The number of the campaigns differs in the several versions of the Annals. Alternatively, this campaign is called the 7th campaign.

THE ELAMITE REBEL KINGS (650-645 BC)

57

Assurbanipal did not launch a major military campaign against Huban-haltaš III before the fall of Babylon (V/648), the Assurbanipal campaign must have occurred in the third month of the upcoming year 647 BC.39 During the siege of Bit-Imbi, Assurbanipal caught another commander of the archers, namely Sikdê, the brother of Huban-haltaš III, and had him executed afterwards (CT 54, 567). Other victims of the Bit-Imbi siege were the relatives of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I and Huban-haltaš III’s father-in-law Imbappi (Waters 2000, 70). When Huban-haltaš III received information on the Assyrian army marching into Elam, he left his royal city Madaktu for his stronghold in the Elamite highlands (BIWA C ix 24’-28’; A v 11-4 = F iii 62-65). Unfortunately, the exact location or name of this refuge city is not known.

4.3. Huban-habua (647 BC) & Tammaritu (647 BC) When Huban-haltaš III abandoned his capital Madaktu to escape into the mountains (647 BC), Susiana fell temporarily out of the scope of his authority. According to Waters (2000, 71) Huban-habua, a local ruler of the Susiana city Pupilu40 took advantage of the political situation. Unaware of the approaching Assyrian danger, he took the Elamite throne after Huban-haltaš III had fled to the mountains. Fuchs (2003, 133) suggested that Huban-habua came into power at the same time as Huban-haltaš III after the uprising of the Elamite elite against Indabibi. The events of 648/7 BC in the Annals should therefore be read as a parallel rather than a chronological account. According to Fuchs (2003, 133), the description of Huban-habua as miḫret Ummanaldaš should be understood as rival king (BIWA C ix 29’-30’, F iii 66-67). However, Huban-habua is never actually called ‘king of Elam’ in the Assyrian Annals, but an ‘opponent’ (miḫirtu: CAD M/2, 52) occupying the Elamite throne. This position insinuates already his unfounded claim on the Elamite kingdom. If the ancestry of Huban-haltaš III is accurately restored and the family connections were actually interwoven with the Elamite crown (cf. supra), then Huban-haltaš III had gathered a wide range of partisans, even when he was not actually affiliated with the Hubanids. And if he was generally accepted by the population as the Elamite king during his first tenure, the political survival of an opponent king in Susiana would have been unlikely. Therefore, the Annals did give a chronological passage of their reign, as Waters (2000, 71) suggested. The fact that Huban-habua was called an opponent probably reflects the Assyrian perspective on the Elamite authority. Even though Huban-haltaš III had escaped his royal city, he remained king of Elam. Accordingly, another ruler proclaiming himself Elamite king would be addressed in the Assyrian sources as opponent or rival of Huban-haltaš III. There is no further information on the extent and duration of his reign, but Huban-habua’s claim on Elam must have lasted for no more than a couple months between the flight of Huban-haltaš III into the mountains and the arrival of the Assyrian legions in Susiana to battle against the Elamite king Huban-haltaš III in 647 BC. Huban-habua too fled for the approaching Assyrian army to the ‘deep distant waters’ (BIWA A v 20 = F iii 69; C ix 29’-x 4’). Since the Assyrian army advanced from the northeast and Huban-haltaš III had settled in the southern mountains, Huban-habua’s only remaining escape route was through the Persian Gulf. The reign of Huban-habua was probably no more than a short-lived uprising of a rebel king, rather than a new established authority over Elam (Waters 2000, 71). Tammaritu, the Elamite king who had previously been stripped off his royal power by his servant Indabibi, was escorted to Susa by the Assyrian army to become reinstalled as king of Elam (BIWA A v 21-22 = F iii 70-71), while Huban-haltaš III was still hiding in his mountain stronghold. The officials in service of Bel-ibni helped Tammaritu to regain the Elamite throne (ABL 1311; de Vaan 1995, 313-317). These officials were called nigdi-ya (de Vaan 1995, 316 n. 35), which may be derived from the Aramaic ngd (Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995, 714). Since several Aramaean tribes were dwelling in the frontier regions between Bel-ibni’s Southern 39

An elaborated analysis of the dates of the first Assyrian campaign against Huban-haltaš III can be found in Frame (1992, Appendix E) and Waters (2000, 70, 117-18). 40 The toponym Pupilu is located by modern scholarship in the Susiana plain (Vallat 1993, 51; Parpola 1970, 93). Bupilu/a is also attested in the Susa Acropole texts (S. 12; S. 34; S. 38; S. 40; S. 100; S. 112; S. 130; S. 138; S. 152; S. 184; S. 211; S. 220). It is suggested that the toponym might refer to Babylon (M. Lambert 1967, 50), which is in this context rather unlikely.

58

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

Babylonian jurisdiction and the Elamite Susiana, this seems a plausible statement. The installation of Tammaritu I as vassal king in Susa, rather than in Madaktu, indicates that Assurbanipal’s first campaign against Huban-haltaš III did not extend beyond Susiana (Waters 2000, 71). The second tenure of Tammaritu as king is not well documented. The start of his reign can be dated shortly after the first Assyrian campaign against Huban-haltaš III (the third month of 647 BC). Assurbanipal expected to have a new loyal ally on the Elamite throne, who wholeheartedly recognized the supreme power of the Assyrian king (ABL 1022). However, after a couple of months, Tammaritu I rebelled against his Assyrian overlord (BIWA F iii 72-74; ABL 1311+). He counted on the support of the Elamites (BIWA A v 25), but had not many supporters left. He was taken prisoner, stripped off his power and handed over to Assurbanipal in Nineveh. There, Tammaritu I was forced to recognize the Assyrian supremacy once again (BIWA F ii 72-81 = A v 23-40). Apparently, Assurbanipal kept him alive at the Nineveh court as prisoner of war. Later on, a palace relief (Barnett 1976, 46 pl. 34; BM 124793) depicts Tammaritu together with two other rebel kings pulling the chariot of Assurbanipal, indicating their humiliating fate in Assyria.

4.4. Huban-haltaš III & Pa’e (647-645 BC) With Tammaritu I back in Assyria, Huban-haltaš III reclaimed the throne of Elam. His second tenure of office was overshadowed by the second Assyrian campaign against him soon after his accession (BIWA F iv 17-18 = A v 63-64). The main reason for the continued Elamite-Assyrian hostility appeared to be the fact that the Elamite king still did not succeed in handing over Nabu-bel-šumati to Assurbanipal (ABL 792; BM 132980; Waters 2002a, 81-84). According to Frame (1992, 207), Huban-haltaš III’s inability to force the Elamite elite to extradite Nabu-bel-šumati shows the widespread internal division in Elam and the weakened position of its king. During the second Assyrian campaign against Huban-haltaš III, the Assyrian troops succeeded in intruding much deeper into Elamite territory, because they already controlled the frontier fortress Bit-Imbi (BIWA F iv 20 = A v 66). Huban-haltaš III fled from his royal residence in Madaktu to Dur-Untaš (BIWA F iv 25-28 = A v 71-76), where, his position became precarious as well (ABL 462). He did not wait the result of the battle with the superior Assyrian army at Dur-Untaš and escaped once again to the mountains (BIWA F iv 53-54 = A v 111-112), leaving the Assyrian army a free passage to conquer the Elamite lowland and beyond, as far as the borders of Hidalu (BIWA F iv 29-43 = A v 77-92; F iv 55-66 = A v 113-125), during a campaign which lasted a month and twenty-five days (BIWA F v 55 = A vi 77). By looting the Elamite cultic capital Susa (646 BC), the Assyrian troops proved to be a destructive force, but not an occupying one. When the Assyrians returned to Nineveh with their war booty, the Elamite king Huban-haltaš III was able to leave his refugee city and inspect the damage in his capital city Madaktu (646 BC). In the aftermath of this Assyrian punitive expedition another short-lived Elamite ruler Pa’e arose. Like Huban-habua, Pa’e is described as an opponent (miḫirtu) of king Huban-haltaš III (BIWA A vii 51-81). If we follow the chronological sequence of events recounted in the Annals of Assurbanipal, Pa’e took over control of Elam after the second campaign against Huban-haltaš III (646 BC) (Waters 2000, 77). Although his royal residence is unattested, it is likely that Pa’e claimed kingship of Elam in Susa, while Huban-haltaš III was returning from his mountain fortress to his capital Madaktu. It is clear from the Assyrian letters that Assurbanipal did not recognize the royal authority of Pa’e, when he restarted negotiations with Huban-haltaš III on the extradition of Nabu-bel-šumati. However, faced with Huban-haltaš III’s recalcitrant reaction, Pa’e soon gave up claim to the Elamite throne and asked Assurbanipal for asylum in Nineveh (BIWA A vii 51-57). Once in Assyria, Pa’e submitted to Assurbanipal (Fuchs 1996, 278 = IIT 104) where he was ordered to pull the royal chariot of Assurbanipal to the ceremonial offering at the Emašmaš and the Ešarra temple (Fuchs 1996, 281 = IIT 118). Very little is known about the descent of Pa’e. Several scholars (Stolper 1984, 52; Waters 2000, 77 n. 48) have tried to make a link with a Neo-Assyrian letter (ABL 1115), in which a man called Pa’e is the LÚ qēpu of kurAramu, the royal representative of the land of the Arameans (Zadok 1985b, 27). Waters (2000, 77)

THE ELAMITE REBEL KINGS (650-645 BC)

59

noticed that it is tempting to assume that a high-ranked Aramean official in control of the border regions would have gained access to the Elamite throne. In a later text edition of this letter, however, Luukko & Van Buylaere (2002, 137) dated the letter to the reign of Esarhaddon, based on the eponym names in parallel texts. They read kur Araše for the toponym kurAramu, which was a mountainous region east of Der under Elamite control, perhaps in the southern part of the modern Iranian province Ilam (Young 1967, 15; Zadok 1985a, 260). In my opinion, the redating of the text in combination to the changed geographical location confirms the assumption of two homonymous individuals. After the sack of Susa (646 BC) and the retreat of the Assyrian army, Huban-haltaš III returned to his royal residence Madaktu (BIWA A vii 9-15) and recaptured the Elamite throne for a third tenure of office (646-645 BC). Assurbanipal stated again that his primary motive for his continuous attention towards Elam was the asylum of Nabu-bel-šumati that had been granted by the successive Elamite kings Huban-nikaš II, Tammaritu, Indabibi and Huban-haltaš III (BIWA A vii 15-50; ABL 1286). Fearing Assurbanipal’s reaction, Huban-haltaš III must have concluded an agreement (K3093 = SAA 3, 22) with the Assyrians to deliver Nabu-bel-šumati. A manifestation of this Elamite rapprochement to the Assyrian king is attested in the greeting clause of a letter from Huban-haltaš III to Assurbanipal, in which he addressed the latter as ‘my brother’ (ABL 879). With the decreasing support of the Elamite nobility and the death of his patron Umhuluma (ABL 281), Nabu-bel-šumati became afraid and committed suicide. Huban-haltaš III sent the body of Nabu-bel-šumati packed in salt to Nineveh (BIWA A vii 38-47) on 26-IV-645 BC, during the eponymy of Nabu-šar-ahhēšu (ABL 879; Millard 1994, 75). In order to gain the goodwill of the Assyrian king, Huban-haltaš III put the blame of the failure of capturing Nabu-bel-šumati on the Martenaean tribe that would have protected the Chaldean refugee, and promised to punish them (ABL 879). An Assyrian document according to which Huban-haltaš III must have violated the treaty with Assurbanipal was the immediate cause of the new Assyrian campaign: This is a strong king [......]! Mullissu and the Lady of Arbela [......]; he has no enemy who can rebel against his treaty [and escape unpunished]! (K3093 = SAA 3, 22:10-12). Although we are not aware of the treaty’s context, several factors can be found which provoked Assurbanipal’s reaction. The Assyrian Annals (BIWA A x 6-7) name the refusal of the Elamite king to recognize the Assyrian superiority as the reason for Assurbanipal vexation, although his discontent on the Elamite completion of the Nabu-bel-šumati affair would have been sufficient to launch a new campaign. Huban-haltaš III’s attitude towards Assyria induced a servant of Huban-haltaš III to start a rebellion against his king.41 Having no support left, Huban-haltaš III fled on his own to his mountain stronghold where Assurbanipal captured him alive (BIWA A x 8-16). The sculptures in the North palace of Assurbanipal refer to the Assyrian capture of Huban-haltaš III in the city of Murūbisi (Barnett 1976, 46 pl. 34; Russell 1999, 205).42 Huban-haltaš III was taken to Assyria where he was forced to pull the royal carriage of Assurbanipal in the triumph parade at Nineveh together with the other Elamite dissidents Tammaritu I and Pa’e (BIWA A x 17-39). An Assyrian letter (ABL 280; de Vaan 1995, 240-241) describing the opposition of a local ruler Hubannikaš, son of Amedirra, against Huban-haltaš III is difficult to situate in time. This man succeeded in gathering the people from the Hudhud River until the city Haidanu to battle against the Elamite army of Huban-haltaš III across the Hudhud River. Waters (2000, 73) situated the attempt of the usurper Huban-nikaš to grasp Elamite power during or soon after the first Assyrian campaign against Huban-haltaš III. De Vaan argued that the letter describing the rebellion of Huban-nikaš was written in 645 BC, when the body of Nabu-bel-šumate was already delivered to the Assyrian king in Nineveh. If that is the case, Huban-nikaš could have been the servant of Huban-haltaš III who fostered the widespread desertion of loyalty amongst the Elamite subjects. This suggestion remains, however, hypothetical. After the capture of Huban-haltaš III, textual sources become silent on Neo-Elamite royal power. Elam was not left desolated as the Assyrians claimed, but destabilized. It was unable to form a military threat against 41

De Vaan (1995, 19, 30) assumes that Huban-haltaš III ruled Elam until 638 BC, without presenting arguments for this idea. Waters (2000, 80 n. 60) has suggested that the toponym Murubisi might be identical to Marubištu, the refugee place of the Ellipian prince Nibê and his Elamite supporters. 42

60

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

the Assyrians, who now had to deal with the Arabian rebellions in the west of the Empire. Since the Assyrians turned their attention to the west, there is an absence of information on the eastern provinces in the Assyrian source material, including the succession of Huban-haltaš III and the recovery of the Neo-Elamite kingdom. Perhaps the local ruler Huban-nikaš, son of Amedirra, did gain control over Elam for a while after the capture of Huban-haltaš III.

5. THE KINGS OF ELAM AFTER THE SACK OF SUSA (645-520 BC) Since Mesopotamian sources on the royal dynastic history of the late Neo-Elamite kingdom (645-520 BC) are absent, indigeneous Elamite textual sources receive once again a prominent role in the historical reconstruction of the Elamite monarchy, even if these inscriptions lack dating formulas and precise references to historical events. Chronological markers are obtained through internal philological analysis of the inscriptions in order to establish a relative genealogy of the late Neo-Elamite kings. However, an important challenge when working with the scanty late Neo-Elamite textual evidence is to keep in mind that we do not possess every piece of information to provide an overall sequence of late Neo-Elamite kings. By consequence, scholars studying the chronology of the late Neo-Elamite period have to accept that there will be gaps in the source material, such as the succession of Huban-haltaš III, and that it is hitherto impossible to explain every gap. Admitting that we do not know a part of the late Neo-Elamite dynastic succession can be more valuable to future research than unsubstantiated hypotheses. In general scholars assume that after the sack of Susa (646 BC), the Neo-Elamite society was unrooted and that the land had to be rebuilt from scratch. However, archaeological material does not plead in favor of a total destruction of the heart of Elam. In the strategraphy of the Ville royale and the Apadana no so-called ‘destruction layers’ were discovered (de Miroschedji 1978; 1981a; 1981b). This suggests that the army of Assurbanipal has not acted as aggressively as the Assyrian Annals want us to believe (BIWA F iv 69-F v 1). From this perspective, one cannot actually speak of a late Neo-Elamite political revival, but rather of continuity as also the ceramic assemblage shows (de Miroschedji 1981a; 1981b). If political transformations occurred in the late Neo-Elamite period, this was merely to adapt the Neo-Elamite kingdom to international and internal changes in order to survive. In this case, one cannot speak from an abrupt decline and revival, but from gradual modifications of a government system to preserve the continuity of the kingdom.

5.1. Šutur-Nahhunte (c. 635-610 BC) The reign of the late Neo-Elamite king(s) by the name Šutur-Nahhunte has occupied the thoughts of modern scholars for decades (De Waele 1972; 1976a; 1976b; de Miroschedji 1982; Vallat 1995a; 1996a; 2006a; Tavernier 2004; Potts 1999, 302-303; 2010b, 133). There are five Elamite objects referring to a reign of a Šutur-Nahhunte and a sixth attestation may be connected to it, as indicated in the table below:

Objects of Šutur-Nahhunte alabaster horn (EKI 71) glazed wall figurine (Amiet 1967, 36-37) Izeh rock relief (EKI 75)

Reference diš

d

šu-tur-

ú šu-tur-

šá-a[k

d

PÍR

EŠŠANA

cornelian bead of Schøyen collection (Vallat, 2011a)

diš

šá-ak

hu]-ban-im-me-na-gi-[ik-..]

diš d

hu-ban-im-me-na-gi-ik-ki

d

šu-tur-

šu-tur-

golden disk of Ram Hormuz burials (Shishehgar 2008) Jerusalem cylinder seal (Amiet 1963, n. 34)

PÍR

diš d

d

PÍR

šá-ak in-da-da-ri-na

PÍR DUMU

in-da-da-ir

Šutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada (transliteration not given) diš d

hu-ban-ki-tin DUMU EŠŠANA diššu-tur-dPÍR-na

Table 4: Neo-Elamite references to king Šutur-Nahhunte

61

THE KINGS OF ELAM AFTER THE SACK OF SUSA (645-520 BC)

1) The reign of Šutur-Nahhunte is recorded on a large rock inscription of Hanne, the kutur of Ayapir (EKI 75), who had commissioned the engraving of several rock reliefs (Kul-e Farah & Šekaft-e Salman) in the open-air sanctuary of the Malamir/Izeh mountain gorge (Vanden Berghe 1963, 17; De Waele 1981, 52; 1989, 30; Calmeyer 1988b, 285; Seidl 1997, 202; Potts 1999, 302-303; Carter 1999, 289). In the Kul-e Farah I text, Hanne commemorated his military campaigns in the Šilhite and Tarriša mountains and organized hunting parties to provide animal offerings for a sacrificial feast in the name of his overlord Šutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada (EKI 75:10, EŠŠANA diššu-tur-dPÍR šá-ak in-da-da-ri-na), while in another inscription, he emphasized his building activities (statues and temples) on the already existing reliefs at the Šekaft-e Salman gorge (EKI 76, ŠS III).43 Scheil (1901, 142) assigned both Hanne texts to the first half of the 7th century BC, based on palaeographic grounds, while M. Lambert (1967, 51) placed the reign of Šutur-Nahhunte between 612 and 590 BC. Hinz (1962, 105) linked the inscriptions to the reign of Šutruk-Nahhunte II (717-699 BC), because he considered Šutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada, and Šutruk-Nahhunte II, son of Huban-immena, to be the same person. However, his arguments to assign the rock inscriptions to the reign of Šutruk-Nahhunte II are weak, since the different patronymic creates genealogical problems. In one of these arguments Hinz (1962, 105) tried to eliminate this problem by translating šak as ‘male descendant’ instead of ‘son’. Therefore, the real father of Šutruk-Nahhunte should be Indada, while Huban-immena is reduced to the status of an ancestor. De Waele (1972, 30-31) refuted this genealogical proposal, but did not offer a more exact date. de Miroschedji

Vallat

Tavernier

Šutur-Nahhunte, son of Huban-immena (Šutruk-Nahhunte II: 668-663 BC) 717-699 BC

Šutur-Nahhunte I, son of Huban-immena/menanu post-689 BC

Šutur-Nahhunte, son of Huban-immena = Šutruk-Nahhunte II 717-699 BC

Šutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada post-646 BC

Šutur-Nahhunte II, father of Huban-kitin (seal, Acropole) end 7th century BC

Šutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada, father of Huban-kitin c. 630-610 BC

Šutur-Nahhunte, father of Huban-kitin 1st half of the 6th century BC

Šutur-Nahhunte III, son of Indada (overlord Hanne + cornelian bead) post-585 BC

/

Table 5: Genealogy of Šutur-Nahhunte proposed by de Miroschedji (1982; 1985), Vallat (1995a; 1996a; 2006a) and Tavernier (2004; 2006)

De Miroschedji (1982, 61-62; 1985, 178) has suggested that, although Šutruk-Nahhunte II (EKI 72-73) and Šutur-Nahhunte were different individuals, they could not be confused with the Šutur-Nahhunte of the Jerusalem cylinder seal (Amiet 1973, 34), who must have reigned after the sack of Susa. Vallat (1995a), supporting the hypothesis of de Miroschedji, identified Šutur-Nahhunte I (EKI 71) as the son of Hubanmenanu (Umman-menanu in Akkadian) of the Babylonian Chronicle, who reigned between 692 and 689 BC. Vallat (1998b, 310) translated the Babylonian Umman-menanu into Huban-imena III in order to match the royal name of Umman-menanu to the patronymic of the Šutur-Nahhunte inscription on the alabaster horn. A second Šutur-Nahhunte, the father of Huban-kitin, must have reigned by consequence after the sack of Susa. A third king by the name of Šutur-Nahhunte is cited in the Malamir rock inscriptions, whom Vallat (1995a; 1996a, 387-389; Vallat apud Steve, Vallat & Gasche 2002/03, 484; 2006a) catalogues amongst the post-585 BC Elamite local kings based on particular linguistic features: a) b) c) d)

the use of the logograms LUGÀL and DUMU rather than su-un-ki/su-gìr and ša-ak/šá-ak the replacement of the locutive suffix -k by -h (ri-ša-ah; ik-ra-an-ah) the labialization of the -n to -m in some verbal forms the suffix -na (dMAN-na; dti-tu-tut-na, in-da-da-ri-na)

43 On iconographic grounds, the Šekaft-e Salman III rock relief has been dated to the 12th century BC (Calmeyer 1980, 110 n. 49; De Waele 1981, 50, 52; Stolper 1987/90, 287; Potts 1999, 253-254). Álvarez-Mon (2013b, 207) suggests a date between 1200 and 950 BC. The large inscription of Hanne, governor of Ayapir, on the Šekaft-e Salman rock (EKI 76) is therefore most likely a secondary composition (Waters 2000, 84).

62

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

The hypothesis of de Miroschedji and Vallat are, however, debateable. In the chapter on the early NeoElamite king Šutruk-Nahhunte II (cf. I.2.2.), I have attributed the alabaster horn of Šutur-Nahhunte (EKI 71) diš šu-tur-dPÍR šá-ak diš dhu-ban-im-me-na-gi-ik-ki and a wall figurine (Amiet 1967, 36-37 fig. 8) to the reign of Šutruk-Nahhunte II, based on palaeographic, linguistic and genealogical arguments. In addition, the two ŠuturNahhunte references in the Acropole (S. 24) and Apadana texts (S. 301) do not tend to be royal individuals. Tavernier proposed additional arguments to date the Hanne inscription to the last quarter of the 7th century BC. The use of broken spellings (/Cil/, /Car/, /Cim/, /Cuš/), as Tavernier (2004, 18-19) suggests, reinforces a late date, since Elamite phonetic sequences were still written harmonically in the late 8th century BC. However, the broken spelling is not yet consequently applied. The /Cid/-sequences are still written harmonically, which may indicate a chronological difference with 6th century BC texts, such as the Persepolis Bronze Plaque (Tavernier 2004, 19). Moreover, the determinative be, which is typical for the 6th century BC inscriptions, is lacking in the Hanne inscription (Tavernier 2004, 18). This feature does occur on the royal Hallutuš-Inšušinak II inscription (EKI 77) and the documentary texts, which may suggest that the Hanne texts display linguistic and orthographic elements belonging to the 7th century BC scribal tradition, and not to that of the 6th century BC. Nevertheless, the dating of the Hanne relief texts on linguistic elements should be approached with the necessary caution, because of the text’s regional character. The nature of the inscription all depends on who had been responsible for commissioning the monument. If royal scribes had carved the Hanne rock inscription on request of the Elamite king, the text would probably have had the same characteristics as inscriptions found in the capital Susa. However, Hanne claims in the Kul-e Farah I text (EKI 75:7; ṣa-al-mu-ú-me a-ah tah) and the Šekaft-e Salman composition (EKI 76:5; ṣa-al-mu-me te-ip-pá tak ki-te-nu-uh) that he ordered the carving of monumental rock relief himself, because the gods Tirutur of Šilhite, dMAN, Napir and Huban commanded him to do so. If Hanne had instigated the rock carvings, then the best relative dating result will be obtained by comparing the linguistic features of the Malamir/Izeh inscriptions with monumental texts from Elamite officials, such as the Šutruru stele (EKI 74). Contrary to royal inscriptions, the linguistic and palaeographic innovations of the contemporary scribal practice evolved faster in non-royal official and documentary texts (Stolper 1987/90, 277). Therefore, Tavernier (2004, 20-21) connected Šutur-Nahhunte, overlord of Hanne, to the Jerusalem seal, making Šutur-Nahhunte the son of Indada and the father of Huban-kitin. Following the hypothesis of Tavernier (2004, 21), three Elamite objects clearly refer to the reign of Šutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada (Malamir rock reliefs, cornelian bead in the Schøyen collection, Ram Hormuz burials) and a fourth attestation (Jerusalem cylinder seal) may be joined to it. Indada

Šutur-Nahhunte

Huban-kitin

Family tree 8: Genealogy of Šutur-Nahhunte

According to Álvarez-Mon (2010a, 49; 2013b, 226-227), who investigated the iconography of the Kul-e Farah I relief, the headdress of Hanne closely resembled the royal headdress of the Neo-Elamite king Huban-haltaš III (646-645 BC) depicted on the Assyrian palace reliefs. The only difference between the hairstyle of Hanne and Huban-haltaš III or the royal figures on the Šekaft-e Salman reliefs is a pair of long braids along the ears, which may indicate Hanne’s non-royal status (Álvarez-Mon 2010a, 202 n. 80). The garment of Hanne is closely related to the polychrome faïence slab from Susa usually dated to the Neo-Elamite period (ML Sb 11411, Bouquillon et al. 2007, 110 fig. 46). Especially the decorative elements of the fringes with metal appliqués in the gown are distinctive features for the 7th to 6th century BC elite garment. Hence, Álvarez-Mon (2010a, 50) concludes that iconographic representations on the Kul-e Farah I relief date between 650 and 550 BC, which supports the linguistic analysis of Tavernier.44 44

Although Álvarez-Mon argues that the Kul-e Farah I scene is the youngest of all Kul-e Farah reliefs, it does not necessarily mean that the relief and the inscription were engraved in the same phase. The uncareful composition of the text between the images, for example the

THE KINGS OF ELAM AFTER THE SACK OF SUSA (645-520 BC)

63

In short, the Izeh rock inscriptions display the power of the Elamite king Šutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada. Hanne, who was probably some sort of governor (kutur) of the Ayapir region, did control a fairy large territory for the king. Hanne’s military campaign to the Šilhite mountains, located to the east of the Kul-e Farah mountain range, and the Tarriša mountains, west of the Šekaft-e Salman cliffs (König 1965, 155), does give an impression on the eastern border of the Elamite kingdom. The fact that Hanne suppressed several revolts in the eastern territories and captured twenty Elamite governors does reflect the political instability of the late 7th century BC in eastern Elam. 2) The cornelian bead preserved in the Schøyen collection gives a reference similar to the Hanne rock relief (EKI 75): šu-tur-dPÍR DUMU in-da-da-ir ha-ni-šá ir ka4-taš-ni dú-ir-šu aše-ul an-za-an-ra du-nu-iš-tá! (Vallat 2011a, 191). It is however unfortunate that the original location of the object cannot be retraced, which would give us an indication on the area of where Šutur-Nahhunte ruled. Based on his late dating of the Kul-e Farah I relief (c. 585-539 BC), Vallat dates the seal inscription to the late Neo-Elamite IIIb period. However, the traditional delocutive -r(a) is still used as grammatical element instead of the late NeoElamite genitive suffix -na, which suggests a 7th century BC date. The inscription on the cornelian bead names the Gate of Anšan as a geographic location. Based on this reference, Vallat (2011a, 191) concluded that Šutur-Nahhunte must have been the last Elamite king to rule the highland region of Anšan before the arrival of the Achaemenid dynasty under Cyrus I (pre-585 BC), which in fact contradicts his post-585 BC dating. The -ra suffix attached to Anšan, on the other hand, is connected to the god Uršu, which makes ‘the gate of Anšan’ an epithet to Uršu, instead of a geographic location. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Elamite king Šutur-Nahhunte ruled the Anšan region (Kur River Basin), as Vallat suggested. Since the god Uršu is exclusively attested on the cornelian bead, his position and function within the Elamite pantheon is difficult to determine. Uršu of the Anšan Gate is very likely a mountain god, protecting the mountain pass(es) that provided the lowland rulers access to the highland, like for instance the corridor between the Ram Hormuz and the Fahliyan or Malamir/Izeh regions. 3) In 2007, a golden disc inscribed with the name Šutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada, was uncovered in an elite burial on the left bank of the Jarrahi River in the Joobji district of Ram Hormuz (Shishehgar 2008; ÁlvarezMon 2013a, 467-448). Shishehgar (2008), who followed Vallat’s (1995a; 1996a; 2006a) reconstruction on the sequence of the late Neo-Elamite kings, dated this family burial hypogeum to the Late Neo-Elamite IIIb period (585-539 BC). Since Vallat’s tripartite division of Šutur-Nahhunte’s is not generally accepted, it seems wiser to follow the dating of Álvarez-Mon. The precious objects of the Ram Hormuz burials, two bronze ‘bathtub’ coffins, filled with a large number of gold jewelry, bronze and glazed pottery, correspond closely to those of the Arjan tomb, which Álvarez-Mon (2010a; 2013a, 468) dated around 600 BC. The two female skeletons, approximate 17 and 35 years old, may have been the wife and daughter of ŠuturNahhunte. The girl was wearing a golden bracelet with agate decoration and an inscription identifying her as Ani-Numa. Following the chronology of Tavernier (2004), Šutur-Nahhunte (c. 630-610 BC) was the first known king after the sack of Susa. It may be possible that Šutur-Nahhunte and his family originated from the Ram Hormuz region, where two large settlements Tall-i Ghazir & Tepe Bormi were inhabited during the Neo-Elamite period (Carter 1994). The royal women would probably be buried in the region of which they originated. 4) A cylinder seal from the Hahn-Voss collection, held in the Jerusalem museum, belonged to a certain diš d hu-ban-ki-tin DUMU EŠŠANA diššu-tur-dPÍR-na (Kahane 1965, n. 6, 90 pl. III-g; Amiet 1967, 44-45, fig. 14; 1973, 18-19 n. 34). Similar to the cornelian bead of Šutur-Nahhunte, the cylinder seal had an unknown provenance, leaving out a crucial piece of information. According to Amiet (1973), the seal had the glyptic upper part of the horizontal harp being erased by the cuneiform signs, indicate that the text was carved over the imagery (Potts 1999, 303; Álvarez-Mon 2013b, 226). The stylistic connections to the Assyrian art (musical instruments, headdresses, ...) and the fact that the sculptor did not take the cuneiform text into account in the original composition may indicate that the text was added in a later phase. Therefore, it may be possible that there is a generation between the carving of the Kul-e Farah I relief and its inscription. In this case, the Hanne inscription on the Kul-e Farah I cliff was a secondary composition as well.

64

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

design of two upstanding muscular horned dragons leaning with their forelegs to a marrû symbol45 corresponding to the Neo-Babylonian tradition. The seal could have been fabricated from the second half of the 7th century BC onwards. De Miroschedji (1982, 61), on the other hand, was convinced that this seal belonged to the 6th century BC glyptic tradition, a suggestion refuted by Vallat (1995a). The inscription on the cylinder seal, with three logograms DUMU, SUNKI and dPÍR, and the presence of the genitive marker -na, indicate a late Neo-Elamite dating (Steve 1992, 22, 36: 653-605 BC). The inscription on the seal indicates that Huban-kitin did not inherit the seal of his father and that the royal workshops must have manufactured a seal for Huban-kitin’s own use. Since there is a generation difference between the seal of Huban-kitin and the cornelian bead of his father Šutur-Nahhunte, the cylinder seal can join in with the late Elamite glyptic (late 7th-6th century BC) of the Susa Acropole sealings. According to Álvarez-Mon (2010a, 96-97; 2013a, 468), the royal glyptic of the seal is closely related to the imagery of the Arjan ring. To summarize, Šutur-Nahhunte has left us directly and indirectly four material records of his reign: the Kul-e Farah I relief, the cornelian bead, the Ram Hormuz golden disk and the Jerusalem cylinder seal. Although not explicitly stated, Šutur-Nahhunte was doubtlessly the paramount king of that time (c. 635-610 BC). Whether he ruled from the traditional religious Elamite capital Susa is not certain, because not a single one of his inscriptions can be traced to that area (including the unprovenanced cornelian bead and cylinder seal). Perhaps it is more plausible that he reigned from Madaktu, which may be identified with one of the main Neo-Elamite cities of the Ram Hormuz plain. Since the burials of royal women in connection to Šutur-Nahhunte were found there, the Elamite king must have originated from the Ram Hormuz area. According to Tavernier (2004, 21), Šutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada, was the Elamite king receiving the Elamite cult statues from Uruk (626 BC), whom Nabopolassar II returned. Whether his father Indada had been king of Elam or whether his son Huban-kitin ever made it to the position of king of Elam remains uncertain. If they were kings, Indada could have bridged the gap with the last Neo-Elamite king Huban-haltaš III mentioned in the Assyrian sources (645 BC). Huban-kitin, on the other hand, could have been the Elamite king in the time when the Elamite Nineveh letters or the Susa Acropole archive were written. However, since the dynastic link points to the Ram Hormuz plain, Indada was probably a member of the local Elamite aristocracy connected in some way to the Elamite crown. His son Šutur-Nahhunte could have claimed power in Elam from the position of high-ranking Elamite elite. If Huban-kitin ruled Elam, his reign was rather short, based on the fact that Hallutuš-Inšušinak II ascended the throne around 599 BC.

5.2. The Kings of the Susa Acropole Archive (end 7th-early 6th century BC) When studying the corpus of the Susa Acropole texts, the modern historian faces various historical difficulties. Not only is there no certainty on the date of the archive, also the identification of the Elamite king(s) who reigned during the creation of the archive makes it difficult to use this corpus in the chronology of the late Neo-Elamite kings. In this section, I will therefore examine firstly the chronology of the Susa Acropole texts in order to situate them in a proper historical time frame. Secondly, I will observe the royal references in the Susa Acropole archive to determine whether one of these monarchs could have been king of Elam in the era when the archive was assembled. 1) In general, the entire Acropole archive (MDP 9; MDP 11, 309)46 is dated, based on the language and the writing system, to the late 7th century BC and the first half of the 6th century BC (Reiner 1960, 224; Steve 45

The marrû symbol, ‘a divine spade’, is generally attributed to the Babylonian gods Marduk and Nabu (CAD M/1, 289). Under influence of the Babylonian tradition, the symbol appears in Elamite glyptic and imagery (Amiet 1972, n. 2164, n. 2165, n. 2177, n. 2183; de Miroschedji 1982, 56). 46 The group of the Susa Acropole tablets consists of the main corpus published in MDP 9, 1-298. Additional documents connected to the Acropole archive are: a text published by Scheil (MDP 28, 468), the document MDP 11, 309 and a text belonging to the group of Village perse-achéménide (Paper 1954, n. 2). Bork (1941), Yusifov (1963) and Hinz (1967b) have revised most of the Susa Acropole texts. According to Vallat (1996a) the Apadana archive, a group of 7 legal texts (MDP 11, 301-307), is dated to the same period.

THE KINGS OF ELAM AFTER THE SACK OF SUSA (645-520 BC)

65

apud Vallat 1984, 11 n. 24; Steve 1992, 22; Vallat 1984, 11 n. 24; 1996a, 386; Waters 2000, 93-96; Tavernier 2004, 30-32). Stolper (apud Harper, Aruz & Tallon 1992, 268) suggested that the Susa Acropole tablets were registered during a twenty-five year time frame, which could equal the career of the main administrator Kuddakaka. This official Kuddakaka recorded the majority of the intake and the distribution of commodities at the royal stores of Susa in the Susa Acropole tablets. However, this general assumption on the dating of the archive has two weaknesses. It is not precisely known over what period of time these tablets are spread and we do not know whether the archive was written during the reign of more than one Elamite king (Amiet 1973, 25; Steve 1986, 14-15; Tavernier 2004, 32). Since the texts are only available to modern scholars by the hand-copies of late father Scheil (MDP 9), a palaeographical study is absolutely predominant for evaluating possible signs evolutions and therefore for making an estimation on the time span of the archive. An internal study of the palaeography may already determine whether the archive was written during the reign of single ruler, as Stolper (apud Harper, Aruz & Tallon 1992, 268) proposed, or whether the archive comprised several generations of scribes.

Fig. 2: Repartition of the administrators in the Susa Acropole Archive (MDP 9)

Since at least 57% of the records were written during his office in the chancellery, Kuddakaka was certainly the main araš hutlak.47 However, he was certainly not the only araš hutlak managing the archive (Tavernier 2011b, 209). At least 9 others are mentioned in our documentation: bead-da-bar-ru (S. 159), beba-ki-iš (S. 191), beba-nu-mi (S. 119), bebar-ri-man (S. 6; S. 281; S. 295), beha-ra-ak (S. 46), behu-ban-am-nu (S. 25), bešu-pi-pi (S. 281), betal-lak-ki-tin (S. 64; S. 74) and beun-ban?-me?-iš (S. 81). Most of the araš hutlak officials were working at local storage depots communicating with Kuddakaka (e.g. Barriman, Huban-amnu, Tallak-kitin) and were in office during the career of Kuddakaka. The araš hutlak Harak is actually the only 47 35% of the records does either not indicate an administrator or the name of administrator is not preserved; 8% of the records is drafted by colleagues of Kuddakaka. The graph indicates all the administrators occurring in the final formula of the Susa Acropole texts (kur-man PN, ITU [month] UD, [GN]), more particularly the administrators replacing Kuddakaka. For most of these administrators, it is not indicated whether they were araš hutlak officials, but based on their position in the text, one can assume they are. Otherwise, the Susa Acropole texts appoint several araš hutlak officials by name, who do not take the position of administrator at the end of the text. These araš hutlak officials are not recorded in the graph.

66

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

administrator that I could find within the Susa Acropole archive that was in office at Susa (S. 46). This may suggest that there could have been more administrative officers who managed the archive (Basello 2011, 70-71) and by consequence the archive may have exceeded the reign of a single Elamite ruler. Yet, the nature of Susa Acropole archive is quite particular. Although these documents alone provide the majority of textual evidence for the Neo-Elamite period, the archive is rather small with regard to the economic nature of these texts. If one compares the Susa revenue crop administration with the Persepolis Fortification archive, which is to be considered a local archive as well (Henkelman 2008, 112), and that counts over 30.000 documents spread over fifteen years (Henkelman 2008, 123) for a region comparable to broader Susiana, the time span of the archive must have been rather short. Moreover, not all texts were drafted in Susa (min. 38%), at least 24% of the documents were written in other cities (e.g. Huhnur, Bupila, Hidalu). This may suggest that there were other storage depots with different administrators as well (S. 6, S. 11). In one of the Acropole documents (S. 25) Huban-amnu, who is the araš hutlak of the Umpeniš people at Kammuzziraka, transfers commodities to Kuddakaka in Susa. Therefore the small size of the Susa Acropole archive can only be explained by the fact that the administrative jurisdiction represented in the Acropole archive was limited to the capital Susa and its immediate surroundings (for instance: Bupila in Susiana was already another jurisdiction), that there were probably such administrative archives kept in each of the storage houses spread over the Elamite kingdom and that the Susa Acropole archive had a very limited geographical range. By consequence, the Susa Acropole archive demonstrates a far advanced decentralization of the Elamite administrative apparatus, a feature that can also be observed in the political organization of the late Neo-Elamite kingdom.

Fig. 3: Place of issue of the Susa Acropole tablets (MDP 9)

Most scholars based the preliminary dating of the Acropole archive on a linguistic and palaeographical comparative study with the late Neo-Elamite royal inscriptions. The language in the Acropole texts is not classical anymore, as Vallat (1996a, 386) indicates, but certainly not Achaemenid either. On an orthographic

THE KINGS OF ELAM AFTER THE SACK OF SUSA (645-520 BC)

67

level, several features can be observed that assign the Susa Acropole archive to the late Neo-Elamite period. The spelling for king su-un-ki is only partially replaced with the logogram EŠŠANA in the Susa Acropole texts (MDP 9),48 similar to the Izeh reliefs (EKI 75-76) and the Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak stele (EKI 86-87). Likewise the Elamite word šá-ak for ‘son’ is modified into the logogram DUMU, a characteristic that appears in the Persepolis Bronze Plaque, the Omen text (Scheil 1917) and the cylinder seals (Amiet 1973, 27-31) as well. In the Susa Acropole archive, one uses systematically the be determinative in front of personal names.49 This determinative occurs in the Hallutuš-Inšušinak inscription (EKI 77), the Nineveh Letters, the Persepolis Bronze Plaque and the Neo-Elamite Omens as well (Steve 1988). Finally, Tavernier (2004, 32, 35), however, reduces the date to c. 590/80-565/55 BC, because of its far advanced use of broken writings which is common for the Achaemenid period. Several linguistic innovations are attested in the Susa Acropole texts. During the late Neo-Elamite period, the omitting of the initial h- consonant become more frequent, an evolution that will be concluded by the Achaemenid era (Paper 1955, 24-25). In the Susa Acropole tablets, this feature occurs in the personal name um-man for Huban and the toponym Idalu for Hidalu. Also, the -n to -m transition, which is already attested in texts on the Malamir reliefs (Paper 1955, 62), occurs in Susa Acropole documents (e.g. S. 150: te-em-pi for te-in-pi).50 The linguistic formula to indicate a family connection changes from the classical PN1 ša-ak PN2-k/t/r/p to PN1 DUMU PN2-(na) or PN1 PN2 šakri. The deities mentioned in the Susa Acropole texts, such as DIL.BAT, Šati, Šimut/dMAN, Laliya and Nappi, have a prominent role in the Persepolis Bronze Plaque and the Hanne rock reliefs (Vallat 1996a, 388; Basello 2011, 62; 2013, 258).51 Nevertheless, there is a substantial difference between royal and economic writing traditions, which has an influence on the relative dating of the Susa Acropole archive. In royal inscriptions, script and language are more archaic, especially to highlight the continuity of the king with his predecessors. The royal inscriptions, probably made by special trained palace scribes, were written in calligraphy to be used as a signature of the Elamite king to the outer world and did not necessarily resemble the administrative writing of that era (see for instance the Nebuchadnezzar II inscriptions in the ancient Mesopotamian tradition). Although there is a clear evolution noticeable in monumental royal Elamite texts, these inscriptions are not comparable to practical documents, such as economic tablets or letters. The purpose of the economic texts of the Susa Acropole archive was entirely different from that of the Elamite monumental inscriptions. The economic tablets were intended to register the intake and the distribution of commodities at the royal stores. The scribes, who had to record the administrative operations, wrote them swiftly in the style and linguistic traditions, which were common for that period. The royal monumental inscriptions that were written in that same period had probably a distinctive orthography. This difference is already found in palaeographic variations in the royal Šutruk-Nahhunte II inscriptions and the Šutruru stele (Annex 1), a charter on land grants of an Elamite official. The same principle is attested in the Achaemenid period. If one compares the monumental Bisitun inscription to the Persepolis Fortification Archive, they are all dated to the reign of Darius the Great.

48 Although it is clear that every anthroponym in combination with the EŠŠANA logogram indicates a (local) king, one cannot be entirely certain for the logographic su-un-ki. In some cases, it could be merely part of a personal name (cf. infra). In the Nineveh letters, the Persepolis Bronze Plaque, the Omen Text, the cylinder seals and the door socket of Šilhak-Inšušinak (EKI 78), the reference to ‘king’ is penned down by means of the logogram EŠŠANA (Vallat 1996a, 387). 49 However, the system of determinatives differs slightly from other Neo-Elamite texts, especially in connection to theophoric elements. In general, Neo-Elamite texts use diš d in front of personal names starting with a theophoric element instead of the common late Neo-Elamite personal determinative be, whereas the Susa Acropole texts combine the personal determinative be with d. The be d combination is therefore exclusively attested in the Susa Acropole archive. 50 Next to the Izeh reliefs (EKI 75-76), the -n to -m transition is also attested in the Persepolis Bronze Plaque, the Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak texts and the Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak stele. 51 DIL.BAT: Malamir, Šilhak-Inšušinak II, Persepolis Bronze Plaque, Kalmakarra; Shati: Nineveh letters, Persepolis Bronze Plaque, NeoElamite onomastics; MAN: Malamir; Laliya: Persepolis Bronze Plaque; Nappi: Persepolis Bronze Plaque, Malamir. The late Neo-Elamite onomasticon shows a similar evolution as the late Elamite deities. For instance, of the 16 names mentioned in the Persepolis Bronze Plaque, half of them occurs in the Acropole texts. Three of them, Addaten, Ammaten and Huban-ahpi are all mentioned in S. 167 (Vallat 1996a, 388; Basello 2013, 253-254).

68

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

Therefore, it seems unadvisable to transpose the characteristics of the royal inscriptions without restrictions on an economic archive, since the economic tablets would display more recent linguistic evolutions than royal inscriptions that were written during the same period.52 Accordingly, the economic tablets can predate the royal inscriptions showing similar stylistic, linguistic and grammatical features. The abovementioned analysis of the linguistic and orthographic features therefore suggests that the Susa Acropole archive preceded the reigns of Hallutuš-Inšušinak, Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak and Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak (6th century BC). The Izeh reliefs, Nineveh letters and Persepolis Bronze plaque, which had the status of official ‘provincial’ documentation, display similar features as the Susa Acropole archive and are therefore dated to more or less the same era (+/- 50 years). The study of the sixteen cylinder sealings depicted on the Susa Acropole texts (Amiet 1973, 4-6; de Miroschedji 1982, 57-60; Garrison 2006) contributes to the dating of the corpus. One sealing with an Akkadian votive inscription is enrolled over more than a hundred Susa Acropole tablets. The sealing has a NeoBabylonian design, which let Amiet (1973, 8-9 n. 6) to suggest that the particular seal must have made a journey from its fabrication in Babylonia during the 7th century BC until it was used by a Susian chancellor. Vallat (1997a, 301) proposes a more specific date, i.e. 600-575 BC, based on the sealings on the Acropole tablets. Garrison (2002, 79-92), however, underlines the stylistic connection to the Persepolis sealings and places the Susa Acropole sealing in the artistic tradition of the highlands.53 Accordingly, he dated the Susa Acropole glyptic to c. 550-520 BC, a suggestion that is absolutely irreconciliable with the historical and linguistic arguments. Moreover, since one can find more Babylonian influences in the archive, such as capacity measures (Scheil 1907, 146), and since there was an intensified political and perhaps economical contact with Babylonia from around 626 BC, the archive may have been written during the last quarter of the 7th century BC and the beginning of the 6th century BC (Amiet 1973, 24-25). 2) The Susa Acropole tablets contain references to more than one king (Vallat 1996a, 388-389; Potts 2010a, 115), as listed below in the synoptic table. Kings in the Susa Acropole Archive be be

Place of issue

LUGÀL

S. 138, S. 174

Bupila, Susa

ap-pa-la-a-a [LU]GÀLašza-ri-pe-ra

S. 71

Susa

S. 82

unknown

S. 80

Susa

S. 165

unknown

S. 158

Ba(?)-ka(?)-pir(?)

S.101

Susa

S. 143, S. 289

unknown

hu-pi-ti

S.153

unknown

ri-ri--ut

aš

ap-pa-la-a-a

be

be

ap-pa-la-a-a

LUGÀL

LUGÀL

LUGÀLbeum-ba-nu-nu DUMU be

su-un-ki-[ik]-na

LUGÀL ašmi-is-ri-[…]-na

be

LUGÀL

la-li

da-ad-lu-ma-ra

be

la-li

be

LUGÀL

be

LUGÀL

LUGÀL

S. 121, S. 131

unknown; Susa

ha

S. 136

Susa

hu-ban-a-ah-pi DUMU LUGÀL šil-ha-[…]

S. 167

Anzari

S. 270

unknown

be

LUGÀL

šil- har-ka-an

be

be

LUGÀL

šil-ha-[…]

52 Ideally the royal monumental inscriptions should be studied in another category separated from other genres of texts such as economic documents, letters and legal texts, because they developed at another tempo. However, because of the restricted source material for the late Neo-Elamite period, such a study would have a limited result as well. 53 Garrison (2002) suggests that the Susa sealings had been developed in the Anšanite artistic center. This is, however, purely speculative because no late Elamite or early Persian settlement in Anšan has been discovered. Moreover, if Anšan — and by extention the highlands of Fars — would be a pre-Achaemenid (before Darius) artistic center, other artistic traditions should have flourished as well. Looking for instance to the early Persian ceramic from Fars ‘the Late Plain Ware’, by which the name of the pottery already indicates that there is an absolute lack of a creative impulse in the Kur River Basin. Moreover, no evidence can be found for the transmission of the seals and glyptic styles from the Kur River Basin to lowland Susiana.

69

THE KINGS OF ELAM AFTER THE SACK OF SUSA (645-520 BC) be

LUGÀL

šil-hahar-ma-an-(ku-ut)

LUGÀL dMAN

(šimut)-ir-ra ašha-da-nu-ra be LUGÀL dMAN (šimut)-ir-ra ašbu-pi-la-ra

S. 281

Susa

S. 152

unknown

S. 12, S. 112

Shassu-[…]-un; Susa

S. 93

Tigime

S. 281

Susa

S. 23

unknown

S. 5

unknown

S. 10, S. 94, S. 170

Susa, unknown, Susa

be

be

LUGÀLdMAN be

(šimut)-ra ašbu-pi-la-ra LUGÀL

LUGÀL be d

te-ir

ba-hu-ri54

MAN LUGÀL DUMU be

LUGÀL

hu-ban-gi-sir zi-ut ša-ki-ra

be

hu-ban-ki-tin DUMU LUGÀL […] be

su-un-ki ba-ku-iš(-pe-ra)

Table 6: Anthroponyms of ‘kings’ mentioned in the Susa Acropole Archive

A chronological hint to the date of the Susa Acropole archive may be given by the attestation of Hubankitin, son of an Elamite king whose name is unfortunately not preserved behu-ban-ki-tin DUMU LUGÀL […] (S. 5). Scheil (1907, 7; also de Miroschedji 1982, 61 n. 46) originally read LUGÀL as the first element of an Elamite anthroponym. Later Yusifov (1963, 202, 231; also Waters 2000, 95, n. 91; Tavernier 2004, 30-31) argued that the logogram for king does not refer to the first element of the patronymic, but to the office of king. Vallat (1995a) supported this theory with the argument that LUGÀL is not preceded by a determinative. However, in the affiliation formula of the Acropole texts bePN1 DUMU PN2 the personal determinative of the patronymic is always omitted, which is common in late Neo-Elamite texts. The absence of a determinative before the patronymic does not give any indication on the identity of Huban-kitin. Nonetheless, the logogram LUGÀL was used for denoting royal names, whereas the syllabic version su-un-ki (S. 28, S. 10, S. 94, S. 170) was rather part of personal names attested in the Susa Acropole archive. The fact that LUGÀL is written logographically in the patronymic of Huban-kitin supports the hypothesis of Yusifov. Therefore one can assume that the full name of the king is broken off, while only his titulary LUGÀL remained visible. Since the reading of LUGÀL is nowadays accepted by most scholars, Vallat (1995a) went a step further by claiming that the father of Huban-kitin must have been Šutur-Nahhunte, whose reign predates the Susa Acropole archive. This king Šutur-Nahhunte is described on the Malamir rock relief (EKI 75) as the paramount monarch of Elam somewhere during the second part of the 7th century BC. Vallat (1996a, 388-389) based his restoration of the patronymic Šutur-Nahhunte on the Jerusalem cylinder seal (Amiet 1973, 29), despite the single attestation of the name Šutur-Nahhunte in the Susa Acropole archive, notably in connection to commodities collected in the town Baharakširi (S. 24). Hence, Tavernier (2004, 31) correctly argued that the vague traces following LUGÀL do not resemble the sign ŠU, suggesting that Huban-kitin could be the son of any other king mentioned in the Susa Acropole texts. Besides, Huban-kitin is not the only prince attested in the Acropole archive. There was Huban-ahpi, the son of Šilharman behu-ban-a-ah-pi DUMU LUGÀL šil-ha-[hahar-k/ma-an] (S. 167), who was one of the ruling monarchs in the Susa Acropole documentation (S. 136, S. 270, S. 281). Despite the conversed word order, Huban-gisir was the son of king Šimut be dMAN LUGÀL DUMU hu-ban-gi-sir (S. 23). In this case, one cannot determine whether Šimut the ruler of Bupila (S. 12, S. 112, S. 152) or Šimut the ruler of Hadanu (S. 152) was meant.55 Moreover, the position of the name ‘Huban-kitin, son of king [...]’ within the composition of the tablet (the personal name before the date formula: Basello 2011, 70 n. 42), suggests that he is the official recording commodities (S. 5). Although the place of issue is broken off and we can no longer retrieve the location of the storage facility, the tablet (S. 5) indicates that Huban-kitin had the same official position as Kuddakaka. Returning to the hypothesis of Vallat, the restoration of Šutur-Nahhunte as patronymic seems doubtful if 54

Vallat (apud Steve, Vallat & Gasche 2002/03, 481) reads the combination ša-ba-hu-ri as LUGÀL ba-hu-ri. Another possibility to translate be dMAN LUGÀL DUMU hu-ban-gi-sir is Šimut the king, son of Huban-gisir, but as far as I know, this combination does not exist. 55

70

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

one keeps into account that Huban-kitin was presumably an araš hutlak official or palace manager with in this particular case an additional honorary title DUMU LUGÀL.56 Moreover, Huban-kitin could have been the son of another king, whose named is unknown. According to Vallat (1996a, 389, 393), the king Ummanunu (S. 165:4-5) LUGÀL beum-ba-nu-nu DUMU suun-ki-[x]-na was the reigning monarch at the time of the Acropole archive and has to be identified with the father of Šilhak-Inšušinak II, whose royal titulary is inscribed on a door socket (EKI 78) found in Susa. Waters (2000, 95 n. 93; also de Miroschedji 1982, 62) even suggests that the rebel king Martiya (DB II.22), who claimed to be Ummanuš, might have identified himself with this ruler. Nevertheless, some remarks on the theory of Vallat have to be made. Firstly, Vallat reads the signs of S. 165 LUGÀL beum-ma-nu-nu while the text clearly indicates LUGÀL beum-ba-nu-nu. In the Susa Acropole texts, there is an obvious distinction between the cuneiform signs ma and ba. Moreover, both names Ummanunu and Umbanunu (S. 165; S. 167: beum-ba-nu-nu ba-kur-ri-pe-ra) are attested in the Acropole texts. The Ummanunu (S. 90: salza-ni-ni beum-ma[…]; S. 158: beum-ma-nu-[…]-la-ra-na; S. 282: um-manu-[nu]; S. 301-303) variation, however, is never accompanied of an EŠŠANA logogram. If one would consider umba and umma two alternative spellings for the theophoric element Huban and by consequence ignore the various orthographies, one still has to cope with at least three different individuals (Basello 2011, 75). Secondly, in one of the legal Apadana texts, Ummanunu is called the ‘Appalayan’ (S. 305), a tribal entity belonging to the larger ethnical group of the Zari people. Likewise, Ummanunu and Appalaya are mentioned together in S. 158. Furthermore, none of the Susa Acropole texts with a reference to Um/banunu provides a link to Susa (unknown place of issue: S. 90; S. 165; S. 282; Anzari: S. 167; Bakapir: S. 158). Since the Ummanunu of the Apadana legal texts loans large quantities of gold and silver to several persons, he must have been a wealthy man suitable for identification with a local ruler. If Ummanunu of the Apadana tablets was the same individual as the one mentioned in one of the Susa Acropole texts (S. 165) and the different spellings in the Acropole texts are considered as a scribal liberty, then he may have been a local king originating from the Elamite-Babylonian border region. Scheil (1907, 146 also Basello 2011, 74-75) remarks that S. 165 is the only text in the Acropole archive that mentions Assyro-Babylonian capacity measures. The sealing with mounting horses on this tablet, contrary to the many sealings with Babylonian influences in the Acropole archive, is an entirely Elamite design. Moreover, the sealing on the tablet is very similar to the pseudo-sealing on the Persepolis Bronze Plaque (Basello 2013, 256-257). Looking at all the references to kings mentioned in the Acropole archive, there is not a single ruler that refers to himself as king of Susa or Elam (cf. chapter 3). Perhaps the archive did not mention the ruling Elamite monarch because the archive was not the palace administration, but rather the district administration of Susa. This argument is enhanced by the internal information on the relation of Kuddakaka to the palace and the archaeological find spot of the Susa Acropole archive. The Susa Acropole tablets in connection to the palace were not recorded by the araš hutlak, but by palace managers (S. 52), meaning that Kuddakaka had probably no authority within the palace walls. The Susa Acropole tablets were found on a floor made of (stone) tiles above the small temple complex of Inšušinak that was constructed by Šutruk-Nahhunte II and below the remains of a wall that was built against the bottom part of the Achaemenid rampart constructed by Darius the Great (MDP 8, 34-36 fig. 66). The fact that the tablets were found in a rampart of the Acropole hill, the sacral area of the capital, instead of on the Apadana hill, which was presumably the royal quarter, could enhance the argument that the archive was not directly linked to the palace. Therefore, there are three possible options for identifying the reigning monarch during the Susa Acropole archive. Firstly, the archive either predates the reign of Hallutuš-Inšušinak II (c. 593 BC) or was written partially during his kingship. Secondly, if it was drafted before Hallutuš-Inšušinak’s rule, i.e. during the late 7th century BC, then we have a gap in our source material and the identity of the ruling monarch cannot be established. Thirdly, one can assign the archive to one of the three individuals, who may have ruled Elam during this era. Perhaps the archive was written during the late reign of Šutur-Nahhunte or maybe even his son Huban-kitin (seal), who cannot be confused with the one mentioned in the Susa Acropole 56

For the use of DUMU.LUGÀL (EŠŠANA) as honorary title, see I.6.4.

71

THE KINGS OF ELAM AFTER THE SACK OF SUSA (645-520 BC)

archive (S. 5). If Huban-kitin had not held the office of king, which we do not know, a second candidate would be Huban-tahra, the father of Hallutuš-Inšušinak II. A third possible monarch could be ŠuturukInšušinak, the king who ordered the Gisat decree on the Persepolis Bronze Plaque. Basello (2013, 258) already suggested that the pseudo-sealing had close connections to the Susa Acropole glyptic. If he was an Elamite king, this could be his place in the royal chronology of the late Neo-Elamite period (cf. infra).

5.3. Šilhak-Inšušinak (end 7th century BC) Only a single object (EKI 78) found on the Acropole of Susa informs us on a second king by the name of Šilhak-Inšušinak. In the short inscription on a door socket, Šilhak-Inšušinak is named the son of Ummanunu, although the reading of the patronymic is not entirely certain. In earlier studies, scholars (Cameron 1936, 167; König 1965, 169 n. 15) have identified this Ummanunu with the Huban-menanu, who reigned Elam from 692-689 BC. However, in the late Neo-Elamite period, a king named Ummanunu occurs in the Susa Acropole texts (MDP 9, 165). Vallat (1996a, 389; 393) therefore suggests removing Šilhak-Inšušinak from the chronological sequence of the early 7th century BC in order to place him with the late Neo-Elamite kings. In this text, neither the archaeological context nor the palaeography contributes to the dating of the Šilhak-Inšušinak, because there is not a single cuneiform sign that was drawn in a distinctive late Neo-Elamite design. All cuneiform signs that were applied in this inscription belong to the typical Neo-Elamite standard forms (Annex 1). EŠŠANA dišši-il-ha-ak-dMÙŠ.LAM šá-ak dišum-ma-nu-nu-ra BAT za-na aššu-šu-un-ra i du-nu-iš-da diš

Fig. 4: Bronze door knob of Šilhak-Inšušinak, found in Susa (MDP 7, 38 pl. 41)

hu-uh si-a-an

DIL.

He, king Šilhak-Inšušinak, son of Ummanunu, has given it to the temple of DIL.BAT, (divine) lady of Susa EKI 78:1-3

Nonetheless, I can support Vallat’s hypothesis (1996a, 389, 393) on the dating of the Šilhak-Inšušinak inscription by the following features in the writing system: 1) Instead of using a variation on the ancient royal titulary ‘king of Anšan and Susa’, Šilhak-Inšušinak called himself merely ‘king’, written with the logogram EŠŠANA, without further specifications. Vallat (1996a, 387) already argued that the replacement of the syllabic value su-un-ki by the logogram EŠŠANA is an element in favor of assigning the inscription to the period after the sack of Susa (646 BC). 2) The personal determinative diš before the royal name Šilhak-Inšušinak, before the patronymic Ummanunu and even before the logogram EŠŠANA narrows the Šilhak-Inšušinak II text down to the last group of NeoElamite texts, in which the determinative diš was used as personal marker, being the rock reliefs of the kutur Hanne (EKI 75-76) from the reign of Šutur-Nahhunte (c. 635-610 BC). 3) Šilhak-Inšušinak dedicated the door socket to the temple of the goddess DIL.BAT, Lady of Susa. A strong argument for a later dating of the text is the logogram DIL.BAT for the goddess Ištar, Narsina or Parti (ElW 329; Grillot 1971, 232), which is only attested in the rock inscriptions of Hanne (EKI 75:22), the Acropole texts, the Persepolis Bronze Plaque (l. 35; Basello 2013, 254) and on an object of the Kalmakarra hoard (Henkelman 2008, 270-271 n. 615). Moreover, based on the abovementioned attestations of DIL.BAT, the goddess seems to be venerated at the outskirts of the Neo-Elamite kingdom, rather than in Susa. 4) The divine determinative d is omitted before the logogram DIL.BAT (König 1965, 169 n. 17), which is unusual since the logogram dMÙŠ.LAM did receive the determinative. Since the d determinative is not systematically omitted in the Šilhak-Inšušinak text and it continues to be used in front of theophoric elements

72

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

throughout the late Neo-Elamite period, it is probably nothing more than a scribal error or stylistic intervention. Hinz & Koch (ElW 329) came to a similar conclusion when they suggested that the scribe omitted the d determinative, because the word before DIL.BAT, si-a-an, already ended with the same cuneiform sign AN/DINGIR. 5) Also the traditional case endings were used to denote the genitive, instead of the late Neo-Elamite -na. The late Neo-Elamite broken spelling /Cuš/ is only attested in the verb du-nu-iš-da. Since the Šilhak-Inšušinak inscription is very short, it remains difficult to position the door socket within the relative chronology of the late Neo-Elamite period. Based on the use of the determinatives, the ŠilhakInšušinak inscription can be connected to the Izeh rock reliefs (EKI 75-76). Therefore, I would situate the reign of Šilhak-Inšušinak towards the end of the 7th century BC. If Šilhak-Inšušinak held the office of king at the end of the 7th century BC, then some suggestions on the descendance of Šilhak-Inšušinak are no longer tenable. Based on the royal names and accompanying patronymics, Vallat (1996a, 389) made a genealogical suggestion on the family of Šilhak-Inšušinak and established hereby a chronological sequence of this late Neo-Elamite monarchy. Ummanunu, a king attested in the Susa Acropole tablets (S. 165), would be the father of Šilhak-Inšušinak, who himself had a son Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II. Sunki-?

Ummanunu

Šilhak-Inšušinak

Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II

Family tree 9: Genealogy of Šilhak-Inšušinak

In theory, Šilhak-Inšušinak can be related to Ummanunu of the Susa Acropole archive (late 7th century BC). In the previous section, however, I already indicated that there is no direct proof that Ummanunu was the paramount king of Susa during the era of the Susa Acropole archive, as Vallat suggested. If Ummanunu and Šilhak-Inšušinak had a family connection, which could be possible chronologically, the two kings were probably local rulers. Moreover, since the inscription of Šilhak-Inšušinak does not reveal late Neo-Elamite IIIb elements, one cannot maintain the genealogical connection between Šilhak-Inšušinak and Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak any longer, as suggested by Vallat (1996a). Due to the close resemblance with the Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak inscriptions, the reign of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II has to be dated around the middle of the 6th century BC (cf. infra). Since the family connection with Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak is excluded and the fatherhood of Ummanunu is questionable, one can even question the Elamite kingship of Šilhak-Inšušinak. If Šilhak-Inšušinak was the paramount king of Elam, the royal titulary and the use of the delocutive (-ra) in his inscription can at least be called remarkable. The text is drafted in the third person singular, which is not only indicated by the verb (du-nu-iš-da: Stolper 2004a, 82-83), but also by the delocutive suffix -ra (Stolper 2004a, 73) following the personal name Ummanunu and the toponym Susa. Since the Igehalkid dynasty (14th century BC), Elamite royal inscriptions are drafted in the locutive (i.e. first person singular). Within this tradition, the Šilhak-Inšušinak text on the door socket is a rare exception.57 Also the content of the Šilhak-Inšušinak inscription in unusually short: he merely donated this piece of building decoration to the temple of DIL.BAT, while other Neo-Elamite kings (EKI 71; EKI 77; EKI 80-84) first highlighted their own building or renovation works to a temple and then dedicated their accomplishments to a deity. This may indicate that Šilhak-Inšušinak was not directly involved in the (re-)construction of the DIL.BAT temple and that he was not in the position to order the fabrication of the door socket/inscription without an intermediary, which would explain the delocutive form. Accordingly, Šilhak-Inšušinak did not rule Susa and was not the paramount ruler of Elam.

57

Two kings of the Šutrukid dynasty have inscriptions in the delocutive case: Šutruk-Nahhunte I & Hutelutuš-Inšušinak. Šutruk-Nahhunte I has two very short one-phrase building inscriptions in Akkadian (EKI 54-55) and a similar one in Elamite (EKI 56) in the delocutive. Hutelutuš-Inšušinak has a single inscription in the delocutive (IRS 51) devoted to Išnikarab of Bosquet in Kipû. However, these delocutive references are exceptions, since the main corpus of inscriptions of these two Šutrukid kings were written in the locutive.

THE KINGS OF ELAM AFTER THE SACK OF SUSA (645-520 BC)

73

Šilhak-Inšušinak may have been a local king, who had commissioned this ornament to be installed at the main sanctuary of Susa in order to worship the goddess DIL.BAT. In fact, the word order of the royal titulary ‘king PN’ is exclusively attested on a caption of the Samatian king Ampiriš, inscribed on the objects of the Kalmakarra hoard (Henkelman 2003b, 219) and on the pseudo-sealing of Huban-Šuturuk on the Ururu Bronze plaque (Basello 2013, 256). The goddess DIL.BAT, who was worshiped mainly in the regions of northern Lurestan, Gisat and Malamir, would direct Šilhak-Inšušinak’s origin toward the border regions of Elam. Having reviewed all evidence, the reference to DIL.BAT, the diš determinative and the position of the logogram EŠŠANA has brought the Šilhak-Inšušinak door socket closer in time to the Susa Acropole tablets (MDP 9), the Hanne reliefs, the Ururu Bronze plaque and the (earliest) objects of the Kalmakarra hoard. Within the late Neo-Elamite relative chronology Šilhak-Inšušinak can be situated towards the end of the 7th century BC and the beginning of the 6th century BC. However, it is possible that Šilhak-Inšušinak does not belong to the sequence of late Neo-Elamite kings, based on the delocutive case of the inscription and the worshipping of the goddess DIL.BAT. If Šilhak-Inšušinak was a local ruler, then he must have been a vassal of the Elamite king ruling in Susa, who could have been Šutur-Nahhunte, Šuturuk-Inšušinak or a yet another contemporary monarch whose name is unknown. Perhaps Šilhak-Inšušinak reigned contemporary or slightly later than the Acropole rulers, and perhaps Ummanunu of the Acropole archive was even the father of Šilhak-Inšušinak, ruling over the ‘Appalayans’.

5.4. Hallutuš-Inšušinak II (c. 598/93-583/78 BC) The reign of the late Neo-Elamite king Hallutuš-Inšušinak II is exceptionally attested through Neo-Babylonian documents as well as indigenous Elamite inscriptions. Scholarly tradition (Cameron 1936, 157; Hinz 1964, 116; Weisberg 1984, 216; Stolper 1986, 239) attempted to assign all available documents to the reign of his Babylonian Chronicle namesake Hallutuš-Inšušinak I (699-693 BC), notwithstanding the conflicting regnal dates and patronymics. Hallutuš-Inšušinak I, son of Huban-immena, ruled for six years (ABC 1, iii 6’-9’), while Hallutuš-Inšušinak II, son of Huban-tahra, reigned Elam for at least 15 years (contra Weisberg 1984, 215). More recently, Vallat (1996a, 390, 393; 2002a) and Tavernier (2004, 39) convincingly argued through a linguistic analysis of the Neo-Elamite inscribed bricks of Hallutuš-Inšušinak that these Elamite texts must be dated to the late Neo-Elamite IIIb period. Accordingly the Hallutuš-Inšušinak of the Babylonian Chronicle is identified as the first Neo-Elamite king by that name, while Hallutuš-Inšušinak of the Elamite bricks is a later homonymous Elamite king. Although we do not posses the exact regnal dates to situate this king in time, the second ruler by the name Hallutuš-Inšušinak must have ruled Elam after the sack of Susa (646 BC). Ungnad’s (1907, 621-622) suggestion of assigning the Mesopotamian private documents to the 6th century BC eventually found support. Tavernier (2017, 339 n. 11) connects the (more than) 15 regnal years of king Hallutuš-Inšušinak, described in the Nippur adoption contract (Weisberg 2003, 1), to the reign of Hallutuš-Inšušinak II, son of Huban-tahra. By consequence, the three Neo-Babylonian documents (Weisberg 2003, 1; PTS 2713; VS 4 1), which should all be dated to the reign of Hallutuš-Inšušinak II, and the two Neo-Elamite building inscriptions (EKI 77 = IRS 58; MDP 53, 50-51) will have to provide chronological markers in order to contextualize the reign of Hallutuš-Inšušinak II. A Neo-Babylonian adoption contract of a girl (Weisberg 2003, 1; A33248 = 1 N 297) is dated to the 15th regnal year of Hallutuš-Inšušinak: ITI.ŠE UD.15 KÁM hal-lu-šu [LUGÀL N]IM.MA.KI (Weisberg 1984, 215). The text was found in a private house (1 N 297; area TA, house B, level II, room 14) at the scribal quarter of Nippur together with several jars58, a horse-and-rider figurine59, a bronze disk and a hematite whorl (McCown & Haines 1967, 117). During the Neo-Babylonian period, ‘house B’, in which the cuneiform tablet is uncovered, 58

The ceramic assemblage of locus 14 consisted of a single cup and two pots. The cup (McCown & Haines 1967, 117 pl. 103: 24 type 68) is exclusively attested in the Neo-Babylonian occupation level. The two pots (McCown & Haines 1967, 117 pl. 104: 16, 17 type 70) were in circulation from the second Assyrian floor level, but most numerous throughout the Neo-Babylonian era. 59 The horse-and-rider figurine becomes increasingly popular from the middle of the Neo-Babylonian period onwards (McCown & Haines 1967, 92).

74

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

was enlarged and remodeled in three stages after the pro-Assyrian Nippur was besieged by the Neo-Babylonian army (612 BC). Haines (McCown & Haines 1967, 71-72), describing the transition from the Neo-Babylonian period (level II) to the Achaemenid era (level I), concludes that ‘house B must have been rebuilt just before or after the conquering of the country (Babylonia) by the Achaemenids’. With regard to the archival background of the adoption text, Stolper (1986, 238-239) added that ‘other texts from the building and the level to which A33248 belonged are assigned to the reign of Darius I’. However, the archaeological context on this matter has to be reviewed.60 In the second stratigraphic level of private house B, Haines (McCown & Haines 1967, 71-72) recognized three Neo-Babylonian renovation phases, reflected by the three floor levels. Since the Babylonians incorporated Nippur around 612 BC and Cyrus II subdued Nippur to the Achaemenid rule around 539 BC, the Neo-Babylonian building phases equal a time span of about seventy-three years. This would mean that house B was thoroughly renovated once every twenty-five years. Since the legal text was found on the second floor of the Neo-Babylonian level61 and the occupation of the house continued through the Achaemenid era (level I), one can set a terminus ante quem for this floor with some restraint to the historically datable Achaemenid conquest (539 BC). If one adds twice (two floors) about twenty-five years, which is one renovation layer, to that date, then the relative chronology for the deposition of the cuneiform tablet and by consequence for HallutušInšušinak II’ reign is somewhere between 589 and 564 BC. Adding an error rate of fifteen years, the minimum length of the reign of Hallutuš-Inšušinak II, then the adoption agreement of salAkkaiti must have been written in the first half of the 6th century BC. A second error rate to keep in mind is that the text was not written in Nippur, even though it was uncovered there. Yet, if the restoration of Stolper (1986, 235) is correct, the legal text was drafted at Sumuntunaš in Western Elam. Weisberg (1984, 215) noticed that this must be one of the royal cities described in the Annals of Assurbanipal in the surroundings of Din-šarri, Pidilma and Bupila (BIWA A v 85/ F iv 37).62 Since the terms of the adoption corresponds to the Mesopotamian legal tradition and the only aspect indicating an Elamite place of draft is the date formula, the contract must have been made within a Babylonian community originating from Nippur that lived at the western fringes of the Neo-Elamite kingdom (Stolper 1986, 238-239). Then one can still question how the texts ended up in Nippur, why it was sent to Nippur and — most important — when the text arrived there? The reason for this migration may be seen in the light of the Assurbanipal’s eastern campaigns. It is likely that Assurbanipal detached a group of pro-Assyrian citizens from Nippur to report on the Elamite activities after his 7th campaign at the latest. Presumably, the community of Nippureans remained in Sumuntunaš after the fall of Assyria (612 BC), but maintained nonetheless contact

60

The analysis of the second stratigraphic level of house B is more problematic than Haines admits. Most textual evidence is assigned to the Achaemenid period. From the 11 datable cuneiform tablets, 9 were Achaemenid texts, of which 7 are dated to the reign of Darius I (McCown & Haines 1967, 76). Nevertheless, of the 9 datable tablets found in the first stratigraphic level, 3 were written during the reign of Cyrus II and one to the reign of Cambyses II. This means that the texts found in the oldest stratigraphic level (II) postdate the cuneiform tablets of the youngest stratigraphic level (I), which is seemingly impossible. Haines (McCown & Haines 1967, 72) already notices that area TA was ‘a large uneven area sloped gradually downwards from the east-central part of the dig’. If one verifies the height of the floor levels, then the top height of the lowest floor (3) of level II is el. 97.10 m. Following the measurements described by Haines (1967, 72), the minimal top height of the second floor is el. 97.40 m (+ 30-45 cm) and of the first floor 97.75 m (+ 35-50 cm). Taking the maximum top height into account, the final level II floor of house B could have been 30 cm higher at particular places. Since the bottom height of the third floor of level I is registered at el. 97.75 m, it is highly possible that at some places level II and I overlapped. Moreover, the Darius texts in the NeoBabylonian level (II) were all concentrated in rooms 6 and 11 of house B. The context in the Neo-Babylonian level (II) of room 11 was particularly disturbed due to the multiple burials (B125, 139, 140) that were made during the Achaemenid period. Therefore, the Achaemenid documents, certainly those of Darius I, must have been intrusive. The other documents of level II dating to the 9th (547 BC) and 16th (540 BC) regnal year of Nabonidus are more representative for the date of the stratigraphic layer. 61 Taking the archaeological information of the previous footnote into account, it is clear that the objects uncovered at the youngest floor of level II have a mixed historical context. Since the Hallutuš-Inšušinak tablet was found amongst objects all dating to the (middle of the) Neo-Babylonian period, one can already exclude that the Hallutuš-Inšušinak text belonged to the first layer. It seems therefore more probable that the tablet was uncovered on the second-floor level. 62 Most of the ‘royal’ cities mentioned in this particular paragraph of the Assurbanipal Annals, were located in the Susiana plain, more specifically in the ancient Yadburu region along the western frontier of the Elamite kingdom with Mesopotamia. Throughout the 1st millennium BC, these cities fell alternately within Elamite then Mesopotamian (Assyrian-Babylonian) power. The large diversity of population groups within a single city is therefore not uncommon.

THE KINGS OF ELAM AFTER THE SACK OF SUSA (645-520 BC)

75

with their city of origin. A copy of the contract must have been sent soon after the conclusion to Nippur, from where the population group derived originally and where such a document was legally meaningful (Weisberg 1984, 215). Therefore, one can assume that the text arrived in Nippur within a single generation and that it could have little influence on the relative archaeological dating provided for the adoption contract. The second Neo-Babylonian text, dealing with a loan of silver (VS 4 1 = NRV 165), may be linked to the Nippur text through the individual Šuma. In the Nippur text (Weisberg 2003, 1), Šuma is the son of a man, whose name cannot be restored, whereas an unknown man is the son of Šuma in the loan of silver. Since the son of Šuma was old enough to conclude contracts, Šuma must have reached an old age. Presumably the loan of silver, contracted by the son, is younger.63 Notwithstanding, this Neo-Babylonian economical document is also dated to the reign of Hallutuš-Inšušinak, which leaves us with three possible suggestions: (1) Since the regnal year and place of issue are broken off on the loan of silver, it must have been written after the 15th regnal year of Hallutuš-Inšušinak II. (2) Hallutuš-Inšušinak II must have ruled for a long period to be used in the date formula of two generations. This indirectly implies that such a long reign must have brought stability to Elam and the surrounding regions. (3) Or the two attestations of Šuma in the Neo-Babylonian texts do not refer to the same person. The name Šuma is frequently attested in the Neo-Babylonian documentation,64 so a reference to two individuals is not entirely unlikely. Since we do not know where the cuneiform tablet was uncovered, no archaeological information can help to resolve the dating issues. Therefore, the prosopographical identification and the fact that it must have been written by a Neo-Babylonian community living within the Elamite borders, could suggest that this loan of silver has a similar history and provenance as the adoption document from Nippur. According to Ungnad (1907, 621) the loan of silver (VS 4 1) belongs to a small archive of nine economic documents65 from Iqīša, son of Bel-naṣir, dated to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II (605-562 BC). Based on the inventory numbers, these documents arrived all at the same time in the Staatliche Museen of Berlin (Ungnad 1907, 621). The city of Babylon is indicated as place of issue on this group of tablets. Since the contract is most certainly drafted in Elam, one has to explain why this document had an Elamite date formula and the other texts of the Iqīša group were written in Babylon. Ungnad (1907, 621) suggested that Iqīša must have brought the contract on the loan of silver from a trading mission to Elam where it was concluded. If the document was legalized within a Babylonian community having close ties with Babylon, then it seems unlikely that the Šuma of the Nippur adoption contract would be the same person as in the loan of the Iqīša group. Moreover, the loan of silver concluded in Elam has to show at least some corresponding names in order to be integrated in the archive of Iqīša, son of Bel-naṣir, which was Weisberg’s (1984, 214) most prominent remark on Ungnad’s suggestion. After examining the texts, several more family connections can be suggested in order to connect the contract concluded by the Babylonians in Elam with persons living in Mesopotamia. Because the text (VS 4 1) was not drawn up in Babylon, a local scribe belonging to the Babylonian community of an Elamite town could have been involved. Therefore, the scribe Kurigalzu does not necessarily correspond to the other characters of the Iqīša archive. Šûzubu, son of a man whose name has been damaged in the Babylonian settlers agreement (VS 4 1), may correspond to Šûzubu, son of Bêl-le’, descendent of Epêš-ili, the scribe who contracted one of Iqīša’s other loans of silver (VS 4 11). As a member of his entourage, Šûzubu could have accompanied Iqīša on a business trip to a Babylonian enclave in Elam where he acted as witness in the there concluded contracts. Several more of the Epeš-ili clan members were involved in Iqīša’s business (VS 4 16; VS 4 18), which strengthen the connection to Iqīša and makes the connection to the loan of silver in Elam (VS 4 1) more plausible.

63 Since we do not know the age of Šuma when the adoption contract was concluded, it could be possible that the son of Šuma had already reached a mature age. 64 One can exclude the identification of Šuma, the nephew of Tammaritu, with the Šuma individual of the Neo-Babylonian private contracts. It is hardly plausible that his ancestry could be traced to the Hubanid dynasty, since this Šuma lived around the middle of the 7th century BC. In the same way, Huban-tahra, the father of Hallutuš-Inšušinak II, could not have been the herald of the king Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I mentioned in the Assyrian palace inscriptions (PNA 1378). 65 VS 3 5 = VAT 2970 = NRV 229; VS 3 30 = VAT 3021 = NRV 238; VS 4 1 = VAT 3146 = NRV 165; VS 4 10 = VAT 2965 = NRV 167; VS 4 11 = VAT 2966 = NRV 644; VS 4 13 = VAT 2966 = NRV 290; VS 4 15 = VAT 3035 = NRV 196; VS 4 16 = VAT 2973 = 291; VS 4 18 = VAT 2976 = NRV 646.

witness

scribe

Ah-lumur, son of Bēlšunu

Nergal-šumibni, son of MušēzibMarduk

Ninurtamukīn-x, son of Ninurta-ahiddin

witness

Ina-tēšû-eṭir, son of Nabu-naṣir

Marduk-naṣir, son of Balāṭu

Aplâ, son of Nabu-ah-iddin

Kinēnuā, son of Rimut

witness

witness

Mušabši(?)-il, son of Nabu-gāmil

Šumā, son of […]

Akka-iti

Kurigal[zu], son of Balāṭu

Šūzubu, son of […]

Marduk-šarr[x], son of Šākin-[šu]-mi(?) / ŠA.MU

protagonist

Kanisurra

[…], son of Šumā

Tabnēa, son of Šumu-iddin

Ninurta-iddin SAL Lû-belti

SAL

Iqī[ša], son of Bēl-naṣir

Nabu-eṭir, son of Nabu-naṣir

Šamaš-naṣir, son of Ṣillâ SAL kidin-niti

protagonist

protagonist

VS 4 1 = PTS 2713 NRV 165 Bīt-Hulummu Elam/Babylon 20 2 XI, 1st year VIII, [x] year HallutušHallutušInšušinak II Inšušinak II

A33248 Sumuntanash / Nippur, 15th year HallutušInšušinak II

Nabu-na’id, son of Nabu-êpuš, descendent of the goldsmith

Bel-uballiṭ, son of Minû-ana-Bel-dâni, descendent of Nûr-Marduk

Gimillu, son of Nabu-naṣir

Ṣillâ, son of Sum-iddina, descendent of Sin-šadûnu

Nabu-ahhe-bulṭu, son of Mušêzib, descendent of Andahar

Nabu-mukîn-apli, son of Iqīša, descendent of Dâbibi

Bel-uballiṭ, son of Minû-ana-Bêl-dâni, descendent of Nûr-Marduk

Iqīša, son of Bēl-naṣir, descendent of the goldsmith

VS 4 10 = NRV 167 Babylon 27 VI, 6th year Nebuchadnezzar II

Šûzubu, son of Bêl-le’, descendent of Epêš-ili

Marduk-šapik-zêri, son of Nabu-le’, descendent of Aqar-Nabu

Bêlšunu, son of Ṣilla, descendent of Sin-tabni

Marduk-erîba, son of Marduk-zêru-ibni, descendent of the reed artisan Nergal-šum-uṣur, son of Bêl-ušallim, descendent of the notary

Nabu-zêr-ukin, son of Bêl-ibni, descendent of the Nin-Eanna priests

Šum-ukin, son of Kudurru, descendent of Šamaš-bâri

Nabu-zêr-iddina, son of Ina-qîbi-bêl, descendent of the Adad gods

Nabu-šum-iddina, son of Kidin-Marduk, descendent of Šamaš-bâri

Kurbanni-Marduk, son of Šapik, descendent of Rabi-bânê

Bêl-ušabši, son of Aplâ, descendent of the fisher

Nadîn, son of Nabu-zêr-iddina, descendent of Šamaš-bâri

Šamaš-šum-lîšir, son of Nabu’lê, descendent of Bâbûtu

Belšunu, son of Balaṭsu, descendent of the Šamaš priest

Iqīša, son of Bēl-naṣir, descendent of the goldsmith

Iqīša, son of Bēl-naṣir, descendent of the goldsmith Mušêzib-Marduk, son of Ṣilla, descendent of Sin-šadûnu

VS 4 15 = NRV 169 Babylon 5 II, 21st year Nebuchadnezzar II

VS 4 13 = NRV 290 Babylon 17 XI, 12th year Nebuchadnezzar II

Iqīša, son of Bēl-naṣir, descendent of the goldsmith

Nabu-naṣir, son of [x]

VS 4 11 = NRV 644 Babylon 23 VIII, 6th year Nebuchadnezzar II

Table 7: The reign of Hallutuš-Inšušinak II based on the Iqiša archive

Marduk-ušallim, son of Marduk-zêru-ibni, descendent of the reed artisan

Sin-uballiṭ, son of Iqīša

Kudurru, son of Nabu-îpuš

Mukîn-zêri, son of Bêl-uṣallim, descendent of the fisher

Iqīša, son of Kidinnu

Balāṭu, son of Nabu-zêru-ibni, descendent of Ur-Nanna

Marduk-šumu-ibni, son of Aplâ, descendent of Sin-rim-ili

Iqīša, son of Bēl-naşir, descendent of the goldsmith

Iqīša, son of Bēl-naṣir, descendent of the goldsmith

Ṣillâ, son of Bel-uṣallim, descendent of the fisher

VS 3, 30 = NRV 238 Babylon 25 I, 42nd year Nebuchadnezzar II

VS 3, 5 = NRV 229 Babylon 29 I, 10th year Nebuchadnezzar II

Marduk-(ušallim), son of Marduk-zêr-ibni, descendent of the reed artisan

Bêl-mušêtiq-urri, son of Bêl-iddina, descendent of Epêš-ili

Zêr-[x, son of x], descendent of Ištar priests of Babylon

Marduk-šâpik-zêri, son of Nabu-šum-iddina, descendent of Dâbibi

Marduk-šum-ibni, son of Aplâ, descendent of Sin-rim-ili

Nabu-zêr-ibni, son of Aplâ, descendent of Epeš-ili

Êteru, son of Bêl-le’, descendent of Epeš-ili

Nabu-mušêtiq-urri, son of Mušallimu, descendent of the land surveyor

Marduk-zêr-ibni, son of Bêl-upahhir, descendent of Epêš-ili

Marduk-ušallim, son of Marduk-zêr-ibni, descendent of the reed artisan

Marduk-erîba

Iqīša, son of Bēl-naṣir, descendent of the goldsmith

VS 4 18 = NRV 646 Babylon 5 XI, 25th year Nebuchadnezzar II

Iqīša, son of Bēl-naṣir, descendent of the goldsmith

VS 4 16 = NRV 291 Babylon 10 XII, 21st year Nebuchadnezzar II

THE KINGS OF ELAM AFTER THE SACK OF SUSA (645-520 BC)

77

This connection to the Iqīša archive can be supported by a third Neo-Babylonian document (PTS 2713) that was recorded in the first year of Hallutuš-Inšušinak II’s reign (2/XI/1) at Bīt-Hulummu: URU É.ḫu-lum-mu ITI.ZÍZ UD.2.KÁM MU.1.KÁM diš

ḫal-lu-šú LUGÀL.KUR.NIM.MA.KI Bīt-Hulummu. Month XI, day 2, year 1, Hallušu, king of Elam

Unfortunately, there is no documentation on the provenance of this loan of silver (PTS 2713), housed in the Babylonian Section of the Philadelphia University Museum (Stolper 1986, 235), which excludes a relative dating based on archaeological context in the way it was possible for the adoption contract (Weisberg 2003, 1). Stolper (1986, 239) suggested that the Babylonians who drew up the loan were exiled followers of Merodach-baladan II. Even more hypothetical is to connect the Bit-Hulummu loan of silver (PTS 2713) with the Iqīša loans. This connection can be based upon the presence of three persons: Nergal-šum-ibni, Nabu-eṭir and Ina-tēšû-eṭir. One of the witnesses, Nergal-šum-ibni, son of Mušēzib-Marduk, can be linked through his father to one of the Iqīša contracts, in which Mušêzib-Marduk, son of Ṣilla, descendent of Sin-šadûnu is the debtor (VS 4 13, 12th year of Nebuchadnezzar II). This family had been connected to Iqīša for several generations, since Ṣilla, son of Šum-iddina, descendent of Sin-šadûnu, himself appears as a witness in a loan of Iqīša (VS 4 10, 6th year of Nebuchadnezzar II). If one analyzes the Bīt-Hulummu66 document, one can notice that the creditor of the silver, Nabu-eṭir, son of Nabu-naṣir, and the scribe Ina-tēšû-eṭir, son of Nabu-naṣir, are brothers. Coincidence or not, Nabu-naṣir is the one whose borrowing together with Iqīša silver to Šamaš-šum-lišir in the contract that was drafted by Šûzubu in the abovementioned Neo-Babylonian document (VS 4 11). Although the ancestry of Nabu-naṣir is not preserved, there are strong arguments to identify Nabu-naṣir, the contractor of the Iqīša loan, with the father of Nabu-eṭir and Ina-tēšû-eṭir. Since Nabu-naṣir and Iqīša were business associates, who combined their assets in order to debit large sums of silver to certain costumers, the sons of Nabu-naṣir must have acquired a strong position within the travel company of Iqīša. The fact that a son of Nabu-naṣir could lend silver to someone of the Babylonian Bīt-Hulummu community and the other son Ina-tēšû-eṭir contracted the agreement meant that they had the authority to trade independently from Iqīša. Since they equally participated on the business trip to the Susiana region in 599 BC and the Bīt-Hulummu loan of silver was drafted in the first regnal year of Hallutuš-Inšušinak II, the Elamite king must have ascended the throne in 599 BC. Since the earliest documents of the Iqīša archive are dated to the 6th regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar II (599 BC), this is the earliest possible attestation for the reign of Hallutuš-Inšušinak II. However, the Babylonian contract (VS 4 11) contracted by Šûzubu is written on 23-VIII-599 BC and the Elamite contract (VS 4 1) on 20-VIII-[x]. Since three days is a very short time frame to travel from the Elamite-Babylonian borderland (presumably the Yadburu region) to Babylon, the business trip of Iqīša and Šûzubu could not have occurred within the same year. The three persons of the Bit-Hulummu loan corresponding to the Iqīša archive are all sons of Iqīša’s business associates, who are attested in documents from the early Iqīša archive dated between 599 BC and 593 BC. During these five years (599 not included) Iqīša probably made one or various business trip to Yadburu on which he took the younger generation. Since the Bit-Hulummu loan was dated to the first regnal year of Hallutuš-Inšušinak II, his accession date too is situated somewhere between 598 and 593 BC. If the two loans of silver were connected to the early Iqīša contracts that were drafted between 598 and 593 BC, then that date must correspond to the early reign of Hallutuš-Inšušinak II. Adding this information to the Neo-Babylonian adoption that was concluded 15 years later, then the adoption contract must be drafted between 583-578 BC, fitting perfectly within the relative date of the archaeological evidence (589-564 BC). A next step in the reconstruction of the kingship of Hallutuš-Inšušinak II is to examine whether the Elamite documentation on the reign of Hallutuš-Inšušinak II could fit the hypothetical dating provided by the Neo-Babylonian contracts. 66

Bit-Hulummi is probably an alternative orthography for Hilmu, Hillimu, Hilim, Bit-Hullumu and Pidilma (cf. II.1.1.3.). Assurbanipal conquered in consecutive order the royal cities Naditu, Bīt-Bunakki, Hartappānu, Tūbu, ‘whole of Mesopotamia’, Madaktu, Haltemaš, Susa, Din-šarri, Sumuntunaš, Pidilma, Bupilu, Kabinak, and their surroundings (BIWA F iv 29-40/ A v 77-89). Accordingly, Bit-Hulummu was located in the direct vicinity of Sumuntunaš.

78

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

Fig. 5: Inscribed brick of Hallutuš-Inšušinak II from the Inšušinak sanctuary at the Susa Acropole (MDP 5, pl. 17.4)

In Susa, fifteen inscribed brick fragments of Hallutuš-Inšušinak (EKI 77 = IRS 58) were found amongst the remains of the Inšušinak sanctuary in trenches 7β and 7γ at the southern slope of the Acropole hill (MDP 1, 117; König 1965, 22). The finding spot of a piece of glazed wall knob with a very similar text is unknown. Since the object derives from the ‘réserves de la Mission à Suse’, Steve assumed that it was found together with the brick fragments (MDP 53, 50 n. 154). If the location of the wall knob is correct, then it was not used as building material for the square Inšušinak chapel that was erected by Šutruk-Nahhunte II (EKI 72; MDP 5, n. 84), as Steve suggests, but for the Inšušinak sanctuary itself. As the inscription on the bricks (EKI 77 = IRS 58, MDP 53 n. 25) indicates, king Hallutuš-Inšušinak II restored the Inšušinak sanctuary and left his own signature on the building: be hal-lu-taš-dMÙŠ.LAM šá-ak dhu-ban-tah-ra-ah-ha ašan-za-an aššu-šu-un DINGIR.GAL dMÙŠ.LAM-ah-ha-an si-ia-an dMÙŠ.LAM-na šu-mu-na e-ri-en-tim d MÙŠ.LAM na-pír-ú-ri i du-nu-uh.67

ú

li-ku-me-na ri-šá-ah, li-ba-ak ha-ni-ik ú-uh-in-na ti-pi-ha a-ah šil-ha-ah a-ak

I (am) Hallutuš-Inšušinak, son of Huban-tahra, I expanded the kingdom of Anšan and Susa, beloved servant of the gods Napiriša and Inšušinak. I strengthened the sanctuary of Inšušinak with bricks that I manufactured out of limestone, and gave it to my god Inšušinak. EKI 77:1-4

Although the repairing of religious buildings was a traditional gesture of Elamite kings, this renovation can perhaps be seen in the aftermath of the Assyrian raid on the Acropole in 646 BC. The sanctuary of Inšušinak was an ancient building, which must have needed maintenance after the sack of Susa. HallutušInšušinak probably fulfilled his renovation task in honor of the city god Inšušinak in his reign of 15 years. However, the palaeography of the cuneiform signs (NE II: IN, TU, UM; NE III: AK, KI, KU; Steve 1992), the grammar and the orthography of these brick inscriptions suggest a late Neo-Elamite IIIa date (Vallat 1996a, 390, 393; 2002b, 374; Waters 2000, 27). Therefore, the restoration of the sanctuary cannot directly be linked to the Assyrian sack of Susa. The use of the logograms dMÙŠ.LAM and DINGIR.GAL instead of the syllabic orthography in-šu-ši-na-ak and na-pi-ri-ša too refers to the late Neo-Elamite period (Steve 1992). After the reign of Šutruk-Nahhunte II, the orthography of the words šak and riša- changed by replacing the sign ša in šá (Vallat 1995). The locutive suffix -ik-ka4 is modified to the Achaemenid form -ah-ha in the words dhu-ban-tah-ra-ah-ha and dMÙŠ.LAM-ahha-an. An alternative possessive postposition -na in the words likumena and dMÙŠ.LAM-na is attested next to the modified Elamite grammar form -ah-ha (Stolper 2004a, 74). 67

König (1965, 168 n. 6) already postulated that several similar versions of roughly the same text exist, meaning that not all inscribed bricks of Hallutuš-Inšušinak are identical. Two scholarly editions of this inscribed brick have been published by König (EKI 77) and MalbranLabat (IRS 58) with minor differences. The third sign -šu is clearly misread by Malbran-Labat, who indicated in her hand copy the correct sign UR (here: value taš). In line 3, König transliterates ti-pi-ha a-ah šil-ha-ah, while Malbran-Labat reads the older version a-ak of the enclitic element. The sign tim = tum8 is not recorded in the sign list of Steve (1992).

THE KINGS OF ELAM AFTER THE SACK OF SUSA (645-520 BC)

79

König (EKI 77) reads the personal determinative in front of the royal name as gamhal-lu-taš- dMÙŠ.LAM, which should be in fact be, while Malbran-Labat (IRS 58) marks the personal name dišhal-lu-šu-dMÙŠ.LAM. Judging from the published fragments in the MDP 3 and 5 series, the personal determinative diš is excluded. In version b (MDP 3, pl. xxii 5), a combination of an italic be with a successive sign hal would be possible; other versions could equally lack a determinative before hal-lu-taš as indicated by Scheil (MDP 5, 93). The determinative in front of personal names shifts from diš to be (Steve 1988; Tavernier 2004, 13) by the end of the 7th century BC. Towards the late Neo-Elamite era, the personal determinative is often omitted, with the exception of the d in front of a theophoric element.

Fig. 6: Inscribed wall knob of Hallutuš-Inšušinak II (MDP 53, pl. 9:6)

In 1987, Steve (MDP 53, 50-51 pl. 9:6) published a piece of an inscribed glazed wall knob with presumably the same archaeological background as the brick inscriptions (MDP 1, 128; MDP 7, 38; MDP 8, 34). At first sight, the wall knob contained a very similar text with the royal titulary, where the likumena rišah is omitted (MDP 53, 52), and the building dedication of Hallutuš-Inšušinak II. (1) ú hal-lu-taš-[dMÙŠ.LAM] (2) šá-ak dhu-ba[n-tah-ra]- (3) ah-ha ašan-za-an-a[h aššu-šu]- (4) un-uh li-ba-ak h[a-niik DINGIR.GAL] (5) dMÙŠ.LAM-[ah-ha-an si-ia-an] (6) dMÙŠ.LAM-[na…ú-] (7) [uh]-in-[na ti-pi-ih…] I (am) Hallutuš-Inšušinak, son of Huban-tahra, of Anšan and Susa, beloved servant of the god Napiriša and Inšušinak, the temple of Inšušinak….68

When reconstructing the inscription based on the measurement provided by Steve (MDP 53, 50), at least one or two signs must have been written over the rim. This basically means that the traditional royal titulary is too large for the surface of the wall knob. This can be explained in three ways: (1) The text on the wall knob does not resemble the one on the brick inscriptions. (2) The scribe did not outline the text properly, and the lines continued along the neck of the wall knob. (3) The approximate diameter indicated by Steve is not correct. With one look at the palaeography of the wall knob, one can instantly notice that the cuneiform signs are written in an italic script. The form of the signs, as far as one can gather from the small fragment, is Neo-Elamite IIIb. Next to the standard orthography (AH, AN, AŠ, HA, HAL, HU, UR, ŠÁ, Ú, UN, ZA), there are NeoElamite signs with a specific late form, like AK, IN, LAM, LU, MUŠ. These forms correspond to the orthography of the Ururu Bronze Plaque, to the Susa Acropole texts and even the Kalmakarra hoard. Moreover, some cuneiform signs (BA, BAN, LAM, LI, LU) differ substantially from the Hallutuš-Inšušinak brick fragments. So the wall knob must have been written by another hand. 68 On the wall knob fragment, the royal titulary of Hallutuš-Inšušinak can be restored. F. Vallat (2002b, 274) probably added ru-hu after the restoration of dMÙŠ.LAM to identify Hallutuš-Inšušinak as nephew (sister’s son) of Huban-tahra. However, the photograph of this wall knob indicates clearly that no such restoration is possible. There is only space for two to three cuneiform signs in the lacuna (MDP 53, pl. 9:6).

80

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

As far as one can tell from the partially preserved wall knob inscription, the linguistic markers correspond to the brick fragments. There is no determinative used in front of names, unless it is a theophoric particle. The suffix ak4 /ik-ka4 is replaced by uh/ah-ha (König 1965, 168 n. 11). The cuneiform šá subsides ša and the logogram dMÙŠ.LAM for Inšušinak instead of the earlier syllabic value. Comparing the two texts, the brick inscription has much more archaic features than the text on the wall knob. König (1965, 168 n. 6) already indicated that several scribes were involved in the brick inscriptions and this also applies to the wall knob that must have been fabricated in a different atelier as the inscriptions. The scribes probably based the Hallutuš-Inšušinak II bricks on the available examples of his predecessors, which could explain the archaic impression with modern elements. The wall knob, an ornament already appreciated as decorative building material by the Middle Elamite kings at the Chogha Zanbil sanctuary (Basello 2012, 6-13), was less common in the Susa Acropole finds. Since there was less comparative material available, the royal scribes must have used contemporary scribal practice, which would explain the young palaeography. If one has to date the reign of Hallutuš-Inšušinak II based on the wall knob, which can give the best representative image in my point of view, then I would suggest that Hallutuš-Inšušinak ruled Elam around 585 BC. Since Hallutuš-Inšušinak II must have ruled for quite some years before accomplishing his building activities, the proposed date for the Neo-Elamite inscriptions corresponds roughly to the date provided by the NeoBabylonian documents.

5.5. Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak69 (2nd quarter 6th century BC) The reign of Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak is attested through a single limestone stele, of which only five fragments were found during the Acropole excavations of de Morgan (Scheil 1911, 83, fig. 16). Pézard (1924, 1-26) has put the fragments together and the restored stele is currently displayed at the Louvre (EKI 86-89, Sb 16). The image on the stele, representing an Elamite king and a subject, is almost completely eroded. In between the two heads depicted on the stele, an inscription (EKI 87) identifies the protagonist: I (am) Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak, son of Hutran-tepti, I adorn Susa and the citizens of Susa. I made a statue for the inhabitants (puhur: litt. children) of Susa. (left caption) King Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak, son of Hutran-tepti, (right caption) the beloved servant of Inšušinak.

Only the text on the lower part of stele remains legible (EKI 86, 88-89). Herein the partially restored royal titulary of Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak is repeated in a way that reminds us of the extended royal titulary of ŠutrukInšušinak II (EKI 73) on the red marble stele. [ú at-ta-ha-mi-ti] dMÙŠ.LAM šá-ak dhu-ut-ra-an-te-ip-[ti-i]k-ka4 su-un-ki-i[k ašan-za-an aššu-šu-un-ka4 li]-[ku-me ri-šáak-ka4 ka4-a]t-ri ha-tàm-ti-ik-ki halme-ni-ik-k[i ha]-tàm-ti-ik-ki I (am) Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak, son of Hutran-Tepti, king of Anšan and Susa, enlarger of the realm, heir to the throne of Elam, landlord of Elam. EKI 86:1-2

It is difficult to situate the reign of Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak within Neo-Elamite history. Scheil (1911, 78) argued that Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak must have ruled Elam some time before king Ummanunu and king ŠilhakInšušinak II. According to Cameron (1936, 190-191, also Hinz 1964, 157; de Miroschedji 1985; Stolper 1992a, 199), Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak must have ruled somewhere between 653-548 BC. Cameron postulated the option that Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak may have been the Attametu from the Assyrian Annals, who had been the commander of the archers (rab qašti) during the reign of Huban-nikaš II or/and the father of Huban-haltaš III. However, this identification seems unlikely. Firstly, Huban-nikaš II, Tammaritu and Indabibi were ruling successively Elam during the period in which Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak appears in the Assyrian Annals (Vallat 2006a, 385 n. 4; Tavernier 2004, 23). Therefore, his authority as ‘king’ would not have been recognized on a large 69

Assyrian onomastic reference: at-ta-me-ti/u/ú (PNA 1/I, 234). This name is probably an Assyrianized form of the Elamite name: ad-daha-mi-ti-din-su-uš-na-ak (EKI 87:1-3).

THE KINGS OF ELAM AFTER THE SACK OF SUSA (645-520 BC)

81

scale. Secondly, the Assyrian Annals refer to Attametu’s beheading in the battle of Mangisu around 652 BC (BIWA B vii 30-35). Since Attametu died as a commander of the archers, it is safely to assume that Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak would never have taken up the office of commander of the archers after he had been a king. The Assyrian Annals do not add a patronymic (PNA 324) to the name of Attametu, which makes it impossible to connect with certainty this name to an Elamite king after the sack of Susa (Tavernier 2004, 22). Stolper (1984, 50) carefully calls Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak a local ruler at Susa. Vallat (1996a, 391; also Waters 2000, 85; Tavernier 2004, 23), who refuted the identification of the Elamite king with the Assyrian names, uses the royal titles of Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak ‘king of Anšan and Susa, enlarger of the realm, heir to the throne of Elam, landlord of Elam’ (EKI 86:1-2) as a tool for establishing a late Neo-Elamite chronological frame. Especially the title ‘king of Anšan and Susa’ is referring to the late Middle and early Neo-Elamite dynasty. Since the titulary is so similar to that of Šutruk-Nahhunte II, the scribes of the Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak stele must have known the stele of Šutruk-Nahhunte II (EKI 72), which was taken from the Elamite capital by the Assyrian sack of Susa (646 BC; BIWA Fig. 7: Stele of Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak (Sb 16, after Harper et al. 1992, 198 fig. 140) F v 34-39). Assurbanipal probably carried off several statues of Elamite gods together with thirty-two statues of Elamite kings to Uruk, where he deposed his war booty in the Eanna temple. The Babylonian king Nabopolassar (626-605 BC) returned in his accession year the Elamite statues to Susa (ABC 2; CM 21:15-17), where the statue of ŠutrukNahhunte II was restored on its original place at the Acropole sanctuary of Inšušinak. Therefore, I suggest that the reign of Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak must postdate this event. The year of Nabopolassar’s accession, in the month of Adar, Nabopolassar returned to Susa the gods of Susa that Assyria had deported and assigned to a residence in Uruk. ABC 2; CM 21:15-17

Although Waters (2000, 86) emphasizes the ceremonial character of the titulary, Vallat (1996a, 391) links the use of the royal titulary to the revival of the Neo-Elamite state after the sack of Susa (646 BC), comprising the reestablished rule over the highlands. Therefore, he assigns the reign of Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak to the last part of the 7th and the beginning of the 6th century BC (646-585 BC), assuming that Šutur-Nahhunte, son of Huban-tahra (EKI 71) was king of Elam immediately after the sack of Susa. According to Vallat, HallutušInšušinak II and Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak must have preceded Ummanunu (S. 165), Šilhak-Inšušinak II (EKI 78) and Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II (EKI 79-85), because these kings do not refer to themselves as king of Anšan and Susa. Vallat (1996a, 391) believes that the title ‘king of Anšan and Susa’ reflected an actual political power in the Anšan region. Therefore, the kings of Elam, bearing this title, must have reigned before 585 BC, when the Elamites would have lost the highland capital to the emerging Teispid dynasty. The arguments of Vallat on the territorial extent may reveal some truth, even though it is very unlikely that the Elamites still had political power over the Anšan region in the late Elamite period. Since there were almost no remains of Elamite material culture recorded in the limited amount of surveys and excavations that were conducted in the Kur River Basin, it cannot be proven archaeologically that the territorial boundaries extended as far as the Kur River Basin during the Neo-Elamite period at all (Sumner 1974; 1994). On the other hand, the Elamites maintained control over a part of the highlands until at least the first half of the 6th century BC and this is also the case for the reign of king Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak. In his stele, two highland locations, Gisat and Huhnur (EKI 88: 4) have a prominent role. Huhnur and Gisat were situated in the vicinity of the

82

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

Elamite highland stronghold Hidalu, a city that was still part of the Susa administrative jurisdiction during the late Neo-Elamite period.70 Whether the hegemony over the Elamite highlands can be seen in the light of the revival of the Elamite kingdom after the sack of Susa (646 BC), as Vallat proposed (1996a, 391), is another question. As postulated earlier, the archaeological sources (de Miroschedji 1981a) do not support such a collapse and reemergence of the Elamite kingdom. In my opinion, the Elamite kingdom recovered from the Assyrian sack as it did from any other attack. Once the Assyrians had disappeared out of the Elamite scope, the Elamite government regained political stability and consolidated its position. As the inscriptions of Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak (EKI 86-89) contain little historical information, chronological indications have to be sought in the morphology and palaeography. 1) In the introductory line of the Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak stele (EKI 87:1) ú ad-da-ha-mi-ti-din-su-iš-na-ak šá-ak hu-ut-ra-an-te-ip-ti-ha, one can immediately see late Neo-Elamite elements. Next to the systematic absence of a personal determinative before the royal name Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak, the father’s name lacks a determinative as well. The omission of a personal determinative before a patronymic becomes common in the late Neo-Elamite period (kings of Samati; EKI 75-76; EKI 78). If the first particle of the patronymic is a theophoric element (EKI 77: dHuban; EKI 86-87: dHutran), then only the d determinative is given instead of the diš d (EKI 71-73). 2) The text on the stele indicates various spellings of the divine name Inšušinak. In the horizontal inscript Inšušinak is written syllabically, whereas the vertical caption and the main text reads dMÙŠ.LAM (EKI 86:1, 4, 5, 7; EKI 87: left caption; EKI 89:10). The logogram dMÙŠ.LAM is attested for the first time in an inscription of Šutruk-Nahhunte II (EKI 73C). Tavernier (2004, 24) indicates the broken spelling of a /Cuš/sequence in the theophoric particle of the name Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak (EKI 87:1). However, in the beginning of that particular sequence -su-iš-, the sign šu is replaced by su, which I already indicated with regard to the Middle Elamite inscriptions of Šilhak-Inšušinak (EKI 32, EKI 36-59). The syllabic writing is attested throughout the Elamite historical periods, even though the broken writings only occur in the late NeoElamite inscriptions. The fact that the syllabic version of the word Inšušinak with broken writings is exclusively attested in the introductory line, makes me conclude that it was not the common spelling at the time. This arument corresponds with the harmonic writing of the word ap-pu-up (EKI 89:11). 3) As Vallat (1996a) already postulated, šak (son) is written syllabically with the sign šá (EKI 86:1, 4; EKI 87:2, left caption) instead of the early Neo-Elamite variant ša (EKI 72) or the logogram DUMU. 4) The locutive suffix -ka4 (EKI 86:1 te-ip-ti-ik-ka4 šu-šu-un-ka4; EKI 87:4-5 left caption te-ip-ti-ka4) at the end of the genitive construction is replaced by the suffix -h in the horizontal inscript (EKI 87:5 hu-ut-raan-te-ip-ha; EKI 89:10 su-un-ki-ih-ki), although not systematically. 5) The word for king sunki has various spellings: su-un-ki-ik (EKI 86:2; EKI 88:10; EKI 89:10,11), su-gìr (EKI 86:3, 6, 11; 87:1 left caption). Su-gìr is an archaic form applied in the late Middle Elamite and Tall-i Malyan texts (Stolper 1984b), of which the latest attestation dates to the time of Šutruk-Nahhunte II (EKI 72; EKI 74:12). In all other Neo-Elamite inscriptions, the logogram EŠŠANA is used. The plural form suun-ki-ip (EKI 89:11) on the other hand has several Neo-Elamite attestations (EKI 75:1; PBP:7’; EKI 72: su-un-kip). The word su-un-ki-ik-(ki) (EKI 86:2; EKI 88:10; EKI 89:10, 11), referring to the office of king, is used for the last time in the Šutruk-Nahhunte II inscriptions (EKI 71, 73). Thereafter, su-un-ki is generally a part of a personal name (cf. I.6.). 6) ha-alMEŠ (EKI 88:4) is the pseudo-logogram denoting a country. In the second attestation, ha-alMEŠ (EKI 88:9) precedes ka4-[…].71 The syllabic writing of hal is still an archaic form of the logogram hal (Steve 1992, 70 Hu-uh-pìr in the transliteration of König (EKI 88) should be read hu-uh-nur (Steve 1992, n. 393) by analogy to the Susa Acropole texts (Vallat 1993, 101-102): S. 28, S. 42-43, S. 51, S. 63, S. 114-115, S. 128, S. 159, S. 180, S. 192, S. 237, S. 244, S. 291. For Gisat: Ururu: l. 43, l. 67 (cf. I.6.2.). 71 In the Neo-Elamite period, not many toponyms start with the sign ka4. The Susa Acropole texts reveal the best candidate for the reconstruction with aška4-šá-an (Vallat 1993, 135; ElW 450-451: in Persia). Additional possibilities have to be sought in unattested variants of toponyms that start with the combination /kaC/. The Neo-Elamite aškar--taš (EKI 72) is attested in Middle Elamite orthographies as aš ka4-ri-in-daš (EKI 23, EKI 51-52) even twice with the determinative hal (EKI 23, EKI 52). Also aškam-uz-zí-ra-ka4 in a Susa Acropole text (S. 25) and the palace manager of aškat6-mur-ti (Nin 5:5) could be possible candidates, though less convincing.

THE KINGS OF ELAM AFTER THE SACK OF SUSA (645-520 BC)

83

n. 2) that is used in the early Achaemenid inscriptions and the late Neo-Elamite correspondence (Nineveh letters). The determinative hal is used in Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak’s royal titulary to establish a more modern expression of the word landlord halme-ni-ik-ki, compared with the early Neo-Elamite me-en-ku li-ik-ki (EKI 72-73). If the restoration of halha-tàm-ti (EKI 86:8; 89:10) is correct, then this is yet another example of an inconsequent mix of early and late Neo-Elamite orthography. 7) The archaic orthography for ‘the citizen who is from Susa’ pu-hu-ur aššu-šu-un-ra (EKI 87:7-8) differs from what we expect in late Elamite morphology, in which similar constructions are usually written with the genitive marker -na (Tavernier 2011a, 323). 8) According to Tavernier (2004, 25) the palaeography of five cuneiform signs (RU, SI, TUR, UG, UZ) is similar to that of Šutruk-Nahhunte II. UZ is attested in that shape in the stele of Šutruru (EKI 74) and in the TeptiHuban-Inšušinak inscriptions (EKI 85:11). Following the sign list of Steve (1992, n. 372),72 the palaeography of UZ does not change in the royal Neo-Elamite inscriptions, but thus evolves in the non-monumental inscriptions (omen, legal texts, letter). The same argumentation can be given for the sign UG (Steve 1992, n. 130). The cuneiform signs NA and IN on the contrary can be added to Tavernier’s list of early NeoElamite signs occurring in the Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak stele. The cuneiform signs of KA4 and AL are attested in various shapes in the Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak stele: sometimes their shapes are early Neo-Elamite, sometimes late Neo-Elamite. MÙŠ, LAM and KU on the other hand represent a typical late Neo-Elamite script. The overall impression I got while studying the Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak stele was that the palaeography most resembled the Šekaft-e Salman inscription of Hanne (EKI 76). The analysis of the palaeography of the Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak stele gives a similar result as that of the orthography: an almost equal balance between archaic and late Elamite elements that assigns the dating of stele probably to the first part of the 6th century BC (NE IIIA). Waters (2000, 87) suggests that the inscriptions may have been written in different stages. But then one needs to be able to establish a systematic use of the late Neo-Elamite style in certain younger parts. A good candidate for such an addition would be the short identification text on the upper part of the stele between the two figures (EKI 87), or at least the vertical inscripts. However, in the central part as well as the vertical lines early and late Neo-Elamite morphology are mixed. Therefore, I can conclude that, contrary to Waters’ suggestion, there is no recognizable linguistic or palaeographic pattern to assign the several parts of the inscription to different stages in time. Waters (2000, 85) made an alternative suggestion by connecting the Elamite king Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak to the Elamite rebel king Aθamaita, mentioned in the Bisitun inscription. Herein, Aθamaita invokes an Elamite rebellion against Darius in 520 BC: Says Darius the king: This is what I have done in the second and the third year after I became king. A land, Elam by name, became rebellious. One men, Aθamaita by name, an Elamite, they made him (their) leader. Then I sent an army. Gaubarva by name, a Persian, my servant, him I made their commander. Then Gaubarva advanced to Elam (and) fought the battle with the Elamites. Then Gaubarva slew the Elamites, he wiped (them) out and captured their leader. He led (him) before me. Then I killed him. Then the land became mine. DBp v 1-14: translation J. Tavernier

According to Tavernier (2004, 24-26), several elements on the Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak stele give an archaizing impression to emphasize the political strength of the king. Firstly, the Old Persian name Aθamaita corresponds onomastically quite well to the Elamite name Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak and the Akkadian Attametu (Tavernier 2004, 24; also Henkelman 2008, 291). If Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak ruled after Šilhak-Inšušinak II and TeptiHuban-Inšušinak II, the first who is referred to as king and the latter who does not even proclaim to be king, the reuse of the archaizing royal titulary would illustrate his political ambition. Šilhak-Inšušinak II and TeptiHuban-Inšušinak II would rather accept their role as ruler of Susiana under Achaemenid authority, whereas Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak had the ambition to march to Persia in order to restore the Elamite kingdom in all its glory. In this context, Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak could be identified with the Elamite rebel Aθamaita from the Bisitun inscription. 72

Steve (1992, n. 372) recorded three variations on the UZ sign, but I was only able to find his second example in EKI 86:13.

84

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

Vallat (2006a, 59-61) rejects Tavernier’s (2004, 24-30) proposal of associating Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak with Aθamaita based on an unpublished text in which Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak claims to battle against the army of Šutur-Nahhunte, son of Huban-immena, near Ayapir.73 Herein, Vallat finds confirmation for his own hypothesis that Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak should be a contemporary ruler of Šutur-Nahhunte, son of Huban-immena III and Hallutuš-Inšušinak, son of Huban-tahra II, the last kings of Anšan and Susa (646-585 BC). With this argument, Vallat assigns Tavernier’s identification of Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak with Aθamaita to les poubelles de l’histoire. According to Tavernier (2010, 1063), apart of the mysterious context of the new fragment of Vallat, it is by no means certain that the Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak cited by Vallat is the same person as in the Atta-hamitiInšušinak stele. Even though the linguistic association of the Persian name Aϑamaita with its Elamite variant Atta-hamitiInšušinak seems more than acceptable, the identification of the Elamite rebel against Darius with the Elamite king is far more difficult to explain. The Elamite king Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak claimed to have ruled an extensive territory reaching until the border of Hidalu in Fars. During the late 6th century BC, Persian power increased in the Kur River Basin and beyond. Dating Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak to the late 6th century BC would create conflicting territorial boundaries between the Elamite and Achaemenid king. In his stele (EKI 86:12, 15), Attahamiti-Inšušinak refers to his infantry or military encampment (ka4-rášMEŠ)74 in connection to two cities Šamaršušu and Pessitme that refused to recognize Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak’s royal house (EKI 86:11 ašpe-is-si-it-me ha-alli-pe im-me a-hi-in da-ah-ši). If Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak fought against the Persians, he would not have failed to mention these military achievements in his monumental stele that he erected in Susa. If Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak indeed was the great king of Anšan and Susa, perhaps even the last late NeoElamite king to rule such an extended territory, then it is more likely that an Elamite rebel king would have adopted this name to the last great king in the Elamite collective memory in order to gain support from the Elamite nobility and population. Several theories on the combination su-gìr hal-ka4-taš exist, which occurs three times in the Atta-hamitiInšušinak stele (EKI 86:3 partially restored, 6, 10). Either Halkataš was a proper name, but has lost its personal determinative due to the combination with the word for king. In this case, king Halkataš was loyal to Hubantepti the father (EKI 86:6 at-du-ri-na) of Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak (König 1965, 173 n. 5 also Potts 1999, 297), implying that Huban-tepti must have been a king of Susa as well. Tavernier (2004, 26) suggests that ‘Halkataš is a proper name, belonging to the predecessor of Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak’ and that Hutran-tepti could therefore never have been king. However, this is obviously a misinterpretation of the texts, since neither the family relation between Halkataš and Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak is cited as such, nor is the connection of Halkataš with Susa. Some scholars have suggested that hal-ka4-taš was an epithet for Huban-tepti (Pézard 1924, 9, 12; ElW 29, 607), which seems unlikely. The third possibility would be to read hal-ka4-taš as the toponym halka4-taš, becoming su-gìr hal ka4-taš ‘the king of Kataš’ without the genitive marker -na. In this case, one could restore the reference to an illegible country to ha-alMEŠ ka4 [-taš] (EKI 88:9). So, when the young king Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak ascended the throne in Susa, the older local king Halkataš (or king of the land Kataš) must have (military) supported the newly appointed king (EKI 86) to enforce the loyalty of the Gisat, Pessitme, Samaršušu75 and Šepšilak76 areas. 73 Vallat claims in his 2006a article on Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak that he has found a new text that he will publish in his forthcoming book Inscriptions royales d’Elam et de Susiane. However, he fails to mention more specifications on the book in his bibliography. In the article, Vallat gives no transcription, no museum number, no photograph, no hand-copy and not even a reference to the exact inscribed lines of the translated fragment. Moreover, he does not give any additional information: on what kind of objet is the text inscribed, in which collection is the text preserved, where was the fragment originally found? This article, text and historical context can therefore not be considered as a valuable contribution to Neo-Elamite chronology until the mysterious Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak text is properly published. Moreover, ŠuturNahhunte, son of Huban-immena, and Šutruk-Nahhunte II are the same person (cf. I.2.2.3.), making the authenticity of the unpublished inscription questionable. 74 According to König (1965, 100 n. 4) the Elamite ka4-rášMEŠ derives from the Akkadian karāšu ‘military camp’. 75 The only Neo-Elamite attestation of the toponym Pessitme occurs in the Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak stele. In the Persepolis Fortification texts, Pessitme is recorded as the 21st benchmark on the road from Persepolis to Susa. Unlike Vallat (1993, 40-41), Koch (1990, 399) differentiates between the toponyms Pessitme and Pezatamme. Pessitme would be located near the modern Dizful (Koch 1986, 146-147), while Pezatamme was the fifteenth stage on the Persepolis-Susa road presumably somewhere in the Ram Hormuz plain (Koch 1986, 144). 76 Šepšilak (Vallat 1993, 256; ElW 1149) and Šamaršušu (Vallat 1993, 253; ElW 1129) are exclusively mentioned in the Atta-hamitiInšušinak stele.

THE KINGS OF ELAM AFTER THE SACK OF SUSA (645-520 BC)

85

The standing person depicted on the stele before the king could by consequence be identified with Atta-hamitiInšušinak’s ally king Halkataš. Moreover, the systematical reference to sugir instead of the sunki is used to differentiate between the king of Elam and a local king of the highlands under authority of the Elamite monarchy (ElW 1098).77

5.6. Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II (3rd quarter 6th century BC) Modern scholarship has attributed the Elamite texts of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak for more than a century to the reign of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I (Cameron 1936, 186; Hinz 1964, 154; Stolper 1984, 50; Malbran-Labat 1995, 141), the Elamite king who had brought the Elamite-Assyrian hostilities to a climax in the battle of Til-Tuba (653 BC). Since Vallat (1996a, 391-393; 2002a; also Tavernier 2004, 33-39) has revised the late NeoElamite chronology, the Elamite inscriptions of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak were redated to the Neo-Elamite III period based on linguistic and orthographic features, and therefore assigned to a second king by the name Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak.78 An additional argument, which is of overwhelming importance to me, can be found in the different genealogical lineage of both Elamite kings. Although Waters (2000, 48) doubted that TeptiHuban-Inšušinak was the paramount ruler of that time, which makes it difficult to identify him with the Teumman of the Assyrian sources, he (2000, 40-41; 2006a, 501) still tries unsuccessfully to reconcile the two individuals by the name Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak with each other. Based on their paternal band, however, I support the arguments of Vallat (2006a) and Tavernier (2004). The Hubanid king Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I was the son of Huban-haltaš I as stated in the Assyrian Annals (BIWA B iv 79/C v 85), whereas the Elamite building inscriptions (EKI 79-85) assign the patronymic affiliation of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak to a certain ŠilhakInšušinak. The reign of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II has come to us through several inscribed bricks (EKI 80-84; IRS 59-62) and steles (EKI 79; EKI 85). Three types of brick inscriptions display building activities of Tepti-HubanInšušinak II. The first type of inscribed bricks exclusively mentions the name of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II and his affiliation: ú dte-ip-ti-dhu-ban-dMÙŠ.LAM šá-ak šil-ha-ak-dMÙŠ.LAM-ik-ka4 (EKI 81; IRS 59). Although the theophoric element Inšušinak is written with the late Neo-Elamite logogram dMÙŠ.LAM in the royal names, the archaic postposition ik-ka4 (instead of -ah-ha or -na) connected to the patronymic Šilhak-Inšušinak leans towards the Neo-Elamite II period. However, the two royal names on the brick, Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak and Šilhak-Inšušinak, are exclusively preceded by a d determinative in front of the theophoric elements, while the personal determinative diš (d) in front of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak and be before Šilhak-Inšušinak are omitted. The absence of personal determinatives, like in the Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak stele (EKI 86-87), is a typical late NeoElamite element. Remarkably, Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II used in his building texts exclusively the short royal titulary, which becomes common towards the end of the Neo-Elamite period. Especially local Elamite kings, like the Samatian kings (Henkelman 2003b, 219), were using the short titulary (royal name and affiliation). Also the fact that Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak never calls himself ‘king’ in his inscriptions is at least remarkable. Since there is a large variety in texts on the reign of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II, it is possible that an inscription with such an extended royal titulary including the word ‘king’ may have existed, but was simply not found during the Susa excavations. Furthermore, because all the Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II texts were found at the 77 In EKI 45: VII.6 sugir is connected to the servants of the temple su-gìr pu-hu si-ia-an-ni-ir. In this context, the translation ‘lord of the temple servants’ is perhaps more appropriate than ‘king’. Another inscription of the Middle Elamite king Šilhak-Inšušinak (EKI 51: IV.10) refers to a local fellow king hu-utMEŠ ka4-ri-i[n-taš-x]-ip a-ak pu-hu hu-h[u diš] su-gìr ka-ri-in-taš-ir-ra-me ‘the region of Karintaš and the offspring of the king of Karintaš’. In the late Middle – early Neo-Elamite archive of Tall-i Malyan, texts refer probably to local highland kings (Stolper 1984): M-603: 8-9:14 su-gìr šu-ut-ru-uk.nah-hu[-un-te] 6 su-gìr ak-sir.KI.MIN ’14 (sheep) for king Šutruk-Nahhunte and 6 for Aksir-Nahhunte’. M-1157: 17 su-gìr ak-sir.ŠIMUT. Šutruk-Nahhunte II (EKI 72:4-6) calls his three ancestors sugir. Either Šutruk-Nahhunte II considered them to be local rulers or -more plausible- he emphasizes the highland ‘Anšan’ connections. In the same context, his official Šutruru describes Šutruk-Nahhunte II as sugìr to connect his dynastic lineage to the great Middle Elamite highland kings (EKI 74:12). 78 For the discussion on the reassessment of the Elamite Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak documents, see I.3.4.

86

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

Susa Acropole and all texts were written in the locutive form, it seems reasonable to assume that he was indeed a king of Susa/Elam. After the royal titulary ‘I (am) Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak, son of Šilhak-Inšušinak’, the second type of bricks is inscribed with brief statements on the ‘building activity’ theme. e-ri-en-tim(MEŠ) ti-pu-uh a-ak si-ia-an dMÙŠ.LAM-mi ha ku-ši-ih79 I have manufactured bricks and I have built the temple of my god Inšušinak EKI 82, 84; IRS 60 si-an-i-me ku-ší-ih a-ak dMÙŠ.LAM na-pu-ri i du-ni-ih I have built his temple and I gave it to my god Inšušinak. EKI 83; IRS 61

These inscriptions contain a large amount of writing variations. Next to the traditional spelling si-ia-an ‘temple, sanctuary’, EKI 83 displays an alternative combination si-an, in which the cuneiform sign ia is omitted. Variations on the spelling of the word ‘temple’ are already known from the text on the Šilhak-Inšušinak II door socket (EKI 78) onwards. The pseudo-logogram e-ri-en-timMEŠ is written in EKI 82 with a determinative MEŠ and in EKI 84 without one, a practice already attested on the Hallutuš-Inšušinak bricks (EKI 77). The traditional sign combination na-pìr-u-ri for ‘my god’ has been abbreviated to na-pu-ri; a similar form at-du-ri occurs in the Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak stele (EKI 86:6). Also ha ‘here’ (EKI 82; 84), used in Achaemenid texts (Stolper 2004a, 76), is an abbreviated form of a-hi (EKI 80). The large orthographic variety of the second type of TeptiHuban-Inšušinak texts may not only suggest that several scribes drafted these texts, but it also betrays the recent date of the inscriptions. Some scribes must have been able to write in archaic spelling, while others used the style of that time. The two sentences of the second type of brick inscription are a combination of the Hallutuš-Inšušinak II building inscription in which the former king commissioned to manufacture the bricks, strengthen the temple and donate it to Inšušinak. However, Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II claimed to have built the sanctuary of Inšušinak (ku-ši-ih), while Hallutuš-Inšušinak merely did some restoration works (EKI 77: šil-ha-ah). Looking at the archaeological context, the bricks of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II were uncovered together with the ŠutrukNahhunte II marble stele (EKI 73) at the Acropole in the first level of trench 18, which was a southwestern extension of trench 7γ. De Morgan (1900, 136) had dug trench 18 to a depth of 3 meters (Neo-Elamite level), while trenches of the Hallutuš-Inšušinak bricks (7β, 7γ) had a mixed context with their average depth of 4,5 meters within the first excavation level.80 In trench 18, the archaeological material gives for the first time exhaustive evidence of an Neo-Elamite king, who did (re-)building and renovation works to the main Inšušinak sanctuary. Still, one needs to explain the fact that Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak (re-)built the Inšušinak sanctuary that Hallutuš-Inšušinak had renovated a few decades earlier. Three possibilities may come to mind. Firstly, we do not have to take the building inscription to the letter and Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak probably renovated the Inšušinak sanctuary just like the other late Neo-Elamite kings. Secondly, Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II enlarged the Inšušinak sanctuary, possibly with a portico in front of the main entrance. Despite the fact that a similar extension had been made by the Middle Elamite king Šilhak-Inšušinak I (EKI 45),81 it could have been destroyed by the Assyrian raid on Susa (646 BC). In a third possibility, Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II could have actually rebuilt the Inšušinak sanctuary. In this case, an event must have taken place that caused the demolition of the sanctuary after the reign of Hallutuš-Inšušinak II. Therefore, one has to wonder whether Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II with all his military activities in the region had to endure a military raid on his capital as well. Perhaps this 79

Malbran-Labat (1995, 138-139) does not distinguish the EKI 82 and EKI 84 inscriptions of König (1965, 171). The only difference between the two texts is the absence of MEŠ after the pseudo-logogram e-ri-en-tim in EKI 84. König (1965, 171 n. 8) already observed that there is no space available to add MEŠ after this pseudo-logogram to the phrase in EKI 84. 80 The first excavation level of de Morgan with an average depth of 4,5 meters (7β, 7γ) or 5 meters (7, 7α, 15, 15α) was so large that it yields Sassanian, Achaemenid, Neo-Elamite and Middle Elamite occupation layers. 81 Šilhak-Inšušinak I actually built an enlarged version the Inšušinak sanctuary (EKI 41) on the Acropole that was originally constructed by Hutran-tepti (EKI 39).

THE KINGS OF ELAM AFTER THE SACK OF SUSA (645-520 BC)

87

raid has to be seen in the light of the emerging Persian empire, even though there are no textual sources to support this hypothesis. A third type of inscribed brick, of which the archaeological context is unattested, with a more elaborate inscription (EKI 80; IRS 62) was dedicated to the military deeds of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II and to the construction of the Pinigir temple. Since Šutruk-Nahhunte II already erected the Pinigir temple (EKI 71), one can question whether Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II built, rebuilt, enlarged or restored the Pinigir temple. Next to the building activities, the central theme of the inscription is the military campaigns of TeptiHuban-Inšušinak II. Herein, he describes his victory over the Balahute and Lallari people, in which the Lallari were even subdued to a tributary status (za-ap-pe du-uh). The Balahute people are attested for the first time in the stele of Middle Elamite king Šilhak-Inšušinak I, where they had plundered the temple of Inšušinak at Susa. Šilhak-Inšušinak I organized a retribution campaign to return these temple belongings to Susa (EKI 46:96-100). The linguistic features of this text reveal a similar style as the first two Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II brick inscriptions. 1) Although the titulary of this inscription is similar to the other brick fragments, the second theophoric element Inšušinak in the name Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak and Šilhak-Inšušinak is written in syllabic broken writings (din-su-iš-na-ak) instead of in a logogram dMÙŠ.LAM. The combination of these two orthographies within the same texts occurs also in the Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak stele (EKI 87), which is an additional argument to place the two inscriptions within the same era. 2) Within the several exemplars that have come to us, the pseudo-logogram ha-al(MEŠ) ‘land’ is written alternately with and without the determinative MEŠ. Unlike the Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak inscription (hal vs. ha-al(MEŠ)), there is no variation in the orthography of ha-al. However, in this inscription of Tepti-HubanInšušinak II the determinative pseudo-logogram MEŠ is omitted after the word e-ri-en-tim. Contrary to the other Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II bricks, the words si-ia-an, na-pír-u-ri and a-hi are drafted in the traditional orthography. After the word na-pír-u-ri the genitive postposition -na is added, a grammatical element that makes it appearance during the late Neo-Elamite period (Stolper 2004a, 87; Tavernier 2011a, 323). 3) The reference to the Balahute and the Lallari people is made, using a combination of a Neo-Elamite II and III expression. In the traditional Elamite orthography, the Elamites referred to a land by ha-al(MEŠ) followed a geographical name (e.g. EKI 75: ha-alMEŠ la-ah-ti-e; ha-alMEŠ ku-ur-pu-ut-tu4), while in the late Elamite period a toponym or ethnomym with the postposition -ippe refers to the people living on that specific land (ba-la-hu-te-ip-pe and la-al-la-ri-ip-pe). The combination of the ha-alMEŠ with -ippe is exclusively attested in the Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak inscriptions (EKI 79-80). Before the names of the Balahute and Lallari people no personal determinative is added, which complies with the general style of the Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II titulary. A precise location for the ‘lands’ of the Balahute & the Lallari people is not yet known, although several suggestions that they are situated in southern Lurestan may point in the right direction. Cameron (1936, 120) suggested the central Zagros, while Hinz & Koch (ElW 130) situated the territory of the Balahute people somewhere in Lurestan. Vallat (1993, 33) supported this connection with the Lallari people, whose land is assigned to the Zagros foothills south of the Little Zab in Lurestan (Röllig 1983, 438). Labat (1963/1975, 493; also Vallat 1993, 33, 155) proposed that the ethnonym Lallari derived from the river Lallar, located in the land of Zamua. A fourth type of inscription, of which only one exemplar is left (EKI 79), is a pink limestone stele, that was found in trench 16 and 16a during the 1898/99 campaign in the southeastern part of the Acropole at Susa (MDP 1, 127; MDP 5, 85). This location suggests that, since it was found at the outer edge of the trench, the stele must have been erected somewhere near the kukunnum of Inšušinak. Except for the logogram dMÙŠ.LAM in the stele, the stylistic and linguistic features are similar to the third type of brick inscription (no personal determinatives, pseudo-logogram ha-alMEŠ GN-ippe, genitive postposition -na). In this stele, Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II chops down trees in order to the construct a portico (hi-el šu-ma siik-ka4-h) (ElW 657). This construction activity may have been a more detailed description of what was meant with the erection of the Inšušinak temple as described on his building bricks (EKI 82, 84). Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II probably used these wooden beams for a roof construction to the Inšušinak sanctuary (EKI 41) of Šilhak-Inšušinak I

88

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

on the Acropole.82 Šilhak-Inšušinak I, on the other hand, had used bronze beams for the roof construction (EKI 45), which were far less affected by the ravages of time than the traditional wooden beams. During the flourishing Middle Elamite kingdom, the necessary bronze material for such a roof construction could have been available to the Šutrukid kings. However, by the end of the Neo-Elamite period, the wealth and power of the Elamite kings were not comparable to that of the Middle Elamite monarchy, resulting in the fact that the treasury of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II could not have afforded to rebuild the sanctuary of Inšušinak in a similar manner. Since the Neo-Elamite king Hallutuš-Inšušinak II still had undertaken some renovation works to the Inšušinak sanctuary (EKI 77), the building was probably not completely demolished by the Assyrian raid (646 BC). Therefore, it seems more likely that Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II added a portico to the already existing construction. König (1965, 169) suggests that Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II ordered the fabrication of a statue of Inšušinak as well, by restoring the text in line 3 with the [ṣa-al-m]u. This would not be unusual within the context of temple building activities. The tradition of making statues of the Elamite gods can be confirmed by the Annals of Assurbanipal, where these statues were taken during the Assyrian raid on Susa (646 BC). Although we do not know whether a statue of Inšušinak already existed or whether it belonged to the Assyrian booty, it seems odd to make a new statue of one of the principle gods when the statues were returned by Nabopolassar in his accession year (626 BC; ABC 2/CM 21:15-17). However, Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak may have erected this statue in order to celebrate the successful military campaign against the people of land Balahute & Lallari in an unknown month (EKI 79:15-16) with the support of the deities Napiriša and Inšušinak. Perhaps a cultic feast in the groves, described in the fifth inscription of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II (EKI 85), was held in honor of Napiriša and Inšušinak on the occasion of his victory over the Balahute and Lallari people. The fifth inscription on a fragmentary limestone block (EKI 85; MDP 7, 81-82), that may have been a part of a stele, reports on the livestock distribution to several population and professional groups. Henkelman (2008, 446) suggests that this document originally counted 31 entries, because each population/professional group received one piece of cattle (GUDMEŠ). There are still 19 groups legible; three additional lines are preserved, which means that there are at least 9 more lines missing at the top. Although a part of the inscription is damaged, the resumptive verb kaškaš indicates that these people received livestock from the court of Tepti-HubanInšušinak II, instead of providing it (Henkelman 2008, 446 n. 1035). Still according to Henkelman (2008, 362, 452) the provisioning list is connected to the religious activities of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II, who organized a sacrificial feast in a grove. All his religious as well as profane officials, collectively referred to by officiants (lap), were considered to participate on this event and make their proper sacrificial contribution. PAP

31

GUDMEŠ PAP

186

UDU.NITAMEŠ

la-ap-ma hu-saMEŠ-ik si-na a-hi la-ha-na83

In total 31 cattle (and) 186 sheep for the officiants to be brought to the grove (and) there to be slaughtered. EKI 85:23-4

To summarize, the following can be listed: 1) 2) 3) 4)

The abbreviated orthographies for Elamite words (si-an, ha, na-pu-ri). The unsystematic omitting of the final determinative MEŠ in pseudo-logograms (ha-alMEŠ, e-ri-en-timMEŠ). The lack of personal determinatives in front of the personal names and ethnonyms. The alternate orthography of the god Inšušinak (dMÙŠ.LAM vs. din-su-iš-na-ak): only the Atta-hamitiInšušinak stele displays similar characteristics. Within the relative dating of the late Neo-Elamite royal inscriptions, the Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II texts should be clustered with the Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak stele. Since the specific features in the texts of both kings demonstrate a sort of ‘degeneration’ of the traditional Elamite language, the reign of both kings must be dated to the 6th century BC. Vallat (1996a, 391-394) and Tavernier (2004, 39; 2007a) already placed the reign of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak around 550-530 BC, which would make him a contemporary to the Teispid king Cyrus II the Great (559-530 BC). 82

König (1965, 169) read the second line […..] x x ma? ka4?-[t]ah?, although based on the parallel brick inscriptions, one can also reconstruct [si-(ia)-an-i-me] ku-ší-ih. Scheil (MDP 3, pl. XXI) already suggested the sign ku. 83 Henkelman (2008, 448 n. 1040) reads hu-saMEŠ-ik si-na, while König (EKI 85:24) has a variable reading hu-saMEŠ ik-si-na. Here, the reading of Henkelman is followed.

THE KINGS OF ELAM AFTER THE SACK OF SUSA (645-520 BC)

89

In 559 BC, the Teispid king Cyrus the Great rebelled against the Median king Astyages, his grandfather, and finally won a decisive victory in 549 BC, resulting in the incorporation of the Median tribes into the Persian empire (Briant 2006, 31-33). A decade later, Cyrus challenged his former ally Babylonia and defeated the Babylonian forces of king Nabonidus at the battle of Opis (539 BC). Since Elam was geographically situated between Media, Babylonia and Persia, Elam must have been under Teispid influence by then, either as an ally or as a vassal. The shortest road for the Teispids from their capital Pasargadae to Babylonia went through Elam. Not having the ability to cross Elamite territory would have caused major logistic problems. The fact that Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak did not use the title ‘king’ anymore may be an argument to put him in the position of vassal king of the Persian empire, while Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak with his classical royal titulary may have been the last independent king to rule the Neo-Elamite kingdom. In this case, Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak would not have had an extended royal titulary, as suggested above. However, the Elamite vassal king Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II must have possessed a large amount of autonomy (Tavernier 2004, 27), because he was still able to control his own army and conduct military campaigns against the Balahute and Lallari people at the Zagros foothills of Southern Lurestan (Vallat 1993, 33, 155).84 After the fall of the Assyrian empire (612 BC; Dalley 1993), the Elamite crown could have strengthened its power in Southern Lurestan and subdued (semi-)nomadic groups such as the Balahute, Lallari and Samati people (again) to a tributary status. This mixed Elamite-(Indo-)Iranian population of Southern Lurestan may have provoked this rebellion on ethnic grounds, because they felt more connected to their Teispid kin and sought an alliance with the emerging Persian empire, who had incorporated the Median region of Ecbatana. Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II, on the other hand, was trying his best to hold a grip on the northern parts of his kingdom, since one can assume that by then the Elamite king had already lost the Elamite highland to the Teispid dynasty. Whatever may be the reason for the rebellion of the Balahute and Lallari people, the Teispid overlord Cyrus II must have considered the military movements of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II as an internal Elamite affaire. Two generations later the Achaemenid king Darius solved the Elamite problem of rebellious people by fully incorporating the Elamite kingdom into the Achaemenid empire, which did not go without the necessary resistance.

5.7. Last Elamite kings during the early Persian empire (last quarter 6th century BC) The Elamite revolts in the Bisitun inscription suggests that Elam, or at least the Elamite lowlands, was not yet under complete Persian domination before the reign of Darius I (Vallat 1984, 7; Carter 1998, 323; Vallat 2011b). The fact that the Susa excavations did not reveal early Persian archaeological material before the Achaemenid king Darius I reassigned Susa as an administrative city, supports the hypothesis that the Elamites were independent or had a large form of autonomy until the last quarter of the 6th century BC. If Elam was bound to Persia before its definite annexation by Darius (520 BC), it must have been under the rule of the Teispid king Cyrus the Great around the time he conquered Babylonia (539 BC; Amiet 1973, 24; Zadok 1976a, 61-62; de Miroschedji 1982, 61-63; 1985, 305; Stolper 1984, 53; Vallat 1997c). Tavernier (2004, 27) suggested that the late Neo-Elamite kings (second part 6th century BC) had concluded some treaty as vassal of the Teispid king to maintain a form of self-government. After the death of Cambyses II, a Persian named Gaumata declared to be Cambyses’ brother Bardiya and claimed the Persian throne in 522 BC. Darius, who came into power presumably after a coup d’état himself (Waters 1996, 16; Rollinger 1998, 188),85 accused Gaumata of 84 Waters (2000, 48) still associates the Elamite campaigns of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak against the Balahute and the Lallari tribes (EKI 79; EKI 80/IRS 62) to the military activities on the Elamite-Assyrian border region in the 650s. If the connection of the Lallari people to the Lallar river is genuine, then it seems doubtful that the Elamites would have intruded deep into the Zagros provinces of the Assyrian empire. After the fall of the Assyrian empire (612 BC), the Assyrian domination of the Zagros regions was taken over by the Medes. If the Teispids had subdued the Medes, the Elamites could have strengthened their grip as vassal kings over the area along the Zagros foothills of southern Lurestan. 85 Even though Vallat (2011b, 264, 279-280) considers Darius the legal heir of the Teispids, he did not descend from a direct lineage of the ‘kings of Anšan’. There must have been other male family members alive preceding him in the dynastic lineage, like for instance his father and grandfather. Vallat (2011b, 276) suggests that they were both alive when the texts (DSf:11-4; DSz:8-11) on the foundation stones

90

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

treachery and killed him on 29 September 522 BC (Potts 1999, 317). The Elamites saw the short destabilization of the royal power in the Persian empire as an opportunity to regain their independence. In the monumental Bisitun inscription of the Achaemenid king Darius, three Elamite rulers, or rebels from an Achaemenid perspective, mustered forces to campaign against the Achaemenid empire. 1) A certain Haššina,86 the son of Ukbaturranma, stirred up a first rebellion in Elam, saying ‘I took over the kingship of the Elamites’ (SUNKI-me ha-tam5-tup-pè ú hu-ut-tá; Grillot-Susini et al. 1993, 2487). The Elamites revolted against their overlord Darius and deserted to Haššina (DBe,p I:16 = DBb I:15). Darius sent a messenger (hutlak/ no OP/ mār šipri) to Elam and the Elamites sent Haššina, as prisoner, to Darius, where he was killed (Voigtlander 1978, 55-56). The first revolt in Elam is mentioned in the Bisitun inscription before the Babylonian uprising that started in the month October 522 BC (Briant 1996, 127). Following the order of the Bisitun inscription, the army of Darius must have subdued the Elamites before marching to Babylon, where he regained control on 18 December 522 BC (Borger 1982, 125). 2) A second rebellion was instigated by Martiya, the son of Zinzakriš,88 who named himself falsely Ummanuš, king (LUGÀL) of Elam (DB II.22). Martiya originated from a town Kukanakka in Persia. As soon as Darius entered Elam, or perhaps better the formerly Elamite regions in the Fahliyan and Eastern Khuzestan, to suppress the revolt, the Elamites became afraid and captured their leader Martiya (iršarra, maϑišta, GAL-ú) to kill him of their own will (DB II.23; Voigtlander 1978, 56; Grillot-Susini et al. 1993, 26). This event in Elam must have occurred between May 521 BC and October 521 BC (Borger 1982, 117). The first two uprisings were led by Elamite rebel kings, Haššina and Martiya, both of whom have Iranian names (Tavernier 2003, 247-250; Henkelman 2003a, 183-184). Tavernier (2004, 28) therefore suggested that these gentlemen must have had a Persian, rather than an Elamite, identity. However, Tavernier’s (2004, 29) proposition, that the first two rebellions were instigated by Persians living in Eastern Khuzestan and Fars, while Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak was ruling in Susiana, has to be reviewed. That the second rebellion arose in the highlands could well be the case, since Martiya is said to have originated from a town Kukanakka in Persia (Voigtlander 1978, 56). As this town is frequently attested in the Persepolis Fortification texts (Vallat 1993, 142), it must have been located somewhere in the Persian heartland of Fars. The fact that Martiya changed his royal name into Ummaniš may refer to an attempt to connect his person to the royal names of the Hubanid dynasty, in which the theophoric particle Huban is frequently attested (Henkelman 2008, 359).89 So he might have been a Persian who did not accepted the authority of Darius and seized the opportunity to destabilize the Achaemenid power by using the nationalistic feelings of the Elamites. However, the first rebellion can be seen in a different perspective, since the Babylonian and Elamite version of the Bisitun inscription (DBb I.16) explicitly state that Haššina was an Elamite. Despite the fact that the first rebel king Haššina had a Persian name,90 he may have had an Elamite-Persian identity (Potts 1999, 317; Henkelman 2008, 57). In the late Neo-Elamite administration, several attestations of high-ranked officials in the Elamite bureaucracy have Iranian names, such as the palace manager Harina (S. 145:8; Tavernier 2011b, 196). of the Achaemenid palace in Susa were drafted. Therefore, the natural succession order within the royal family is not respected and so Darius committed stricto sensu a coup d’état. 86 DBb I.15: dišat-ri-na-’ šu-um-šú DUMU-šú dišú-pú-pa-da-ar-am-ma-’ (Malbran-Labat 1994, 95, 110), DBe I.16: dišha-iš-ši-na hi-ša dišhatam5-tur-ra dišuk-ba-tar-ra-an-ma šá-ak-ri (Vallat 1977, 91-92; Grillot-Susini et al. 1993, 24), DBp I.16: Āçina nāma, Upad(a)ramahyā puça (Schmitt 1991, 54). 87 DBb: anaku LUGÀL KUR.NIM.MA.KI.MEŠ, DBp: adam Ūjai xšāyaϑiya ami ‘I am king of Elam’. 88 DBb 21: dišmar-ti-iá MU-šú A-šú šá dišši-in-šá-ah-ri-iš ina URUku-gu-na-ak-ka ina KURpar-su (Malbran-Labat 1994, 97), DBe 22: mar-tiia hi-še zi-in-za-ak-ri-iš ša-ak-ri ašhalmeš ašku-uk-kan-na-ka4-an hi-še pár-sìp (Vallat 1977, 97-98; Grillot-Susini et al. 1993, 26), DBp 22: Martiya nāma, Cincaxraįš puça, Kuganakā nāma vŗdanam Pārsaį (Schmitt 1991, 56). 89 The theophoric particle Huban was one of the most popular elements in Neo-Elamite onomastics (Henkelman 2008, 358 n. 835). A variation on the name Ummaniš can possibly be restored in one of the Susa Acropole texts where an araš hutlak is named beun-ban(?)-me(?)-iš (S. 81:4-5). 90 According to Zadok (1976b, 213) Haššina/Açina/Atrina could be an Elamite name, although most scholars favor the Indo-Iranian origin (Mayrhofer 1973, 157; Tavernier 2007d; 2011b, 219). Lecoq (1997, 193) even suggested that the Babylonian version of the name Atrina was a Median form.

91

LOCAL RULERS OF THE LATE NEO-ELAMITE PERIOD

3) A third revolt in the second and third regnal year of Darius (521-520 BC) is only described in the Old Persian version of the Bisitun inscription (Schmitt 1991, 75; Briant 1996, 130, 139). This time the Elamite Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak (Aϑamaita in Old Persian) marched against the Achaemenid empire as the leader (maϑišta) of the Elamites (DBp v:71). At this point, Darius still calls Elam a country. It is not until the Persian defeat of the Elamite Aϑamaita that Darius claimed to posses Elam (pasāva dahyāųš manā abava). This is probably the moment when king Darius was able to start to exert control over the Elamite heartland including its capital Susa. The Persians would have been able to incorporate certain regions of the Elamite kingdom before, but were probably not able to control the entire area before the defeat of the last Elamite ruler Aϑamaita. To achieve this annexation, Darius needed to mobilize the Persian army under the command of his vassal Gaubaruva (Greek Gobryas) (Schmidt 1991, 75). Apparently, Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak must have possessed a strong Elamite military organization that could engage in battle and hold the Persian army for a while. Eventually, however, Aϑamaita was seized, brought before king Darius and executed. In the last decade, scholars have proposed to identify the late Neo-Elamite king Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak with the Elamite rebel Aϑamaita from the Bisitun inscription (Waters 2000, 85-87; Henkelman 2003a, 262; 2008, 363; Tavernier 2004, 22-29). This hypothesis is rather unlikely, because Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak conducted several military conquests with the help of a local king Halkataš to subdue rebellious tribes in the Elamite highlands, notably the people of Gisat. Historically, these campaigns could only be conducted in an era before the Persian territorial expansion. Therefore, Aϑamaita probably assumed the royal name of the last great NeoElamite king Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak to enforce his claim on the Elamite crown. So, he can therefore be called Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak II from an Elamite point of view. Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak II probably started the rebellion from the Elamite lowland capital Susa. Resuming the lasts efforts of the Elamite aristocracy to regain full independence, the first uprising was probably made by an ethnic Elamite with a Persian name, after the Elamites had heard that a Persian usurper had murdered the so-called brother of Cambyses. Feeling that they did not owe Darius any loyalty, they took matters in their own hand and claimed their independence once again. The second revolt can hardly be considered Elamite. The rebellion arose in the highlands, where the majority of the population still had an Elamite ethnicity or cultural Elamite identity. The rebel king Martiya was probably a member of the Persian aristocracy related to the Teispids, who did not accept the rule of Darius. His name switch into Ummanuš, referring to one of the most popular onomastic elements in first milllenniun BC Elam, was a well-considered move to get the support of the predominant Elamite population. Whether this rebellion actually reached the Elamite Susiana lowland is questionable. Martiya was probably caught before he could actually raise an Elamite army. Meanwhile in Susa, a new Elamite king had made his appearance. Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak II or Aϑamaita, came in power of the Susiana region after Haššina was dethroned and murdered. During these two years, while Darius was distracted with rebellions in the east, Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak was able to raise an Elamite army and prepare an offensive against the Persians. It is highly possible, as Briant (1996, 139) suggests, that Darius started the construction of the Achaemenid palace area after this revolt in order to get a firmer grip on the Elamite heartland.

6. LOCAL RULERS OF THE LATE NEO-ELAMITE PERIOD Despite the fact that there was still a king of Elam ruling in Susa, there were local Elamite rulers, who also adopted the titulary ‘king’. In the late Neo-Elamite period, there are numerous references to Elamite local kings. Unfortunately, the texts often do not state more than the logogram EŠŠANA/LUGÀL ‘king’, without a further personal name.91 Although it might have been clear to the compilers of these texts which king was meant, for modern scholars it is in most cases impossible to retrace the identity of the king. And even if the personal name of the king is given (cf. kings of Zari), the king can seldom be linked to a certain territory or population 91 be

Omen:8, 20, 23’ (RA 25); S. 174; Nin 3; BM 136846. beEŠŠANA-ku-me: S. 300. bepu-hu In the Omen text, the word for ‘king’ probably does not refer to a local ruler, but to the general sence of the word. EŠŠANA/LUGÀL:

be

EŠŠANA-pe:

Omen:11.

92

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

group. If the name of the king is given, then the irregular position of the logogram LUGÀL (i.e. either before or after the anthroponym) raises the question whether all attestations should be interpreted as a royal titulary.92 For modern scholarship, the situation in the late Neo-Elamite period gets even more complex when the new phenomenon of abbreviated royal titularies gains popularity and when the word sunki ‘king’ is applied as an element of a personal name. 1) In general, Elamite kings refer in their titulary to the name of their father and the territory they rule. In the abbreviated version, the Neo-Elamite kings restrict their titulary to the genealogical lineage (cf. Bahuri and kings of Samati) without mentioning their position of head of state. In this perspective, Alizadeh (1985) correctly states that even though Kitin-Hutran, son of Kurluš, does not carry the title king, the wealth of the funerary gifts on which his name was inscribed and the resemblence of the Arjan tomb (Behbahan) with the royal Neo-Assyrian burial chambers suggests that he must have been a local ruler. However, since there is no extended version of Kitin-Hutran’s titulary preserved and he is by consequence not explicitely named king, Kitin-Hutran will not be discussed in this chapter. 2) The orthography of the Elamite word for ‘king’ has been subject to a development from a syllabic spelling su-un-ki in the early 7th century BC (i.e. titulary of Šutruk-Nahhunte II) to the logogram EŠŠANA/LUGÀL in the 6th century BC. In the late Neo-Elamite Susa Acropole texts the syllabic spelling occurs before the name of a single individual, which presumably indicates that the su-un-ki element belongs to the proper name of the individual and cannot be considered a titulary, for example besu-un-ki-ba-ku/ki-iš(-pe-ra) (S. 94; S. 170; S. 10), su-un-[ki…] (S. 28). Several reports recounting the large amount of undetermined local kings do give a sidelong glimpse into the political landscape of the late Neo-Elamite kingdom in the late 7th and 6th century BC.93 Even though their position to the Elamite crown is difficult to determine, these local kings were engaged in a broader international and regional economic and political network (cf. Bahuri). Four of these (dynasties of) local rulers of which one can retrace a geneaological lineage and/or territory will be discussed in this chapter as an example of the political and ethnical diversity of the late Neo-Elamite kingdom.

6.1. Bahuri,94 king of Zamin (end 7th century BC) Bahuri, son of Mazzini, the king of Zamin is the main character in the archive of the Elamite Nineveh letters. This corpus is the only extant group of Neo-Elamite letters95 and provides us with a glimpse into the Elamite diplomatic correspondence with Assyria. Although their provenance is a much-debated subject (Reiner, 1969, 63; de Miroschedji 1982, 61; Hinz 1986, 231; Vallat 1988a, 39-40 and 1998b, 95; Reade 1992 and 92

Royal attestations of the logogram before the personal name: beEŠŠANA te-ir (S. 93), beEŠŠANA šil-hahar-ka/ma-an (S. 136; S. 167; S. 270; S. 281), beEŠŠANA dMAN-ra ašbu-pi-la-ra (S. 12; S. 112), beEŠŠANA dMAN-ir-ra ašha-da-nu-ra (S. 152), beEŠŠANA hu-pi-ti (S. 153), beEŠŠANA ri-ri--ut (S. 121, S. 131), beEŠŠANA zi-ut (ša-ki-ra) (S. 23), behu-ban-ki-tin DUMU LUGÀL […] (S. 5). Royal attestations with the logogram after the personal name: bela-li EŠŠANA da-ad-lu-ma-ra (S. 101), bela-li EŠŠANA (S. 143; S. 289). 93 The analysis of the political status of the local Elamite kingdoms and their relation towards the king of Elam in the late Neo-Elamite period is discussed extensively in Part 3. 94 Bahuri is an unattested name outside the corpus of Nineveh Letters (Nin 1-23; Paper 1954, 79; S. 88; Álvarez-Mon 2010a, 166), unless perhaps in the Ururu Bronze Plaque, where the name Bahuri is largely restored (Cameron apud Schmidt 1957, 64). Vallat (apud Steve, Vallat & Gasche 2002/03, 481) reads the combination ša-ba-hu-ri in S. 281 as LUGÀL ba-hu-ri. Zadok (1984) did not record this name in his Elamite Onomasticon, though he recorded some variants from Middle Elamite texts (EKI 44a:4, 44b:4, 46:64’) that may be derived from the same root bah- ‘protector’ (Zadok 1984, 33). Hinz & Koch (ElW 122), however, argued that the name bahu+r would mean ‘Garnspinner’, a suggestion supported by Tavernier (2013a, 278). 95 The use of an introductory greeting clause ‘PN1 na-an tu4-ru-iš PN2’ in several Elamite Nineveh tablets (Nin 1, Nin 2, Nin 5, Nin 10, Nin 14, Nin 19, Nin 23) classifies them as letters (Basello 2011, 65-66; Gorris 2013, 11). According to Vallat (1998b, 97, n. 11; 1998c), the first lines of Nin 17 and Nin 23 contain the same introduction. Other Neo-Elamite documents applying the same clause are found in Susa (Lambert 1977: Sb 13081, S. Add. 1, and possibly S. 88) and Arjan (Álvarez-Mon 2010a, 166). Similar greeting clauses ‘PN1 tu4-ru-iš PN2 na-an tu4-ru-iš’ or ‘PN1 tu4-ru-iš PN2 na-an KI+MIN’ (Nin 22; Jones & Stolper 1986: MLC 1308; Walker 1980: BM 62783) are used rarely in Neo-Elamite letters and become the standard introductory formula in the early Achaemenid period, applied in nearly all letters of the Persepolis Fortification and Treasury Texts (Hallock 1969, 50, 766; S. Add 3).

LOCAL RULERS OF THE LATE NEO-ELAMITE PERIOD

93

2000), the twenty-three Elamite Nineveh letters that are part of the British Museum collection since the 19th century were found during the excavations of the Southwest palace in Nineveh by the team of A.H. Layard. They were discovered together with Neo-Assyrian documents belonging to the Library of Assurbanipal (Reade 1992, 119).96 In one of these letters (Nin 25:5, 7, 11), Bahuri, son of Mazzini, calls himself EŠŠANA ‘king’.97 In several other texts (Nin 1, Nin 5, Nin 10, Nin 14), he claimed to be the (re-)founder of the dynasty of Zamin (Vallat 1998b, 97; Gorris 2013, 11). The verb pel- that is used to indicate Bahuri’s connection to the royal house of Zamin has several meanings that can influence the interpretation of the sentences. Vallat (1998b, 97) translates pel- with ‘placer, établir, créer, fonder’, Hinz & Koch (ElW 178) with ‘deponieren, hinterlegen, aufrichten, aufstellen’, while Hallock (1969, 677) suggests the slightly different sense ‘to put into place, to restore’. Moreover, the verb pel- is not exclusively used in a metaphorical meaning, but also in a literal sense. Metaphorically, Bahuri was either the founder of a new royal dynasty, or he reestablished his ancestral house (Nin 1, Nin 10, Nin 14). Yet, the double attestation of the verb pel- in a single sentence of Nin 5 suggests otherwise. In Nin 5, the second pel- occurs in combination with the verb riša- ‘to enlarge’, which is often used in Elamite royal titularies (e.g. EKI 71-73; EKI 77; EKI 86) to indicate territorial extent. In connection to the subject ‘royal house/palace’ both verbs could designate the actual renovation of a building. Since the commemoration of building activities was not an unusual subject for inscriptions in Near Eastern as well as Elamite traditions, a reference to the architectural achievements in the titulary of Bahuri seems to me a reasonable hypothesis. So at present it is sure that Bahuri ruled the people of Zamin and that he made construction works to the royal residence. Reade (2000) attempted to identify Bahuri with the rebel king Pa’e, the opponent of Hubanhaltaš III, although this seems rather unlikely.

Fig. 8: Detail of line drawing of Nin 1:3 (PLD image taken by the author at the British Museum)

ú a-hi-in li-ku-ni pè-ul-ka4 ‘I, who founded/restored the royal house’ (Nin 1:3, Nin 10:3, Nin 14)98 ú a-ah-ti ap-pa šá-ah-šá halza-mín halha-tam-ti-na pè-li-na in ri-še-ka4 pè-li-ma-ak ‘the house that is royal, created in Zamin of Elam, is enlarged and restored by me’ (Nin 5)

Since Zamin was ruled by its own sunki Bahuri, son of Mazzini, the chiefdom must have been located within the territorial boundaries of the Elamite kingdom halza-mín halha-tam-ti-na (Nin 5:2-3; ElW 1269, 1281) and within the political sphere of the Elamite king, but apparently not under direct Elamite political control. After the Assyrian sack of Susa and other royal Elamite cities in 646 BC, sources on the internal political structure of Elam give evidence of an Elamite federal government system (cf. III.1.1.3.) where regional landlords had 96 According to Reade (1986, 213; 1992, 119), A.H. Layard, H. Rassam, W.F. Loftus probably excavated Nin 1-7 in 1850-1855 at the Kuyunjik mound of Nineveh, while G. Smith uncovered Nin 8-10 in 1874 at the Southwest palace of Nineveh. Nin 11 was either brought by H. Rassam to Babylon or excavated at Nineveh. A.H. Layard uncovered Nin 12 in 1847, probably in Room I of the Southwest palace of Nineveh. The tablet was found together with six Neo-Babylonian tablets [the 48-7-20 and 48-11-4 group] from the reign of Sin-šarru-iškun c. 625-620 BC (Reade 1992, 119). Rassam excavated Nin 13-20 at Nineveh in 1882, probably in room LIV of the Southwest palace together with Neo-Assyrian tablets of the reign of Esarhaddon or Assurbanipal (c. 680-630 BC). W. Budge excavated Nin 21-25 at Nineveh in 18891891, probably in room LIV of the Southwest palace. Vallat (1988a, 39-40; 1998b, 95) argues unconvincingly that these letters were found by Loftus in the Malamir region and were brought to Nineveh as presents by a company of French diplomats. 97 The title sunki ‘king’ is written in at least nine different Elamite Nineveh letters (Nin. 1, 3, 6, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 25) with the logogram EŠŠANA. 98 Line three of Nin 1 (K1325) is depicted with a line drawing modus made by the PLD-technology. This device, developed at the KU Leuven (Hameeuw & Willems 2011, 163-178), makes high-resolution 3D models of the cuneiform tablets, which facilitates the reading. The 3D model is easily convertible to a line drawing, which increases the objective reading of the tablets. I am greatly indebted to the Trustees of the British Museum, and to J.J. Taylor, the curator of the Near Eastern section, for giving me the opportunity to record all twenty-three Nineveh tablets with this PLD-technology during my research stay at the British Museum (December 2010).

94

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

a reasonable amount of power and named themselves kings, even though they still recognized the authority of the king of Elam in Susa. The Elamite Nineveh letters are the best example of such a local Elamite king, Bahuri of Zamin, who was able to pursue his own international policy and maintain diplomatic relationships with foreign states as well as with regional Elamite rulers. The Elamite Nineveh letters can be linked to other text corpora inside and outside the Neo-Elamite kingdom through the personal names of the involved Elamite bureaucracy. Bahuri, the ruler of Zamin, is attested in several diplomatic texts found in different Elamite towns, such as Behbahan (Álvarez-Mon 2010a, 166). The diplomatic correspondence of Bahuri can also be traced to other Elamite regional rulers like those of Ayapir and Katmurti (Nin 5:4) and to the central government in Susa. In the Elamite capital Susa, at least two similar letters from king Bahuri to his diplomats Upuhalir & Tallak-kutur were found (S. 88; S. Add. 1). On an international level, the Elamite Nineveh Letters describe contacts with the king of Assyria and presumably also Har(r)an (Nin 13:3-4).99 Although the city/region of Zamin is currently not yet localized, the toponym Zamin (Vallat 1993, 307) is attested in various orthographies from the Old Elamite period onwards. Zamun appears in connection to the fields ša e-bi-ir-ti za-mu-un (MDP 23, 216:3; 218:2; MDP 28, 417:2) and the therewith connected river-branch or canal (MDP 28, 502:4). In the same context, ša e-bi-ir-ti za-ma[-…] is mentioned (MDP 23, 209:1). Zamun could have been the Middle Elamite form for the later attested Zamín due to a phonological shift from /u/ to /i/ (Tavernier 2007c, 278-289). A late Middle Elamite inscription of Šilhak-Inšušinak I (Farber 1974, 83) refers to dišza-am-mi with a personal determinative. Especially in the Neo-Elamite period, Zamin is a well-attested toponym as a city, a region/chiefdom/ country and as a reference to a population group. In the Elamite Nineveh letters, Zamin is described as a region that is part of Elam halza-mín halha-tam-ti-na (Nin 5:2-3; ElW 1269, 1281). This region or chiefdom was likely named after its main city Zamin, which is mentioned in the stele of Šutruru ašza-mín (EKI 74 ii:30), and the Acropole texts ašza-am-mín-ma (S. 141:14; S. 283:9-10). Hinz & Koch (ElW 1270) identified the postposition -ma ‘in’ as a suffix and considered the orthography as a variant to dišza-am-mi or beza-am-mín. References to the people of Zamin are equally made in the Nineveh letters beza-am-mín-pè (Nin 15:13-14), beza-mín-nu-ip (Nin 5:29) and on the Šekaft-e Salman relief of Hanne [za-m]i-ip (EKI 76C:2) and ašza-mi-ip (EKI 76:1), while Scheil identified a possible variant ašza-man-ki[…]-ra in the Acropole texts (S. 153:3). Toponym/Ethnonym

Period

Reference

za-ma[-…]

Old Elamite

MDP 23, 209:1

za-mu-un

Old Elamite

MDP 28, 417:2 MDP 23, 216:3, 218:2

atap-za-mu-un

Old Elamite

MDP 28, 502:2

Middle Elamite

Farber 1974, 83

Neo-Elamite

EKI 76:1, EKI 76C:2

Neo-Elamite

Nin 15:13-14

diš

za-am-mi aš

[za-m]i-(ip) and za-mi-(ip) be

za-am-mín(-pè) hal

za-mín

Neo-Elamite

Nin 5:2

za-mín

Neo-Elamite

EKI 74 ii:30

be

za-mín-nu-(ip)

Neo-Elamite

Nin 5:29

aš

za-am-mín-ma

Neo-Elamite

S. 141:14, S. 283:9-10

za-man-ki[…]-ra

Neo-Elamite

S. 153:3

aš

aš

Table 8: Attestations of the toponym/ethnonym Zamin in Elamite sources

According to Hinz & Koch (ElW 1281), the ša e-bi-ir-ti za-ma[-…] (MDP 23, 209) must have been a fortress in the Susa region. De Graef (pers. communication), who examined the sukkalmah administrative 99 The Elamite Hara(n) was probably a reference to another local Elamite royal house, located between Zamin in the Yadburu border region and Der. Most likely, the toponym Hara(n) can be identified with the Assyrian Hara’ (which is likely Dur-Abi-Hara). For a detailed analysis: see II.1.1.3.2.

LOCAL RULERS OF THE LATE NEO-ELAMITE PERIOD

95

tablets in depth, suggested that these were fields in the direct vicinity of Susa. These fields in the fertile Susiana plain were irrigated by a canal or side-branch of either the Karkheh or the Karun river called the atap-Zamun (MDP 28, 502:4). So the name of the fields was closely linked to its irrigation facilities. Yet, since the exact location of the atap-Zamun is not known, the waterway may have stretched as far as the chiefdom Zamin or may have pointed in the direction of Zamin. Vallat (1993, 307) suggested that the Middle Elamite dišza-am-mi (Farber 1974, 83) was situated somewhere on the Iranian plateau, albeit no further evidence for this suggestion can be added. The identification of the toponym Zamin with Bit-Zamani, which occurs in the Assyrian Banquet stele of Assurnasirpal (Grayson 1991, 276, 289-290; Russell 1999, 223), is highly unlikely. Bit-Zamani (CT 54, 493:9; Zadok 1985a, 111) was an Aramean region on the Upper Tigris whose main town was Amedi (mod. Diyarbakir) in modern Turkey. At present, we know that the Neo-Elamite kingdom did not extend as far as the Upper Tigris region. In fact, the most northern attestation of Neo-Elamite presence can be found in the Rumišgan region of Southern Lurestan (Chigha Sabz: Van Loon 1988, Kalmakarra: I.6.4). Nevertheless, the numerous representations of Zamin in the Elamite textual sources point in the direction of the traditional Elamite heartland (Susiana, Ayapir, Ram Hormuz, Behbahan), which is confirmed by the geographical framework of the Elamite Nineveh letters. Next to the Assyrians (Nin 15: aš halha-tam5-ti [...]ti-ya aš áš-šu-ra-ip ir [...]), the Assyrian king (Nin 13: beLUGÀL haláš-šu-ra-[na]) and the Assyrian royal court (Nin 3: aš ú-el áš-šu-ra-pè), sunki Bahuri of Zamin had contact with the palace managers of the court of Ayapir and Katmurti (Nin 5: beGAL.MEŠ aše!-kal2-l[i] a-ak aša-a-pír-na aškat6-mur-ti-na). Ayapir is situated in the modern Izeh region; Katmurti is not yet located. Presumably, the kutur of Zamin is named by Hanne, the kutur of Ayapir, in the Šekaft-e Salman inscription as his fellow colleague (EKI 76:1; 76C). A single reference to the ethnonym parsirippe ‘those of the Persians’ (Nin 2) is given. The network of sunki Bahuri of Zamin was also connected to Susa (S. 88; S. Add. 1) and the Behbahan region (Álvarez-Mon 2010a, 166), where tablets belonging to the Elamite Nineveh letters were found. The Susa Acropole administrators, from their side, had a direct contact with the people of Zamin, of whom they received commodities for distribution (S. 141, S. 283, S. 153). In his Susa stele (end 8th century BC), Šutruru instructs his statue to be erected in five estates in the city of Zamin (EKI 74:ii 41). Remarkably, the toponym Zamin is followed by the Akkadian word for city a-li, being aš za-mín a-li-ma,100 which may give a hint in the direction of the western border of Elam. Also other toponyms in the Šutruru stele could be Elamite corruptions of Mesopotamian place names, such as Dīn-sunki (Dūn-šarri), Kubarana (Qabrina) or Durapuhši (Dur-abu-?). During the Neo-Elamite period, the Assyrian sources provide us with a reasonable amount of toponyms along the Elamite-Mesopotamian frontier. Especially the Annals of Assurbanipal as a result of his raids on the Elamite kingdom reveal numerous geographical attestations in the Susiana plain and beyond, often in Akkadianized form. Next to the more familiar Elamite toponyms such as Bīt-Imbī, Madaktu, Susa, Tīl-Tūba, Dur-Untaš and Bupilu, at least two of the toponyms attested in the stele of Šutruru, Dīn-sunki (Dūn-šarri: also attested Sb 13080) and Kubarana (Qabrina), could be identified with the strongholds that Assurbanipal conquered during his Elamite campaign. Since Zamin occurs in the Šutruru stele in connection to Dūn-šarri and Qabrina, it could be possible that the toponym Samunu, mentioned between Bupilu and Bīt-Bunakki in the Annals of Assurbanipal, is the Akkadianized form of Zamin. The phonological evolution from Old Elamite Zamun to Neo-Assyrian Samunu and Neo-Elamite Zamin is perfectly legitimate in terms of the renderings of sibilants (Tavernier 2010, 1067 n. 34) and in term of the vocal shift from /u/ to /i/ (Tavernier 2007c, 278-289), making the Neo-Assyrian Samunu a plausible suggestion for the identification of the Elamite Zamin of Bahuri, the author of the Elamite Nineveh letters.101

100

The suffix -ma should be interpreted as the Elamite postpostion ‘in, for’, rather than the Akkadian enclitic particle -ma. If all Elamite fragments refer to the same toponym Zamin, then the last consonant -n is not always written, suggesting the pronunciation of the -n was rather weak. This would not be unusual since the Elamites probably put the stress on the initial syllable of the word (Stolper 2004a, 73). Therefore, Zamin could have lost its final consonant in the Neo-Assyrian translation. Therefore, the Neo-Assyrian toponym Zamê (CT 54, 20) in the Puqudu area could be at first sight a plausible candidate for the identification with Zamin as well. The final contracted vowel -ê is probably the Neo-Assyrian plural marker -ē (GAG 3*) preceded by a -u- or -i-. 101

96

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

Gatudu (2×), Daeba, Nadi’, Dūr-Amnani (2×), Hamānu, Taraqu, Hayūsi, Bīt-Kunukki-bīssu, Bīt-Arrabi, Bīt-Imbī, Madaktu, Susa, Bubē, Kapar-Marduk-šarrāni, Urdalika, Algariga, Tūbu, Tīl-Tūbu, Dun-šarri, Dūr-Undāsi (2×), Bubilu, Samunu, Bīt-Bunaku, Qabrina (2×), Hara’ – those cities, I tore down, demolished (and) burnt with fire. Prisma F §24 (BIWA, 238f) // A §49; slightly different in C §72

Returning to the list of toponyms in Assurbanipal’s royal inscriptions, the toponym Samunu mentioned here may very well be identical with Samūna, Šutruk-Nahhunte II’s (717-699 BC) stronghold in Yadburu. Ten years after the indecisive battle of Der (710 BC), the Assyrian king Sargon II returned to Elam hoping to gain control over strategical access points to the central Zagros and the high road to the northeast (Waters 2000, 14). Despite last-minute fortification works on this Gambulean stronghold in preparation for the Assyrian attack, the Babylonian king and Elamite ally Merodach-baladan II could not withstand the Assyrian army. Sargon II went on to conquer the Yadburu region, where he seized the two Elamite strongholds, Samūna and Bāb-Duri, that Šutruk-Nahhunte II had fortified (Fuchs 1994, 330:295). After his conquest, Sargon II renamed the city Enlil-iqīša. The Assyrian grip on this region probably did not last for long, because the city had returned to its original name by the reign of Assurbanipal. A handful of Neo-Babylonian documents mention Šamunu102 as well (SAA 17, 152; ABL 1309; CT 54, 20; CT 54, 82; O 3707). These texts have not yet received a full edition,103 but do seem to provide us with relevant information about Šamunu during the turbulent period of Assurbanipal’s Elamite campaigns. One fragmentary letter (CT 54, 567 & Bu 91-5-9, 115) in particular brings us back to the Assyrian campaign against the Elamite king Huban-haltaš III. Its unknown author relates how, following the sack of Bit-Imbi, Assurbanipal sent Šamaš-da’inanni to the city of Šamūnu to negotiate with the local rulers of this city, the land Lahiru, and the cities Dibirina, Dummuqu, Nugu’, Hu’a, and Bab-Duri. These sheikhs are said to have submitted to Assyria’s demands, endorsing their alliance with a handshake. Other cities clearly kept on resisting Assurbanipal’s diplomatic pleas, as the text continues with an incomplete report of the massacre of the city Šulaya. When I sent Šamaš-da’inanni104… to the city Šamūnu: the sheikhs of the city Šamūnu, the land Lahiru, (the city) Dibirina the city Dummuqu, the city Nugu’, the city Hu’a and the city Bab-Duri – these sheikhs who begged me for help – I took their hands. CT 54, 567 M & Bu 91-5-9, 115

A comparison of the cities in the letter and those listed in Assurbanipal’s royal inscriptions shows a couple of discrepancies. Whereas the letter lists Samunu as a city that chose not to fight, the city is said to have been demolished in the royal inscriptions; the city Šulaya, on the other hand, was the place of a massacre according to the letter, but is not listed in the inscriptions. The Annals of Sargon II & Assurbanipal and the Neo-Babylonian letters seem to suggest that diplomatic relations between Samunu/Zamin and Assyria may have begun during Sargon II’s Elamite campaigns and were intensified during Assurbanipal’s reign. Herein, the sheikh of Samunu must have played a central role; Bahuri, the king of Zamin — or should we translate SUNKI here as sheikh? — may have built on this relationship, stationing his correspondent at Nineveh, as shown by the Elamite Nineveh letters. Therefore, it can be assumed that Bahuri, the ruler of Zamin, re-established his ancestral house under auspices of the Elamite crown after Assurbanipal had demolished most of the Elamite strongholds in the borderland of the Susiana plain. Since these letters have no date formula, their relative chronology can only be established based on internal textual elements and historical references. In general, these documents (Reiner 1969, 63: 2nd half 7th century BC, Hinz 1986, 234: end 7th century BC) are dated somewhere between the Assyrian sack of Susa (646 BC) and the incorporation of the Elamite kingdom into the Achaemenid empire (c. 521 BC). Recently, scholars have argued that these documents must belong to the late Neo-Elamite IIIb period (585-521 BC; de Miroschedji 1982, 61; Vallat 1998b; Tavernier 2004, 34) based on linguistic arguments, such as the early Achaemenid greeting formula in Nin 22, and the system of broken writings. 102

In the Babylonian sources the city Samunu is consequently written with a /Š/ instead of the /S/. While the toponym still had its original /Z/-sound in Elamite language, the sound was rendered in Neo-Assyrian by /S/ and in Neo-Babylonian by /Š/. 103 Most references to Samunu in the Neo-Babylonian documents are found in the database of the Neo-Assyrian text corpus. 104 Governor of Babylon, eponym of 645*, probably appointed after Šamaš-šum-ukin revolt.

LOCAL RULERS OF THE LATE NEO-ELAMITE PERIOD

97

Tavernier (2004, 34), who has used the phenomenon of broken writings as an additional method for making a relative dating of the Neo-Elamite inscriptions, has shown that the graphic evolution of broken spelling was not yet completed in the archive of the Elamite Nineveh letters. Next to the broken /Cuš/-sequence, which was already used in all the late Neo-Elamite royal inscriptions, also the /Cid/-, /Cil/-, /Cub/- and /Cim/sequences are broken.105 However, the harmonical spelling of at least the /Cal/- and /Car/- sequences suggest that the development of the broken writings was not yet fully concluded and that these documents were therefore probably older than the Susa Acropole texts. The Elamite Nineveh letters are often dated to the same period as the Susa Acropole texts (Paper 1954, 80), based on the fact that one of the letters (S. 88) was found in the archive. Meanwhile, scholars have shown that not all texts that were found in the rampart of the Acropole vestige dated to the same era (Hinz 1986, 228). Two documents are probably dated to the early 7th century BC (MDP 11, 299-300), while another inscription is drawn up during the reign of Darius the Great (Scheil 1911, 101). Therefore, the Elamite administration must have preserved its documents for a longer time on this spot. One tablet (S. Add. 1) belonging to the Elamite Nineveh archive was even found in the excavation season of February 1951 on a different hill in Ville des Artisans. Moreover, two names of officials from the Nineveh letters, Tallak-kutur (Nin 10; S. 155) and Upizza (Nin 5; S. 172), are mentioned in the Acropole texts as well. Yet, it is by no means certain that the anthroponyms in the Acropole texts represent the same persons of the Elamite Nineveh letters. In the past, this hypothetical link to the Acropole texts has been used as a decisive argument to date the Elamite Nineveh letters to a post-Assyrian era (Vallat 1998b, 104). However, this argument is, in my opinion, too weak to be used in the dating of the letters. Most likely, the Elamite Nineveh letters were drawn up in a relatively short period of time, i.e. during the kingship of Bahuri. One group of Elamite Nineveh letters (Nin 13-20) was found together with Neo-Assyrian tablets dating between 680-630 BC (Reade 1992, 119), while Nin 12 was uncovered amongst six Neo-Babylonian tablets from the early reign of Sin-šarri-iškun (626-620 BC). Nevertheless, attributing a timespan of approximately sixty years to the Elamite Nineveh letters seems unrealistic to me. In Nin 13:3-4, one refers to the king of Assyria, which may give an indication of time. However, it is impossible for modern scholarship to determine whether ‘the king of Assyria’ described in the Elamite Nineveh letters is king Ašurbanipal (668-c. 627 BC), Ašur-etil-ilani (c. 630-627 BC), Sin-šumu-lišir (626 BC), Sin-šar-iškun (626-612 BC) or Assur-uballit II (612-609 BC). It might not be so surprising that Elamite letters were found within the walls of the Southwest palace at Nineveh, since the Elamites and Assyrians had a long tradition of diplomatic relationships. The Elamite officials and nobility living at the Assyrian court communicated through this correspondence with their homeland. The linguistic and palaeographic features of the Elamite Nineveh letters favor a later dating, so these letters must have been written during the last quarter of the 7th century BC. It is highly possible in my opinion that the early reign of Sin-šar-iškun (c. 626 BC) is a terminus post quem for these letters, based on the group of Neo-Babylonian letters that were uncovered with Nin 12. A date between the early reign of Sin-šar-iškun and the sack of Nineveh (612 BC) by the Babylonian-Median coalition, which drastically changed the international triangular relationship between Elam, Babylonia and Assyria, would be a reasonable assumption (Reade 2000). The Elamite officials and nobility, who had remained present at the Assyrian court after the Assyrian destruction of Susa (646 BC), were probably assigned a prominent role in strengthening the diplomatic relationships between centuries old arch-enemies who were both facing both the threat of an emerging Babylonian kingdom.

6.2. King Huban-Šuturuk (early 6th century BC) The name of ‘king Huban-Šuturuk, son of Šati-hupiti’ (LUGÀL diš dhu-ban-šu-tur-uk DUMU dšá-ti-hu-piti-na) is engraved on a pseudo-sealing over the full width of the Ururu Bronze Plaque106 (Basello 2013, 256), 105

Tavernier (2004, 34) added in his table of the broken sequences also /Cas/- and /Cus/- for the Neo-Elamite letters. However, I could not find these broken spelling sequences in the corpus of the Elamite Nineveh letters. 106 In scholarly literature this extraordinary object, which has not been published yet, has received various appellations, such as the Ururu Bonze Plaque / Ururu Bronze tablet / Persepolis Bronze Plaque / bronze dedicatory inscription. The only photographs of the entire object are

98

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

revealing an additional person in the list of late Elamite rulers. This reproduction of a sealing was drawn in the opposite direction of the cuneiform texts on the bottom part of the reverse of the Ururu Bronze Plaque (Cameron apud Schmidt 1957, 64; de Miroschedji 1985; Steve 1986, 14; Waters 2000, 87; Henkelman 2008, 54 n. 131). Basello (2013, 256) already pointed out that this pseudo-sealing was much more than an ornament, and as de Miroschedji (1985, 285 n. 85) stated, it could have been the signature of the king guaranteeing the authenticity of the decree. Based on the pseudo-sealing, one can assume that the palace manager (GAL E.GALMEŠ) Nappa-ahpi ordered this charter in service of king Huban-Šuturuk, son of Šati-hupiti. On the descent of king Huban-Šutruruk or of his father very little is known. The royal anthroponym is exclusively attested in the Ururu Bronze Plaque. The name of the father is only once attested elsewhere, namely in the Susa Acropole texts (S. 3:3), where Šati-hupiti is listed as an ironsmith. Waters (2000, 89) correctly remarks that these people were most likely two different individuals. An ironsmith at the Susian court would be too low in rank to be responsible for a coup d’état in order to assume power over Elam and pass it on to his son. Not only the ancestry of king Huban-Šuturuk is uncertain, the content of the Ururu Bronze Plaque is difficult to place in time as well as in context. The text does not indicate the time frame or the location of the kingdom in which Huban-Šuturuk ruled. The famous Bronze slab (21 × 32,5 × 0,6 cm) was uncovered in the Treasury room during the excavation of Herzfeld (1931) in the Achaemenid capital Persepolis (Schmidt 1953, 180). Even though the text has numerous vocabulary parallels with the Persepolis texts (Waters 2000, 87 n. 38; Basello 2013, 252-253), the Ururu Bronze Plaque is inscribed on both sides with a Neo-Elamite text, based on its palaeography, the grammatical and morphological elements. 1) The palaeography is roughly associated with the signs of the Hanne rock reliefs (EKI 75-76) in the Malamir gorge, the Susa Acropole texts (MDP 9) and even the stele of Šutruru (EKI 74), which must, according to Cameron (1957, 65), be dated between the 7th and early 6th century BC. Steve (1986, 14; 1992, 21-22; 1990, 79 n. 33) specified this time range by assigning the Ururu Bronze Plaque more specifically to the NeoElamite III A period (c. 653-605 BC). More recently, within a general trend of lowering the date of NeoElamite inscriptions, most scholars (Vallat 1995a; 1996a, 393; 1996b, 22; Potts 1999, 295; Tavernier 2004, 36) situated the Ururu Bronze Plaque in the final stage of Neo-Elamite history (c. 585-539 BC). 2) Some orthographical specifications confirm a late Neo-Elamite dating. Firstly, Tavernier (2004, 36) situated the Ururu Bronze Plaque around 590-555 BC based on the far advanced orthographic completion of the broken writing system. Secondly, the use of the personal determinatives presents another remarkable element. The personal names of two officials in the Ururu Bronze Plaque, king Huban-Šuturuk and the palace manager Nappa-ahpi, are preceded with a diš d determinative instead of be. Anthroponyms on cylinder seals are in general indicated with the determinative diš, which would explain the choice of this particular personal determinative before the name Huban-Šuturuk on the pseudo-sealing. But for Nappa-ahpi, who is mentioned in the final line of the text, it is unusual, unless we have to interpret the first particle of the name nappa ‘god’ as the personal name of a deity. If a personal name starts with a theophoric element, then the combination diš d is often used in late Elamite onomastics. Basello (2013, 254) argued that the frequent use of gam as personal determinative in the Ururu Bronze plaque may relate the inscription to the Neo-Elamite period as well as to the early Achaemenid period (Steve 1988; Vallat 2005, 1239-1241). Note, however, that the author of the Ururu Bronze Plaque would have used three different determinatives be, diš d, GAM to indicate a personal name. If GAM (Steve 1992, n. 362) was read correctly, then there is an unusual amount of determinatives displayed within the same inscription. Looking at the occurence of GAM in Elamite texts, this determinative is exclusively attested in the Elamite period in non-royal inscriptions (EKI 76; Omen Text; Ururu), with an early Achaemenid inscription from Pasargadae as a single exception (Stronach 1978, pl. 81b). Vallat (2005, 1239) already postulated that GAM is possibly an uncareful orthography of the signs be or hal. By reading the determinatve GAM as be, one would establish a firm dating into the late Neo-Elamite provided in the Persepolis II publication of Schmidt (1957, 64-65 pl. 27-28), with a brief description by Cameron. The obverse is badly damaged, while the reverse is largely readable.

LOCAL RULERS OF THE LATE NEO-ELAMITE PERIOD

99

period, where be replaces diš as determinative for masculine personal names and ethnonyms. hal makes its appearance as indicator for countries, whereas hal was still written as a phonetic value during the early NeoElamite period (EKI 74). Thirdly, Henkelman (2008, 8), who connected the Bronze Plaque with the Persepolis Fortification Texts proposed a date as recent as 550-530 BC, based on an identical personal and place name. A priest named Ururu is mentioned twice in the Persepolis Fortification texts (PF 352; PF 375) as well as the toponym aš Gisat (PF 352; 35; 534; 550; 1849; 1850; 1996; PF-NN 182), the town for which the decree on the Ururu Bronze Plaque was meant. However, the priest Ururu attested in the Persepolis Fortification Texts does not necessarily has to be identified with the individual of the Bronze Plaque. Moreover, the town Gisat (Achaemenid: Kesat) could have been a Neo-Elamite settlement that continued to be occupied in the Achaemenid era, which would explain the orthographic modification of the toponym Gisat in the Achaemenid period. The city was probably situated in the Fāhliyān region (Henkelman 2008, 44) that fell under the Persepolis administrative jurisdiction after the Achaemenids had annexed this former Elamite territory. Therefore, Henkelman’s suggestion on the date of the Ururu Bronze Plaque is perhaps too narrow. 3) Seven deities are attested in a curse formula at the end of the Ururu Bronze Plaque text (Waters 2000, 88): Šašum (l. 11, 13, 24, 28, 30), DIL.BAT (l. 35), Beltu (l. 37), Laliya (l. 39), Nahhunte (l. 41), Šati (l. 43), Nanna (l. 44). Two of these divine names, DIL.BAT & Šati are otherwise exclusively attested in the later period (Vallat 1996b). Šati occurs regularly as an onomastic element in the Susa Acropole and Persepolis Fortification texts (Basello 2013, 253-254). Also the personal name Huban-ahpi (l. 38), who is described in the Ururu Bronze Plaque as the father of Atta-ten (ElW 677; Waters 2000, 88), is a typical Neo-Elamite name with an attestation in the Susa Acropole texts, a Susa legal text and an Elamite Nineveh letter.107 In the Persepolis Fortication texts, this anthroponym is exclusively attested on sealings (PFS 4, PFS 77), which let Hinz (1971, 281) and Koch (1990, 137; also Garrison & Root 2001, 412) believe that these were Neo-Elamite heirlooms. The fact that the engravings on the Ururu Bronze Plaque displayed Neo-Elamite as well as Achaemenid features assigns the text to the late Neo-Elamite period, presumably the 6th century BC. Cameron (1957, 65) explained the presence of the Neo-Elamite Ururu Bronze Plaque at Persepolis, an Achaemenid founded city, as ‘some sort of war booty’ that the Persians had taken from the Elamite territory, where the plaque had been written some generations earlier as ‘a memorial plaque recounting the founding of a temple’. Henkelman (2008, 172 n. 376), following Cameron, stated that the plaque ended up in Persepolis as retroact on the rights and obligations for the administrators of the Gisat sanctuary. Razmjou (2010, 242-243), on the other hand, suggested that the Ururu Bronze Plaque was found in ‘an early kind of museum’, while Steve, Vallat & Gasche (2002/03, 483) assuming that the plaque was a royal charter assigning lands, estates and vineyards. This charter was probably taken to Persepolis when the Gisat region switched from the Susa administration to a Persepolis administrative jurisdiction. The absolute lack of proper in situ archaeological context to establish a frame for Huban-Šuturuk’s kingship, makes it difficult to contextualize this object and connect the kingship of Huban-Šuturuk to a certain region. Gisat (l. 1) and Humun (l. 8’, 17’, 31-32’)108 are both identified with the determinative kur for country (Steve et al. 2002/03, 483), meaning that they were both separate chiefdoms or district areas. The other toponyms Udman (l. 43’), Kummama (l. 44-45’), Udazammin (l. 45’, 47’, 50’), Šumurtan-duri (l. 48’), Tartin (l. 1, 3, 4), Bahar (l. 6) are exclusively attested in the Ururu Bronze Plaque and were therefore probably smaller entities in the area of Gisat (Waters 2000, 88). Gisat (Vallat 1993, 68; Stolper 1984, 55) is the only city that is named also in the religious journal of Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak (EKI 86:2) and in the Persepolis Fortification texts (Hallock 1969, 713). Since the toponym Gisat is associated with Mamannuwiš (PF 352; 550; 1849; 1850; 1851) and Hidalu (PF 35; PF 1851) in the Persepolis Fortification texts, Henkelman (2008, 44) locates Gisat 107

S. 24, S. 29, S. 119, S. 123, S. 132, S. 137, S. 144, S. 156, S. 167, S. 197; also MDP 11, 302 (muktu Huban-ahpi) and Nin 15:5. The Ururu Bronze Plaque has several line numbering systems. Vallat (1993) counts his lines in a different way than Hinz & Koch (ElW). The references to the toponyms, mentionded here, is based on the line numbering system of Vallat (1993). 108

100

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

in the Fāhliyān region, specifying the earlier suggestion of Koch (1990, 213-216) to situate the city in the border region between Elam and Persis (southeast Khuzestan). Gisat was probably to be the main city within the district109 and scholars therefore assumed that the Ururu Bronze Plaque was displayed in Gisat and taken from there to Persepolis by the Persians. If Huban-Šutruruk was a paramount ruler granting privileges to Ururu, the principal person of the Bronze Plaque, and the other Gisatians (Henkelman 2008, 315 n. 729), then how do Huban-Šutruruk, Ururu and Gisat relate to each other? In the traditional view, scholars appointed the local kingship of the Gisat district to Huban-Šuturuk (Henkelman 2003a, 258; 2008, 315; Tavernier 2004, 37). The suggestion of Henkelman (2008, 315 n. 729) that Huban-Šuturuk ‘may be either the prince of Gisat or the ruler’s ancestor’ seems less convincing. However, the Ururu Bronze Plaque yields a possible royal reference to Ururu, the son of Šadununu. After the father’s name Šadununu, Waters (2000, 88 n. 41) reads a fragmentary sign as LUGÀL, although other scholars restore the sign as ri (ElW 1119). If the sign is indeed interpreted as the logogram for king, then Waters (2000, 88) suggests that the title would be connected to the father. Yet there is no reason for such an assumption. In the traditional composition of an Elamite royal titulary, the patronymic preceded the description of the position. Since the signs after LUGÀL are illisible, one cannot exclude a reference of a complementary toponym to complete the formula ‘king of GN’. Most recently Basello (2013, 258) has argued that the Ururu Bonze Plaque was drawn up ‘in Susa, as a grant related to a far provincial center in the East, maybe Hamun or Gisat’. He based his argumentation on the discovery of a similar seal impression to the Ururu Bronze Plaque pseudo-sealing on a Susa Acropole text (MDP 9, 165). Although one would expect the pseudo-sealing to be drawn in the highland tradition (Garrison 2006), the design of the sealing fits the Susiana glyptic (Amiet 1973, 10-11, 28 n. 12). Therefore, Huban-Šuturuk may not have been the king of Gisat, as often postulated (Henkelman 2003a, 258; 2008, 315; Tavernier 2004, 37), but the king of Susa, adding an additional ruler to the late Elamite king’s list. Following the hypothesis of Basello, Ururu then would have been a local ruler receiving grants from Huban-Šuturuk, king of Susa. Consequently, the Elamite court at Susa must have controlled a part of the highlands during the 6th century BC.

6.3. The kings of Zari (end 7th century BC) Appalaya, king of the people of Zari, is one of the local Elamite rulers of Elam, who is attested on various occasions in the archive of the Susa Acropole texts. In one Acropole document, Appalaya is named with his long titulary beap-pa-la-a-a [LU]GÀL ašza-ri-pe-ra (S. 71), while two other texts are referring to his abbreviated titulary ‘king’ beLUGÀL (S. 80; S. 82).110 The name Appalaya is frequently attested without the royal reference (S. 29, S. 158, S. 168, S. 236), so it might not necessarily be the same person. Although in some cases, when the envoy of Appalaya behutlak beap-pa-la-a-a-na (S. 108, S. 162) is mentioned, the texts obviously refer to staff of king Appalaya. In two texts, the postposition chain explicitly indicates officials of the people of Appalaya: ‘the envoy of those of the people of Appalaya’ behutlak beappalaya-pe-ip-pa (S. 82), ‘the army commander111 of the Appalaya people’ besa15-ab-ba GAL beap-pa-la-a-a-ir-ra-pe-ra (S. 132). According to Vallat (2002b), a two-fold orthography marked by a distinctive determinative was used to express ethnical groups in the Susa Acropole texts. 109 In the Persepolis Fortification archive, the city Gisat occurs as an important cultic center. Gisat appeared to have a central facility to store the harvest products of the surrounding environment (Henkelman 2008, 314-315). 110 Also Ampiriš, the ruler of Samati, inscribed the Kalmakarra objects with a long titulary dišam-pi-ri-iš SUNKI sa-ma-tire-ra DUMU da-bala-na ‘Ampiriš, the Samatian king, son of Dabala’ and an abbreviated one ‘Ampiriš, son of Dabala’ (Henkelman 2003b, 219). 111 Scheil (1907, 118) transliterated the official as beša-ab-ba-rab, indicating a personal name in the transcription. Hinz & Koch (ElW 1109; Tavernier 2011, 207) suggested that this would derive of the Iranian name *xšaparapa- ‘supporting the night’. The fact that there is an Indo-Iranian name amongst a homogeneous Semitic corpus seems suspicious. Alternatively, the signs may be read as besa15-ab-ba GAL, which would be a corrupted Elamite word from Akkadian origin (rab ṣābi) ‘commander of the army’ or ‘the large army of the people of Appalaya’ (Tavernier 2010, 1063). Although one would expect the GAL to be positioned before besa15-ab-ba, it is not unusual that loanwords with several components switch places in the Susa Acropole texts. An example of this word formation is LUGÀL DUMU in S. 23 instead of the expected logographic combination DUMU LUGÀL ‘prince’.

LOCAL RULERS OF THE LATE NEO-ELAMITE PERIOD

101

The first orthography was created by adding the postposition chain to an anthroponym (Waters 2000, 94).112 In this category, one can make a subdivision between the people who are named after their leader (S. 6: beunsa-ak-pe-ra; Vallat 2002b) and those who are indicated with the name of the ethnical group (S. 14: bema-agdap). The local rulers or tribal leaders of the first category of people are often assigned as ‘kings’ in the Susa Acropole texts. One of these kings is Appalaya. If in the Susa Acropole texts the population group of whom Appalaya was the ruler is denoted, then it is constructed with the postposition chain, like ‘the Appalayaeans’ be ap-pa-la-a-pe-ip-pa (S. 151:2) or ‘the man of the Appalyaeans’ beap-pa-la-a-a-ir-ra-pe-ra (S. 93:10). In a second category, the tribal group was named after their territory. The orthography of the name of the population group was then constructed with a toponym, ending by the postposition chain ‘the people of GN’. In the Susa Acropole texts, the tribal group of Appalaya is also attested as the people of Zari, like ‘those of the Zari people’ beza-ri-pap-pi-na (S. 27) and the ‘envoy of the people of Zari’ behut-lak ašza-ri-pe-na (S. 178). Scheil (MDP 9, 65) understood sunkik Appalaya as a tribal leader sending messengers with commodities to Susa. The region Zari in which these commodities were fabricated is difficult to locate, since the toponym Zari is only attested in the Susa Acropole texts (Vallat 1993, 309). The Semitic origin of the name Appalaya (von Dassow 1999, 236: Aramaic suffix -aya), led Scheil (MDP 9, 65) to believe that the Zari territory must have been located in the borderland of Elam with Babylonia or Assyria, perhaps in Zamua. Henkelman (2003a, 257; 2003b, 213 n. 114) consequently suggested that the people of Zari might have been an Aramaean entity in the southwest of Khuzestan,113 which seems a plausible assumption when taking into account the names of the possible relatives of Appalaya. The Susa Acropole texts may reveal some additional information on Appalaya’s family and clan. If benabin-na-ṣir114 beap-pa-la-a-a i-gi-ri (S. 168) would refer to king Appalaya, then he may have had a brother named Nabu-naṣir (ElW 745). In another text (S. 80:3-4) not only king Appalaya delivers bows to Susa, but also ‘Marduk, king of the people of Zari’ bemar-duk LUGÀL za-ri-pe-ra115 supplies an equal number of bows. Marduk116 on the other hand appears to be the son of Zari: bemar-duk DUMU za-ri (S. 126). Two kings of Zari, Appalaya and Marduk, in a single document (S. 80) do question the government system and succession amongst the Zari people. One might suggest a form of co-regency, in which there were two kings each ruling over a particular clan of the Zari people. Since this presumably Aramaean group dwelled in more or less the same territory, the central Susa administration would register them as a single population group of the Zari people. Taking this assumption a step further, one can even suggest that the Elamite officials referred to the Appalayaeans in order to denominate a specific clan amongst the Zari people. When the Elamites recorded the ‘people of Zari’, they may have alluded to the larger ethnical group of Aramaeans. Moreover, since the father of Marduk is called Zari and the determinative before Zari is inconclusive (be: S. 27; S. 71; S. 80; aš: S. 178), the assumption that Zari was a geographical name needs to be revised as well. As far as I see, there are four possibilities to resolve this matter: (1) either Zari was the father of Marduk, who had two sons himself or (2) Zari was the father of three sons Marduk, Appalaya and Nabu-naṣir or (3) Zari was a distant ancestor of Marduk, or (4) DUMU should not be translated as son. (1) In the first scenario, Zari must have been the founder of the dynasty. Marduk was his son and Appalaya & Nabu-naṣir his grandsons. The eldest grandson would have ruled together with his father. Since both Zari rulers brought an equal number of bows to Susa (S. 80), they probably ruled over a separate clan within the Zari tribe. However, it seems highly unusual that a father and his eldest son would rule simultaneously over a different clan. In general, such a clan-formation is established between brothers. 112

The postposition chain can have various forms -pe-ip-pa ‘those of the people of PN’, -pè-na ‘of those of PN’, -pè-ra ‘the man of the people of PN’, -ir-ra-pe-ra ‘the man of the PN people’. 113 For Aramaean entities in the Elamite-Babylonian border region, see Frame 1992, 43-48. 114 The name Nabin-naṣir is an Elamite corruption of the Babylonian anthroponym Nabu-naṣir with a vocal shift from /u/ to /i/ (Tavernier 2007c, 278-289). 115 The anthroponym of the father has no determinative, which is not unusual in the late Neo-Elamite attestations of the genealogical formula bePN1 DUMU PN2. 116 The name mrdg’ occurs in an Aramaic document from the reign of Esarhaddon (PNA 704). A Babylonian letter (ABL 1456) named Marduk, a son of […]-šuma-iddin, among the followers of Nabu-bel-šumati. Hence, homonymous individuals circulated in the ElamiteBabylonian borderlands.

102

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

Zari

Marduk

Nabu-naṣir

Appalaya

Family tree 10: Hypothetical linear genealogy of the Zari tribe

(2) Assuming that Marduk, Appalaya and Nabu-naṣir were brothers from a common ancestor Zari would seem a more realistic alternative. In this scenario Zari, the founder of the dynasty, would have divided his people amongst his two eldest sons. Such an agreement would indirectly imply a territorial division of the land of Zari people. In a similar legend, the Persian king Teispes, the founder of the Achaemenid dynasty, divided his kingdom between Cyrus I who received Anšan and Ariaramnes who got a part of Fars (Young 1988, 24). Zari

Appalaya

Marduk

Nabu-naṣir

Family tree 11: Hypothetical genealogy of the Zari tribe based on the confederation principle

(3) The Susa Acropole texts, however, do not indicate family ties between Marduk and Appalaya. In a more plausible scenario Marduk, son of Zari, can be compared for instance to Marduk-apla-iddina (Merodachbaladan), king of the Sealand and a descendant of the Chaldean tribe of Bīt-Yakin, who identified himself with his forefather Yakin (PNA 489) as ‘the son of Yakin’ in the Babylonian correspondence (SAA 15). Since Marduk and Appalaya were contemporaneous kings of a different clan, they were probably both distant relatives descending from the same ancestor Zari. In that case, Zari must have developed from a personal name to the name of an ethnical group that was settled at a specific region in the Elamite-Babylonian borderland, like BītDarruki and Bīt-Yakin (Frame 1992, 43-48). When these people integrated within the Elamite frontiers and administration during the era of the Susa Acropole texts, the difference between geographic location and tribal identity must have faded for the Elamites in time. (4) Nonetheless, it is also plausible to translate DUMU as ‘citizen’ or ‘subject’ of the Zari clan. In Mesopotamian tradition (CAD M/1, 315-316; Henkelman 2003a, 213 n. 114) maru ‘son’ has a secondary meaning of citizen. Since the territory of the Zari people was located in the Elamite-Babylonian border region, this translation may be valid for the reference to the Zari people as well. Although belonging to the same clan, they were probably not directly related to each other.

6.4. The Samatian kings (end 7th-6th century BC) The Elamite kings of Samati are known through the objects of the Kalmakarra hoard. As this partially in situ inscribed tableware was found in a cave on the Ma’leh mountain in the Rumišgan district of southern Lurestan (Mo’tamedī 1371, 9), their chiefdom must have been located north of Susa. Of the about 360 vessels originating from the Kalmakarra hoard, 44 are engraved (Qazanfarī 1371, 8; Álvarez-Mon 2010a, 205) with

LOCAL RULERS OF THE LATE NEO-ELAMITE PERIOD

103

seventeen different texts (Henkelman 2003b, 223).117 These brief texts name twenty-four individuals (Mahboubian 1995, 31-32). Four of these inscriptions refer to a king of the Samatians ‘LUGÀL sa-ma-tur-ra’. Vallat (1996c) changed the syllabic value of the sign TUR into tire (Steve 1992, n. 144) in correspondence to the attestations of the toponym in the royal administration from Susa during the Old- and Neo-Elamite period: sa-ma-ti-ip (Vallat 1996b) and sa-ma-tip (S. 94:15). This Kalmakarra tableware therefore gives an identity to a single tribal group mentioned amongst the numerous people in the Elamite documentation. Most stylistic features of Kalmakarra tableware can be dated to the 7th or early 6th century BC, based on the artistic connections with Assyrian and Achaemenid art (Henkelman 2003b, 222). The resemblances of the Kalmakarra objects, on which the inscriptions appear, to Achaemenid art may reveal some relative dating for the Samati dynasty. However, one has to keep in consideration that the engravings could have been secondary compositions. This is presumably the case with the Assurbanipal beaker (Bleibtreu 1999, 5), where the Elamite inscription of the Samatian king Ampiriš (Kal. 1a) was added on the inner rim in addition to the titulary of Assurbanipal.118 Vallat (1996c) assigned the kings of Samati to the late Neo-Elamite period (585-530 BC), based on the occurrence of late divine names in the onomastic repertoire, such as dŠati and dDIL.BAT,119 and the grammatical elements. Lambert (apud Mahboubian 1995, 32 i) registered on one object a personal name starting with the onomastic element dŠati: Šati-kutur, son of Akši-marti (Kal. 10). Apparently, Lambert (apud Mahboubian 1995, 31) recorded a longer not yet translated inscription from the Kalmakarra hoard in which the text ‘PN 1, Samatian king, son of PN2, la-ar dDIL.BAT-na’ (Vallat 2000b, 1069-1070; Henkelman 2008, 270-271 n. 615) appears. According to Lambert (apud Mahboubian 1995, 31), the genitive suffix -na is often missing in the royal titulary of the Samatian kings where it would be expected according to late Elamite grammar. He suggested therefore that the captions on the Kalmakarrra tableware were edited in an area where Elamite was not a spoken language (contra Henkelman 2003b, 224). Vallat argued that the adjectival construction LUGÀL samatirra ‘the Samatian king’ with the suffix -irra (adjective) after Samati is not unusual in the late Neo-Elamite period as it occurs frequently in the Susa Acropole texts (MDP 9) and the ‘Kuraš the Anšanite’ cylinder seal (Hallock 1969, 715). To my knowledge, both constructions were used in the late Neo-Elamite period (Tavernier 2011a, 323; EKI 75:5; EKI 78). The choice of suffix does therefore not point to a certain timespan or to whether the Elamite language was the native tongue of the Samati people, but to their status of an ethnical or tribal group. This is demonstrated by the careless use of the determinative preceding the samatirra. In the Kalmakarra hoard inscriptions, there is a complete absence of determinatives, while the Susa Acropole texts use the be determinative denoting persons instead of aš indicating territories. An additional argument for dating the objects is the occurrence of a mixed Elamite-Iranian onomasticon. The anthroponyms Ampiriš, Dabala and Gittiyaš could have an Iranian origin (Henkelman 2003b, 224; Tavernier 2007d, 195; 2011b, 199, 205). Within the Samatian royal family, Elamite and Iranian names were randomly used, which would point to an attestation of acculturation between people of Elamite and Iranian ethnicity living in the former Ellipian territory north of Elam (Boucharlat 1998, 149; Henkelman 2003b, 224). The palaeography of the Kalmakarra inscriptions (Annex 1) undoubtedly belongs to the late NeoElamite IIIb period.120 Most of the signs attested on the inscriptions remained nearly unchanged during the 117

Henkelman (2003b, 214-226) provides an elaborate description of the objects, their provenance and their inscriptions. In his table 2 (2003b, 223), he presents a classification and a numbering Kal. for the different texts inscribed on the Kalmakarra objects. This numbering will be used in this chapter to refer to specific inscriptions. 118 It is highly possible that the so claimed Kalmakarra objects sold on the antique market have no genuine Kalmakarra provenance. Several scholars (Muscarella 2000, 30-36; Lawergren 2000; Albenda, 2001; Wartke 2001) have suggested that the Assurbanipal beaker is a forgery. For instance, one of the objects published by Donbaz (1996, 37) has a distinctive palaeography compared to the other Ampiriš (Kal. 1a) engravings. The fine lines suggest that the scribe used another type of stylus and the palaeography resembles the Neo-Assyrian script, rather than the Neo-Elamite. Also Henkelman (2003, 215 n. 124, 129) described the objects published in the exhibition catalogue of Seipel (Bleibtreu 2000 a,b,c apud Seipel) as ‘Fremdkörper’. 119 EKI 75:22, EKI 78:2, PFT for dDIL.BAT and PBP, Nin, MDP 9, and Neo-Elamite onomastics for dŠati. On dDIL.BAT and dŠati: Henkelman 2003b, 222 n. 151; 2008, 270-271; Muhly 2004; Vallat 1996b; 2002b, 141-143; 2003, 535; Hinz 1962, 110; Lambert apud Mahboubian 1995, 31; König 1965, 160 fn. 12; Grillot 1971, 231-232; Waters 2000, 40 n. 55. 120 The analysis of the signs has been conducted with a limited number of photographs that could be verified.

104

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

Neo-Elamite and the early Achaemenid period (AK, AN, BA, BAN, DIŠ, I, IK, IŠ, LA, SA, RI, MA, EŠŠANA, RA). Nevertheless, some signs have a typical Neo-Elamite IIIb or Achaemenid shape. To the first category belong signs like DA, HA, TUR, TI and IK. The only parallel for the sign HA can be found in the Persepolis Bronze Plaque. The TUR sign attested in the Kalmakarra hoard occurs from the Neo-Elamite III period onwards. During the Neo-Elamite II period the TUR sign transformed from a vertical auxiliary wedge between two final horizontal wedges to a valid vertical wedge in the middle. Also TI is a typical late Neo-Elamite IIIb sign, since it ends with a horizontal wedge and a winkelhaken instead of two successive winkelhaken (NE II). Several typical Achaemenid forms (AM, GI, UN, ŠIL, NU, NI) are also attested. In the Neo-Elamite period, the final horizontal wedges of AM were still winkelhaken. The horizontal wedges at the end of the sign GI occur in the Achaemenid period, whereas these are still winkelhaken in the late Neo-Elamite period. The sign UN is an Achaemenid form, because in the Neo-Elamite period the lower horizontal wedge is covering the entire length of the sign. ŠIL is an overall Achaemenid form, being the combination of the sign BE preceded by DIŠ. NU is more Achaemenid because of the winkelhaken followed by a horizontal wedge. Although the first horizontal and two successive vertical wedges start at the same height in the sign NI (Achaemenid period), the vertical wedge covering the length of the sign is still standing diagonal. Based on the presence of Achaemenid palaeography on the objects of the Kalmakarra hoard, these inscriptions must have been dated to the 6th century BC, as Vallat has convincingly argued. At least four generations of Samatian kings were presented at the tableware of the Kalmakarra hoard. Dabala had at least two sons, Ampiriš and Anni-šilhak, who became king of the Samatians. Similar as to the case of Huban-tahra, father of the Elamite king Huban-nikaš I, it cannot be proven with the extant source material whether Dabala had the same social position as his sons. If Dabala had been a local ruler of the Samatian people at all, it is still not certain whether he identified himself with the title king. The most frequently attested king on the Kalmakarra objects is Ampiriš, the Samatian king, son of Dabala. The complete titulary of Ampiriš, dišam-pi-ri-iš LUGÀL sa-ma-tire-ra DUMU da-ba-la-na (Kal. 1), decorates eighteen Kalmakarra objects. On one egg-lobed vase the cuneiform sign for king LUGÀL was written in front of the sentence dišam-pi-ri-iš sa-ma-tire-ra DUMU da-ba-la-na (Baššāš & Kanzaq 2000, h). Three other objects just give his personal name and affiliation: ‘Ampiriš, son of Dabala’ (Henkelman 2003b, 219). From the reign of Ampiriš, two other engravings from high-ranked officials are known (Kal. 5 =? Kal. 15) [x] dišUn-taš, DUMU hu-ban-na nu-pi-ik-ti dišam-pi-ri-iš-na-ma gi-ti-iš-da121 ‘[…]-untaš, son of Huban, has poured out/protected as the nupikti for/of Ampiriš’. A second son of Dabala, Anni-šilhak, is attested on at least two silver conical beakers and a bowl122, with the unique inscription of the titulary ‘Anni-šilhak, the Samatian king, son of Dabala’ (Kal. 2). Despite the more limited representation of his titulary, Anni-šilhak was not necessarily the second in the order of succession after his brother Ampiriš. It is possible that Ampiriš ruled after Anni-šilhak and was directly succeeded by his offspring. 121 Demange (1996; AO 30449) published a Kalmakarra vessel from the Louvre collection. The inscription on the inner rim of the egg-lobed bowl was translated as ‘Untaš, son of Huban, the … of Ampiriš’, suggesting that the cuneiform signs between Huban and Ampiriš were unreadable. After a careful examination of the bowl, which is currently displayed in the antiquities collection of the Louvre, the signs are perfectly identifiable along the entire rim. In fact, Demange (1996), who had based his observations on Lambert (apud Mahboubian 1995, 32), gave only a partial translation of the text. From my observations, the engravings read i [blank space] dišUn-taš, DUMU hu-banna nu-pi-ik-ti dišam-pi-ri-iš-na-ma gi-ti-iš-da. A similar inscription is reported on a silver vase of a London antiquities dealer (Henkelman 2003b, 223). 122 Several beakers are mentioned in the private collection catalogue of Mahboubian (1995, 31c), in the auction catalogue of Christie’s (04-VI-’99, n. 204) and in a description of the Louvre collection (Caubet 1995; AO 30371). Caubet reads the inscription on the Louvre vessel as belonging to ‘Ampiriš, king of Samati, son of Dabala’, but the texts unmistakably read ‘Anni-šilhak, king of Samati, son of Dabala’. Thus, the silver beaker actually belonged to the brother of Ampiriš. Henkelman (2003b, 223), in his elaborate study of the Kalmakarra objects, classified the Louvre beaker amongst the Ampiriš objects. Through this rectification, there are at least two silver beakers and one bowl of Anni-šilhak. Henkelman (2003b, 223) still questioned whether the objects of the Mahboubian collection and the Christie’s auction were the same object, but this cannot be the case. The object auctioned at Christie’s New York (New York, 04-06-1999 n. 204), and resold a few years later in London (Christie’s, London, 04-26-2012 n. 4925), was a conical beaker with rounded base. The object in the Mahboubian collection (1995, 39; Henkelman 2003b, pl. 12b) on the other hand is a small egg-lobed bowl. Since the two Anni-šilhak beakers have a completely different design, at least three currently known Kalmakarra objects have the ‘Anni-šilhak, king of Samati, son of Dabala’ inscription.

LOCAL RULERS OF THE LATE NEO-ELAMITE PERIOD

105

Fig. 9: Metal beakers from the Kalmakarra hoard. Left image: Louvre AO 30371. Right image: London Sale Christie’s 04-26-2012 n. 4925.

Two sons of Ampiriš’ offspring, Unzi-kilik and Ahtir, guaranteed the succession of the Samatian kings. At least one of them, Unzi-kilik, called himself king. In a longer inscription on three objects, Unzi-kilik identified himself as dišUn-zí-ki-lik, LUGÀL sa-ma-tire-ra DUMU am-pi-ri-iš-na pi-in-na in-ra ha-ni-iš-da a-ráš pi-inna-man-ra (Kal. 3). Henkelman (2003b, 220) translated the phrase as ‘Unzikilik, the Samatian king, son of Ampiriš, he had not wished/selected pinna, he wanting pinna [as] possession’. A reference to Ampiriš’ second son ‘Ahtir, son of king Ampiriš’ is written on a single object from the Mahboubian catalogue (Lambert apud Mahboubian 1995, 31d). Henkelman (2003b, 221) already stated that the inscription could not be verified since no photographs are provided in the Mahboubian catalogue. If, however, the reading would be correct, then the inscription has a similar structure as the Jerusalem seal of Hubankitin (Amiet 1973, 29). DUMU LUGÀL is a titulary well attested in Ancient Near Eastern civilization. Next to its literal translation ‘son of the king’, Lebrun (2014, 278-293) demonstrated in her PhD dissertation that at least in the Hittite empire the title DUMU LUGAL may have been an honorary title granted to high-ranked officials of the royal entourage as well. Therefore, the DUMU LUGÀL was not necessarily a blood relative of the king. As for the Kalmakarra genealogy, the literal meaning of DUMU LUGÀL is most likely the correct interpretation since ‘Ampiriš, the father of Ahtir’ held the office of king. The titulary DUMU LUGÀL probably indicated that Ahtir was a prince at the moment the object was incised. Whether he became eventually king of the Samatians or he remained prince with the DUMU LUGÀL titulary, indicating his high-ranked position within the royal entourage during the reign of his father and/or brother, cannot be determined. Dabala

Ampiriš

Unzi-kilik

Anni-Šilhak

Ahtir

Family tree 12: Genealogy of the Samatian kings mentioned on the Kalmakarra objects

Another king ‘Unsak, the Samatian king, son of Gittiyaš’123 (Kal. 6) is attested on two objects of the Kalmakarra hoard. His connection, if there is one, to the family of Dabala cannot be established. Vallat (2000b, 30) 123 Vallat (2000b, 30) translates the name Zittiyas, following the reading of Lambert (apud Mahboubian 1995, 32). Although the cuneiform signs GI (Steve 1992, 85) and ZI (Steve 1992, 84) are quite similar, the sign ZI is not attested in the late Neo-Elamite period (NE III), unless in the inscription of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak (Steve 1992). Henkelman (2003b, n. 146, n. 152) prefers the reading gi-ut-ti-ia-áš, connecting

106

ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF

AŠ

ANZAN

AŠ

ŠUŠUN

therefore suggests that Unsak was the last attested Samatian king and perhaps even an usurper. However, there is no reason to consider the Samatian king Unsak as an usurper. The fact that we cannot connect Unsak with the royal family may simply reflect a gap in our source material. A single object with the caption ‘Gittiyaš, the Samatian king, son of Unzi-kilik’ would already bridge the gap of only one generation, but it must be stressed that such an object has not (yet) been discovered. Remarkably, the word order of the identification phrase seems difficult to be situated within the Near Eastern tradition. In general, an introduction phrase is constructed in following order: PN, son of PN, king of GN, referring to the name of the individual, his descent and his office. The Kalmakarra inscriptions consequently switch the order of the descent and the office in ‘Ampiriš/Anni-Šilhak, the Samatian king, son of Dabala’ or ‘Unzi-kilik, the Samatian king, son of Ampiriš’ or ‘Unsak, the Samatian king, son of Gittiyaš’ or ‘Unsak, general (?), son of Umba-dudu’ (Kal. 7). Moreover, the word order of ‘King Ampiriš, the Samatian, son of Dabala’ with the LUGÀL logogram in the beginning of the titulary is rarely attested in Neo-Elamite inscriptions. To my knowledge, only the Šilhak-Inšušinak II inscription (EKI 78) has a similar structure, unless one includes (pseudo-)sealings (Basello 2013, 256). A secondary addition can therefore not be excluded. However, since the inscription is carved on a vase with deep egg-lobes belonging to the largest Kalmakarra collection, preserved in the Falak ol-Aflāk museum of Khorramabad (Baššāš & Kanzaq 1997; 2000, H), the suggestion of a forgery would be improbable. A Susa Acropole tablet (S. 94:15) refers to a group of twelve Samatian citizens puhu124 sa-ma-tip. Amongst those people a certain Anni-šilhak is called by name, which Vallat (1996c) connects to Anni-šilhak, the Samatian king, son of Dabala. In the same text a name un-zi[…] can be completed as un-zi-[ki-li-ik], which is currently the only Elamite name attested with unzi- (Tavernier 2011b, 242). This Unzikilik is probably to be identified with the son of Ampiriš and the nephew of Anni-šilhak. The name Umpiriš of the Acropole archive (S. 112:7) could be read Ampiriš (Kal. 1a, 1b, 1c, 4, 5, 15), if the value of the cuneiform sign AM is replaced by UM (e.g. Amba-habua / Umba-habua, Ambaduš / Umbaduš cf. Donbaz 1996; Vallat 2002b; Tavernier 2011b, 199). In several other Acropole texts, references to anthroponyms identified on the Kalmakarra objects are made. In both collections the names Akši-marti (Kal. 10; S. 153:2, S. 161:9, S. 215:4, S. 240:3), Pirri (Kal. 8; Kal. 12?; S. 99:4), and Umba-Dudu (Kal. 7; MDP 11, 306:9) are attested. In the late Neo-Elamite period, the name of a local king, or sheikh, is often used to refer to an entire ethnical or tribal group (Vallat 1992a). This could have been the case for two Kalmakarra hoard anthroponyms that are attested in the Susa Acropole texts as ethnonyms. Firstly ‘Lalintaš, son of Ibunukaš’ (Kal. 14) is represented on a Kalmakarra ram-headed rhyton (Vallat 2000b = object from Paris gallery of Blondeel-Deroyan 19-11-99/18-12-99). The extraordinary quality of the ram-headed rhyton let Vallat (2000b, 30-31) conclude that Lalintaš was a person of high socal rank. He therefore connected this person to the Susa Acropole attestations of the tribal ruler of the Lalintaš people in the bela-li-in-taš-pè-ra ‘he of the Lalintaš people’ (S. 50:12, S. 135:2, S. 217:1-2), bela-li-in-taš-pè-ip-pa ‘those of the Lalintaš people’ (S. 134:1’). In that case, Lalintaš, son of Ibunukaš, would have been yet another leader of the Samati people. The fact that only a single object with a short version of his titulary, name and descent without official title, exists, does not necessary mean that he was not a ‘local’ king (Tavernier 2011b, 242). As there are several attestations of the abbreviated titulary of Ampiriš as well (Henkelman 2003b, 226 n. 159), there is no reason to assume that objects with the full titulary of Lalintaš could not have existed. Secondly, the name Unsak is attested twice on the Kalmakarra tableware. Once Unsak is called the son of Gittiyaš, a Samatian king (Kal. 6). The second Unsak, son of Umba-dudu, (Kal. 7) was presumably a general (Lambert apud Mahboubian 1995, 32 l) or a high-ranked official125 in service of a Samatian king. Vallat (2000b, 30) remarks that it cannot be excluded that the Samatian king and the general were the same person. However, since these individuals indicated a different descent, there is absolutely no reason to unify these two the name with the Old Persian *giti- ‘singer’ (Tavernier 2011, 199). There are other attestations of the sign GI in the Kalmakarra hoard inscriptions. Kal. 5 for instance uses the sign GI to express the syllabic value KI. 124 According to Vallat (1996c) puhu or ‘children’ may be translated as ‘citizens’ as well. 125 Lambert (apud Mahboubian 1995) translated the titulary ‘Unsak, ‘general’ (?) of Umba-dudu’. However, there is no photograph of the caption presented, so this translation cannot be verified.

LOCAL RULERS OF THE LATE NEO-ELAMITE PERIOD

107

Unsak persons. The name Unsak, without affiliation or professional reference, is used in more than twenty Acropole tablets representing an ethnical group who are named after their tribal leader: beun-sa-ak-pe-ra (S. 6; S. 7; S. 16; S. 93; S. 98; S. 106; S. 149; S. 151; S. 162; S. 178; S. 201) beun-sa-ak-pe-ip-pa (S. 54; S. 91; S. 100; S. 157) hu-ut-lak beun-sa-ak-pe-na (S. 93; S. 127). Vallat (2002b; Henkelman 2003b) suggests that the ‘people of beUnsak’ can therefore be linked to Samatians as well.126 Caubet (1995) correctly remarks that several generations of Samatian kings are known. Henkelman (2003b, 226) estimated that rulers of the Kalmakarra hoard cover a period of at least forty to fifty years.127 Most of the kings seem to have been connected to the Susa Acropole archive. In general, it is assumed that this archive has only a limited time range, more specifically the life span of its principal administrator Kuddakaka (Stolper 1992b, 268). With this argument taken into account, not all kings could have appeared simultaneous in the Acropole archive. Since we have no information on the length of the reign of the Samatian kings, one can reasonably assume that two or at the most three kings had consecutively reigned during the period of the Susa Acropole archive. If Lalintaš and Unsak had ruled at the same time, than this would be a case comparable to the Zari rulers where two leaders of a separate clan both belonged the larger ethnical group of the Samatians. The function of these inscribed objects is often compared to Achaemenid silverware, which is supposed to consist of luxurious presents to the king. Gunther & Root (1998, 27) have challenged this assumption by suggesting that these royal engravings rather express possessions of the king. Henkelman (2003b, 226) has correctly placed the Kalmakarra objects in this tradition of ‘indications of ownership’. He additionally concludes that the Kalmakarra hoard displayed non-royal individuals as is shown by the objects of Kitin-Hutran, son of Kurluš, in the Arjan tomb. These were either royal gifts to subjects or gifts from these subjects to the king. Since these vessels were found together, they must have been in the possession of one individual, presumably the king. And since the objects are all fabricated in the same style, they must have been made in the same workshop. However, this theory is missing some important details. Firstly, the persons without Samatian king in their titulary are not necessarily non-royal, like for instance the Ampiriš variations (Kal. 1c). Lalintaš (Kal. 14) and Unsak (Kal. 6), both mentioned with an abbreviated titulary, have been preliminary identified in the Susa Acropole archive as leaders of a clan presumably belonging to the Samatian people as well. Secondly, keeping to the theory of Gunther & Root (1998, 27), the objects of the Kalmakarra hoard probably belonged to the person inscribed on the object. Indeed, not all those persons had to be royal. But since Samatian people lived most likely within a tribal group, an entourage of high-ranked officials and counselors that could afford a small amount of these precious objects must have surrounded the local king. In antiquity, the lower Pušt-e Kuh, where the Kalmakarra cave is located, was a warmer area where semi-sedentary agro-pastoralism was the dominant lifestyle (Briant 1982, 67-81; Henkelman 2003b, 225). The fact that the determinative aš is never used to define the region Samati, strengthens the hypothesis that it was a (semi-)pastoral people. Chigha Sabz, located on 18 kilometers northwest of the Kalmakarra cave, was used during the Iron Age III period as a winter campsite for a tribe of mixed Elamite-Iranian origin (cf. the mixed onomasticon: Tavernier 2011b, 242), of which the two Neo-Elamite cylinder seals (Van Loon 1988, 222; Vallat 1992b) are witnesses. This tribe could have been the people of Samati ruled by a dynasty of chieftains calling themselves king of the Samatians (Henkelman 2003b, 225). If the Samatians moved from their winter residence to the summer territory, they could have hidden the objects in the Kalmakarra cave as temporary storage.

126 Unsak is often mistakenly seen for a profession (ElW 1237; Garrison 2006, 71; Álvarez-Mon 2010a, 10), but Vallat (1992a; 2000b, 30; 2002b) convincingly shows that Unsak is a personal name. 127 Khosravi et al. (2010, 41-44) added two more objects to the Kalmakarra collection. One bucket is engraved with an Akkadian inscription of Esarhaddon (680-669 BC). The rython on the other hand has an Aramaic inscription of the Scytian king Madān (c. 630 BC). However, since the objects of the Kalmakarra hoard were inscribed in the Neo-Elamite language, it seems doubtful that these two objects could be classified amongst the Kalmakarra tableware.

PART II THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY

In the previous part, we discussed the order of succession of the Neo-Elamite kings. Since a king would not be a king without a kingdom to rule, the second part of the dissertation will give a glimpse into the geopolitical setting of the Neo-Elamite monarchy. After the Dark Ages, the Elamite geopolitical power had been considerably reduced when compared to the Middle Elamite kingdom. Under the Igihalkids, the Elamite kings had political influence in Mesopotamia (Assyria & Babylonia). During the Šutrukid dynasty, the Elamite kingdom had extended to its largest size and even temporarily dominated Babylonia. This powerful Middle Elamite territorial state was, however, seriously weakened when the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar I marched to Elam and defeated the Elamites on their own territory. By the end of the Dark Ages, the Neo-Assyrian empire had already retaken what the Middle Elamite kings had conquered during the 12th century BC. The Neo-Elamite kingdom was redirected onto its heartland, a territory still comprising lowland plains (Khuzestan) and the Elamite highlands (Fars). The Neo-Elamite heartland can be defined as the regions with extensive traces of Neo-Elamite civilization, like Neo-Elamite ceramic assemblage or iconography. In the first chapter on the ‘Neo-Elamite Lowlands’, the Susiana, Ram Hormuz and Behbahan region will be discussed. In the second chapter, I will examine the Izeh and Mamasani regions as part of the ‘Neo-Elamite Highlands’. Within each of these chapters, a section is devoted to the territorial limits of the Neo-Elamite kingdom. The ‘Neo-Elamite northern and western periphery’, belonging geographically to the Elamite Lowlands, was a heavily disputed territory and was the subject of numerous military operations conducted by Neo-Elamite as well as Neo-Assyrian kings. Within the Neo-Elamite period, certain Elamite monarchs succeeded in expanding the Elamite geopolitical power, but more often military battles were fought with surrounding kingdoms, especially the Neo-Assyrian empire, to maintain the control over the border. Unfortunately, the northern and the western border region of the Neo-Elamite kingdom are not easily to define, as they shifted nearly after each military campaign. The eastern and southern peripheries of the Elamite kingdom were located in the highlands. Despite the limited knowledge on the eastern frontier of the Elamite kingdom, we can assume that the territorial limits of the Neo-Elamite kingdom did not extend much further than the Izeh region. East of Izeh, Median groups dwelled in the Bakhtiari Mountains. In the southeast, the Neo-Elamite geopolitical power probably did not reach beyond the Mamasani plain. The Kur River Basin (Anšan), on the other hand, is considered as the ‘southern periphery’, even if our knowledge on this region is rather limited.

1. THE NEO-ELAMITE LOWLANDS The Elamite lowlands (western Iran) comprises roughly what is nowadays the province of modern Khuzestan (Susiana) and the surrounding foothills of northern Lurestan (Álvarez-Mon 2010, 4-5).

1.1. The Neo-Elamite Northern and Western Periphery During the early Neo-Elamite period, the territorial boundaries of the Neo-Elamite kingdom probably extended until Der and the Khorasan road in the north. The northern boundary in the early 1st millennium BC ran probably somewhere south of the Khorasan road. The Great Khorasan road (occasionally called the southern branch of the Silk Road or the High Road) was in antiquity the most important mountain pass from the Mesopotamian lowland to the Iranian plateau through the Zagros Mountains. The road headed from the Assyrian mainland along the Diyala River to the foothills of the mountain ridge. Then the road gradually rose, passing the Zagros gates, to the current region of Bisitun (Kermanshah), where it curved to the actual mountain range of the Zagros; the ‘chaîne magistrale’. The road continued through the Kangavar valley and another major pass of Mount Alvand to reach Ecbatana (modern Hamadan) and the Iranian highland (Young 1988, 8). The Assyrian Annals indicate that the domination over the region leading towards the Zagros Mountains was disputed by the Assyrians as well as the Babylonians and Elamites. The main concern of the Assyrians was to protect the Great Khorasan road and

112

THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY

— if possible — to integrate the areas along the Great Khorasan road into their empire as provinces in order to control the long-distance trade and commerce with the Zagros people and with people living beyond. Since the early Elamite-Babylonian alliance blocked the Assyrians from a direct access to the Persian Gulf, the Elamites and Babylonians had deprived the Assyrians of an easy access to eastern products. According to Brinkman (1986, 200), the western frontier of Elam is a broad strip, called the TransTigridian corridor (Renette 2013), connecting Elam to the Babylonian southeastern territory until the Persian Gulf, which was located more inland in antiquity (Heyvaert, Verkinderen & Walstra 2013, 493-534 with references). The strip ranges in width from about 20 to 60 kilometers and is the geographical area between the foothills of the Zagros Mountains and the east bank of the Tigris River. For the Neo-Elamite period, this area can be narrowed down to that part of the Trans-Tigridian corridor between the Uknû river, a side-branch of the Tigris, and the Zagros foothills. The utmost northwestern point was the city of Der (Tell ‘Aqar) from where the Elamite frontier goes all the way south to the Persian Gulf. In antiquity the border zone included Der and at least the lands of the Rāši, Yadburu, Hilimmu, Pillatu, Hupupanu, and the Nagītu people (Parpola 1970, n. 277). Descriptions of the Assyrian military campaigns record at least four major rivers flowing through this Trans-Tigridian corridor: the Uknû, the Surappi, the Tupliaš, and the Ulai. The climate conditions of this region, i.e. arid lands receiving little rainfall on irregular points of time, precluded major agricultural activities. Therefore, semi-autonomous tribes inhabited this region, which was merely used for animal husbandry and pastoralism. Those tribal groups were under the loose sovereignty of either Elam, Babylonia or Assyria. The tribal arrangements went from nomadic groups to semi-sedentary people, living in a multitude of small villages. Most of the tribes had Aramean names (Frame 1992, 43-48), such as Tu’mūna, Gambūlu, Ru’ua, Hindaru, Yadburu, Puqūdu. To the south of these Aramean tribes, the Chaldean population descending from the Bit-Yakin, the Bit-Dakkuri, the Bit-Ša’alli and the Bit-Šalani tribes lived in the marshlands near the Gulf (Frame 1992, 36-43). Also the names of the towns and villages along the ElamiteBabylonian frontier have Semitic or West-Semitic onomastic elements, like Bīt-Ahlamê, Dīn-šarri, Bīt-Imbî, Nadītu, Sam’ūna, and Dūr-tēlīti. Vallat (1980, 3) observed that Semites were the majority of the inhabitants in the Susiana plain. However, I would rather call it a mixed Elamite-Semitic population comparable to the Elamite highland region that had a mixed Elamite-Iranian population.

1.1.1. Elamite Dark Ages and the First Neo-Elamite Dynasty (c. 1100-688 BC) By the end of the 9th century BC, Assyrian kings led numerous military campaigns to restore the boundaries of the Middle Assyrian territorial state (Potts 1999, 263). Šamši-Adad V (824-811 BC) conducted three military campaigns into the Zagros Mountains. In his second campaign (814 BC), he conquered the territories along the Great Khorasan road including the region of Der, where the Babylonians tried to prevent the Assyrian advancements in the battle of Dur-Papsukkal (near Der). Whether the Elamites participated actively as a state in the battle of Dur-Papsukkal alongside the Babylonian king Marduk-balassu-iqbi is not known. Since the environment of Der (modern tell Aqar, Badra) had always been a disputed border region between Elam, Babylonia and Assyria for economic and strategic reasons, it is highly possible that the Elamites gave military support to the Babylonians in order to safeguard their own interests in the region (Steve, Gasche & de Meyer 1980, 78; Waters 2001, 482). According to a fragmentary letter to the Assyrian king Šamši-Adad V, the people of Der, Parsumaš and Bit-Bunakki128 on the border of Elam abandoned their city in the aftermath of the battle of Papsukkal and sought shelter in Elam (SAA 3, 41; RIMA 3, 192: 6’-12’). The battle of Papsukkal and its direct implications, particularly the fact that refugees sought shelter in Elam, demonstrate that there must have been a central authority in Elam by 814 BC to whom these refugees could apply for shelter. Moreover, the flight into Elam indicates that the refugees considered Elam as a state that had the military and political capacity to protect them against the Assyrian military violence. Although 128

Bit-Bunakki, the name of an Elamite border city, is mentioned for the first time during the reign of Šamši-Adad V. The exact location of the ‘royal city’ is not known, but it must have been near Raši, east of Der. Also the ‘passes of Bit-Bunakki’ are mentioned, revealing the city’s strategic perhaps even mountainous location (Levine 1989, 307-308).

THE NEO-ELAMITE LOWLANDS

113

we have no Elamite textual sources from that period, it seems that Elam had regained considerable power in the Trans-Tigridian region. Between the reign of the Assyrian king Šamši-Adad V and the beginning of the reign of Tiglath-pileser III (744-727 BC) there was little Assyrian military involvement in the Zagros Mountains (Young 1988, 12-13). In the northern Zagros, the Urartian kingdom flourished, while in the southern parts of Lurestan the Elamite kings were able to expand their territorial boundaries to the north of the Elamite heartland. The fact that the Babylonian king Nabu-šuma-iškun approached the Elamite king (Cole 1994, 248-249), possibly king Hubantahra (*-743 BC), suggests that both kingdoms intended to profit from the weakened position of the Assyrian empire to extend their territory. With the rise of power of Tiglath-pileser III (744-727 BC), however, the geopolitical situation changed drastically. This king countered the territorial expansion efforts of the Elamites and Babylonians and made Assyria a dominant power once again by reshaping the political map of the Ancient Near East (RINAP 1, 1). He campaigned twice against Namri, Bit-Hamban, Parsua, Ellipi and Media. According to Henkelman (2003b, 198; also Levine 1974, 104-106; Chamaza 1994, 102; Medvedskaya 1999, 63), the territory of the Medes was not directly bordering the Elamite kingdom, since the kingdom of Ellipi was located in between them during the 9th to early 7th century BC. The Ellipian state served as a buffer zone between the Assyrian acquired land in the Zagros and the northern frontier of Elam. As early as 744 BC (RINAP 1, 35 i 11’b-12’), Tiglath-pileser III received the tribute from Daltâ, the ruler of the land Ellipi, from the city rulers of the lands Namri, (Bīt)Singibūti, the Medes, (and) from ‘all the eastern mountains’. Aware of the military ambition of Tiglath-pileser III to expand the Assyrian empire to the western Zagros and Babylonia (731 BC; RINAP 1, 14 3b-5a), Huban-nikaš I (743-717 BC) was forced to take action in order to safeguard the northern and western border region of Elam. Although Waters (2013, 482) claimed that no information is available on the Elamite response of king Huban-nikaš I to the territorial expansion of the Assyrians, a Nimrud letter (ND 2761 = CTN 5, 41 = Saggs 2001; PNA 1446-1447), written during the reign of Tiglath-pileser III, suggests otherwise. The letter describes the army of the Neo-Elamite king Huban-nikaš I under command of the general Zineni approaching the region of Der. Zineni had already crossed the river bridge with the entire Elamite army and had made his camp on the territory of an allied Aramean tribe. Apparently, the Elamite army caused a real threat to Assyria, as the governor of Arrapha was summoned to join the battle. Since the allied Elamite-Babylonian forces returned to Der in 720 BC, the attempt of the Elamite encounter to recapture the Der region must have failed. Also the western border of Elam was at the time endangered by Assyrian attacks on Chaldea and the Arameans. After Tiglath-pileser III had advanced with his army to the region of Der, he campaigned against the Aramaean tribes along the Uknû river (Kharkheh river or possibly the lower branch Karun) as far as the Persian Gulf (RINAP 1, 47 13b-15a; Waters 2000, 13). There he annexed Aramaean groups and cities, such as the Puqudu tribe and the cities Lahīru, Hilimmu and Pillatu, in Southern Babylonia along the Elamite western border. I overwhelmed the (tribe) Puqudu like a (cast) net, defeated them, (and) carried off much booty from them. I annexed to Assyria that (tribe) Puqudu, the city Laḫīru of Idibirīna, (and) the cities Ḫilimmu (and) Pillatu, which are on the border of the land Elam (and) I placed (them) under the authority of a eunuch of mine, the provincial governor of the city Arrapḫa. RINAP 1, 47 13b-15a

The explicit reference to the border of Elam suggests that Tiglath-pileser III intentionally respected that border, and that he avoided a direct military encounter with Elam, demonstrating its ‘international’ power at the second half of the 8th century BC. Although an Assyrian governor of Der, Il-iada’, is mentioned (PNA 515) during the third regnal year of Tiglath-pileser III’s successor Šalmaneser V (727-722 BC), it does not mean that the region of Der was firmly under Assyrian control. In 720 BC, the Elamite king Huban-nikaš I joined forces with Merodach-baladan II, king of Sealand and Babylonia, against the Assyrian king Sargon II (721-705 BC), in the battle of Der in order to recapture the grounds along the Elamite northwestern frontier (Brinkman 1965, 161-166; 1977). In the preparation of the battle of Der, Merodach-baladan II’s envoys met the Elamite king’s brother-in-law. The

114

THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY

brother-in-law of king Huban-nikaš I refused to go to the city of URU.HAR, which was in the border region. It is not clear whether the city was located inside or outside Elam’s border (SAA 15, 32:4, 14). The historical records on the outcome of battle of Der remain, however, indecisive. Each party claimed the victory in their own records, leaving us to suggest that there was a limited territorial and political impact of the battle of Der. The Babylonian Chronicle (ABC 1 i 33-37) describes how Huban-nikaš I initiated and won the battle of Der, while his ally Merodach-baladan II and his army arrived too late at the battlefield in order to make a contribution. In one of his building inscriptions, Merodach-baladan II credits himself for the triumph (Stolper 1984, 45; Potts 1999, 264). Sargon II’s official report on the battle of Der credits the Assyrians for the victory with severe losses at the side of his opponents (Fuchs 1994, 290). The result of the battle of Der was probably a draw (Fuchs & Parpola 2001, xxxii), in which Sargon II kept controlling Der and Huban-nikaš I kept the bordering Gambulu and Raši region (Dubovsky 2006, 268). However, the strategic importance of the battle cannot be underestimated. Firstly, the Assyrians were able to maintain the border city Der, which was the passageway into the central Zagros. From Der, the Assyrians could block the Elamite movements to the north. By leaving a military garrison in Der, the Assyrians could temper the Elamite commercial and territorial ambitions and — if necessary — intervene on a short notice. Secondly, Huban-nikaš I was able to secure the land of Raši, bordering Der, and the Yadburu zone leading towards the Elamite shoreline. The coalition with the Babylonian Sealand dynasty provided the Elamites a foot on Southern Mesopotamian ground, gaining control over the head of the Persian Gulf, the maritime trade and the rivers connecting South Mesopotamia with Susa. More important, this new alliance cut off the Assyrians from a direct access to the Persian Gulf trade and Arabian products. As such, the battle of Der marked the international relations for the forthcoming centuries. The camps were divided, the alliances were formed and the foundation for Elamite-Assyrian hostilities during the next two centuries was laid. The reign of the Elamite king Šutruk-Nahhunte II (717-699 BC) was marked by Assyrian raids at the Elamite-Assyrian border region. In 710 BC, Sargon II launched a military campaign southward from Der (Dubovsky 2006, 169-188). The main focus was the Gambulu region, which was Babylonian territory with significant Elamite influence. The main fortress Dur-Athara129 was captured and the cities of the Aramean Gambulu, Puqudu, Damunu and Hindaru tribes were annexed and converted into an Assyrian province consisting of six districts and 44 cities (Fuchs 1994, 401).130 Then Sargon II headed for the partially Elamite Yadburu region. Fearing Sargon II’s might, seven tribal leaders from the Tupliaš river area along the Elamite-Assyrian border submitted to the Assyrians. Bel-epuš is one of the seven leaders who wrote two letters to the nobility of the Neo-Assyrian king Sargon II (ABL 906; ABL 1112; PNA 294-295). Lu-ahu’a from the town Bit-Ha’ir, and Aḫu-Yaqar from the town Bit-Sîn-ibni, may have been two other tribal leaders who went over to the Assyrians (SAA 15, 131; SAA 17, 120). Hoping the Elamite king would join battle to hold the Assyrian war machine from raging the Babylonian country (SAA 15, 200), Merodach-baladan II brought gifts to Šutruk-Nahhunte II. The Elamites did not undertake action, even though the Elamite Yadburu fortresses Samūna131 (Zamin) and Bab-Duri were besieged. Eventually, an Assyrian letter reports on the abandonment of the Samūna fortress, which was cut off from the watercourse coming from the land of Raši (SAA 17, 152). More to the south, Sargon II conquered the fortified Elamite cities Pillatu and Hilimmu at the banks of the Naditu river, which flows into the Persian Gulf. Since Tiglath-Pileser III had already conquered these regions, the Elamites must have recaptured the area soon after this conquest. On his return to Der, Sargon II passed by the most prominent Elamite fortress Bit-Imbi in the Raši region for an unknown reason (Fuchs & Parpola 2001, xxxii).132 129 Dur-Athara, or alternatively Dur-Abi-Hara (i.e. the Elamite Hara(n)), was situated along the Surappu branch of the Uknû River. After the Assyrian conquest Sargon II renamed the city Dur-Nabu. 130 A detailed study of Dubovsky (2006, 88 appendix 4) on Sargon II’s 12th campaign, conquering the Aramean territories, demonstrated that these conquests provided the Assyrians with only short-term alliances: ‘of the 38 Aramean groups subjugated by Tiglath-pileser III during his campaigns in Babylonia, 13 groups reappeared as problematic during Sargon II’s reign. Of 19 Aramean groups subjugated by Sargon II, 12 reappeared as problematic during Sennacherib’s reign’. 131 After the Assyrian conquest the fortified city was renamed as Enlil-iqīša. 132 The reason for passing by Bit-Imbi without intention to besiege the city may imply that Sargon II was not prepared to engage in a major battle. In an Assyrian report (SAA 17, 136) reference is made to the Elamite army that had gathered in the Bit-Imbi fortress: ‘Now the

THE NEO-ELAMITE LOWLANDS

115

Map 2: Elam’s southwestern border region (map adapted from Parpola & Porter 2001, map 11-12, 16-17)

By this action, Sargon II had secured an Assyrian strip in the Trans-Tigridian corridor reaching from Der to the Persian Gulf. In this way, he had driven a wedge between the allies Elam and Babylonia, making communication and collaboration more difficult. Moreover, Sargon II had battled his way to the Persian Gulf, securing a narrow trading corridor. These two reasons may have been the principal aim of Sargon’s 12th military operation, explaining why he returned through the Elamite Raši area without further campaigning. palace herald and the entire army of Upper Elam are at Bit-Imbiya. They are crossing a fort on the river Abani.’ It is however not entirely certain whether Bit-Imbiya is an alternative orthography for Bit-Imbi.

116

THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY

At the northern frontier of the Elamite kingdom, Šutruk-Nahhunte II was forced to focus on the skirmishes with Ellipi (Fuchs & Parpola 2001, xxix-xxxi). Although the Ellipian king Dalta initially tried to cast off the Assyrian yoke after the accession of Sargon II, the Ellipians returned under a tributary status after Sargon II subdued them in his 8th regnal year (SAA 15, 48). When king Dalta died, a war of succession between his two nephews Nibe and Aspabara broke out (Fuchs & Schmitt 2001). Nibe sought Elamite help, while the Assyrian king supported Aspabara. The correspondence of Sargon II points in two directions. On the one hand, a report of the Assyrian intelligence service informs Sargon II that it was safe to pitch a camp in the plain of Urammu, because the mountain pass was inaccessible for the large Elamite army to pass through (SAA 1, 13). The army of Sargon II had also an Anzanean contingent (SAA 3, 18). In another letter, Sargon II’s spies report on the battle preparation of Šutruk-Nahhunte II in order to support his candidate Nibe. The king of E[la]m has set o[ut]. He has sen[t his messenger t]o Parsumaš, saying: ‘Will [...]yâ mobilize? [...] against [...].’ Umman-minâ the herald [... and Bu]r-Silâ [are rai]sing pro[visions for the expedition] in Bit-Bunakki. [They have written] to the son of Dal[tâ]: ‘The king of Elam is coming, he is go[ing forth to] Bit-Bunakki.’ The spearhead of [his] ch[ariotry has] gone [with] the king to Bit-[Bunakki]. SAA 15, 129 He entered Bit-Bunakki on the 11th of Tammuz (IV), left it on the 13th, and went up to the mountain. [My] messenger [has written to me] as follows: ‘A town called Burati, (one of) his forts outside the house of Daltâ, has turned hostile against him (Šutruk-Nahhunte II); he is going there, and will either pacify it or bring them down through battle. From there he will march to Ellipi against the s[on of Dalt]â’. SAA 15, 113

In this correspondence, Šutruk-Nahhunte II uses the Elamite fortress Bit-Bunakki in the Raši region as operating base for an attack on Ellipi. Whereas Bit-Bunakki was located during the reign of Šamši-Adad V at the border of Elam, the city had become an Elamite fortress during the reign of Šutruk-Nahhunte II, perhaps even as early as the reign of his predecessor Huban-nikaš I. While Bit-Bunakki and Bit-Imbi were undisputed Elamite border vestiges, Burati appears to be an Elamite trading outpost in the mountains close to Ellipi (SAA 15, 113, 114). In an administrative letter to Sargon II, an Assyrian official stationed in Der describes the itinerary between the southern Elamite region and probably the utmost northern Elamite stronghold. [Perhaps the ki]ng, [my] lor[d, will s]ay: ‘How many stages are there [from] Hun[nur] to [Bit-Bunak]ki?’ [From Hun]nur to Bubilu it is [x stages, fr]om Bubilu [to Mada]ktu one stage, [from Madaktu t]o [Malak]ka [...]..., [from Mal]ak [to Bit-B]unakki [x stages, and from] Bit-Bunakk[i to] me three stages. SAA 15, 111

An extremely fragmentary letter (SAA 15, 112) describes the Elamite king’s arrival in Bit-Bunakki. If I interpret the report correctly, the king had mustered his troops stationed in Hidalu (highland region), which was located 6 stages from Bupilu. The Elamite king also requested the military aid of the rulers of Hupapanu and Pillatu, but they did not dare to follow the Elamite king, as they were at that point in history vassals of the Assyrian king (SAA 15, 130). Malak was probably a lowland city located between the Bit-Imbi fortress and Der (SAA 15, 114). Šutruk-Nahhunte II may have lost the city to Sargon on his 12th campaign in the Yadburu region, but later on he regained the control over the city. The reason for this intervention was probably to maintain Elamite political influence in the northern area. The region of Ellipi might have been a region under Elamite cultural influence as early as the 8th century BC. The Ellipian dynasty had Elamite-Iranian roots, which is demonstrated by their personal names (Henkelman 2003a, 197). The name Aspabara, a nephew of the king Dalta of Ellipi, is Iranian (PNA 143; Zadok 2002, 127; Tavernier 2011b, 196). The origin of Lutū’s personal name, the son of Daltâ, who fought initially at the side of Aspabara, may have been Elamite (Zadok 2002, 127). Dalta and Nibē had possibly Kassite names (Zadok 2002, 127). The close Elamite connection and the political interest in the Ellipian territory may have convinced Šutruk-Nahhunte to intervene. However, the outcome of the war of succession had disadvantageous consequences for Elam as the Assyrians increased their political influence by the installation of a client king. The role of Ellipi as a buffer state between Elam and Assyria gradually declined.

THE NEO-ELAMITE LOWLANDS

117

Northwest of Susiana in Lurestan, Neo-Elamite II material has been discovered at the Surkh Dum shrine, level IIB. These findings confirm that the influence of Šutruk-Nahhunte II, one of the most powerful NeoElamite kings, also reached into the mountains northwest of Susiana (Schmidt et al. 1989, 490). When the Assyrian king Sennacherib (705-681 BC), son of Sargon II, came into power, the territorial struggles between Elam and Babylonia on the one hand and Assyria on the other hand became more intense, because Sennacherib directed most of his attention to the Trans-Tigridian area in order to eliminate the Babylonian king Merodach-baladan II. Indirectly, this period is marked as a struggle for access to the Southern Sea or Persian Gulf. In 703 BC, Sennacherib launched a first campaign against an Elamite-Babylonian coalition. To the troops of Merodach-baladan belonged the lands of the Bīt-Yakīn, Bīt-Amukāni, Bīt-Ašillāni (Bīt-Šillāni), Bīt-Sa᾿a]lli, (and) Bīt-Dakkūri, all of the Chaldeans, as many as there were; on the bank(s) of the [Tigris] River, the [Tu᾿umuna, Riḫiḫu], Yadaqqu, Gibrê, (and) Maliḫu; on the bank(s) of the [Surappu] River, [the Gurumu, Ubulu, Damu]nu, Gambulu, Hindaru, Ru᾿u᾿a, (and) Puqudu; on the bank(s) of the [Euphrates] River, [the Ḫamrānu, Ḫagarānu], Nabatu, (and) Li᾿ta᾿u.

The battle was fought in the plain of Kiš on Babylonian soil (RINAP 3, 22 i 20) and was won by the Assyrians, who conquered numerous Chaldean-controlled cities. The ‘first campaign cylinder’ (RINAP 3, 1 36-50) reports 88 fortresses and 820 settlements in Chaldea (Bit-Dakkuri, Bit-Sa’alli, Bit-Amukani and Bit-Yakin).133 On Sennacherib’s return, he defeated a multitude of Aramean tribes: the Tûmuna, Riḫiḫi, Yadaqqu, Gibrê, Maliḫu, Gurumu, Ubulu, Damunu, Gambulu, Ḫindaru, Ru’ûa, Puqudu, Ḫamranu, Ḫaharanu, Nabatu and Lita’u (RINAP 3, 2 14-16). Notwithstanding the Assyrian pressure along the western border zone of Elam, the Elamites received again some breathing space at the northern frontier. After Sennacherib ascended the throne, the Ellipian tried to get rid of the Assyrian yoke. The Ellipian client king Aspabara revolted against Sennacherib, who had to intervene (RINAP 3, 3 27-29; 22 ii 10b-19; 23 9-17a). Sennacherib’s occupation in the Zagros gave Merodach-baladan II, who retreated to and operated from Elam, the possibility to regain control over Chaldea, the southern part of Babylonia (RINAP 3, 22 iii 50-54). In 700 BC, another military confrontation for control over Chaldea between the Elamite-Babylonian allied forces and the Assyrian army resulted in a victory for Sennacherib. Bit-Yakin was in Assyrian hands and Merodach-baladan fled to Nagitu in Elam once again. The actions of Sennacherib marked a change in the international relations between the Assyrians and the Elamites. While Šutruk-Nahhunte II ruled Elam, the Assyrians were still facing a Babylonian-Elamite defense wall in southern Babylonia. During the reign of Hallutuš-Inšušinak I (699-693 BC), the Assyrians were able to march into the Elamite kingdom. On Sennacherib’s 6th campaign (694 BC), his army attacked Bit-Yakin again. The remaining Chaldean people fled to Elam by crossing the Persian Gulf and settled in the city Nagitu. Sennacherib went after them and conquered the Elamite cities Nagitu, Nagiti-di’bina, the lands of Hilmu, Pillatu and Hupapanu, all districts of Elam (RINAP 3, 22 iv 32-46a; 23 iv 30-3). In revenge, Hallutuš-Inšušinak I attacked northern Babylonia, while Sennacherib was occupied in Chaldea (Levine 1982, 43). Potts (1999, 270) remarks that Hallutuš-Inšušinak could consolidate his power in northern Babylonia and turn the region temporarily into Elamite territory. However, Potts based the idea of a temporary Elamite political domination of Northern Babylonia on the three Akkadian Hallušu texts, which Tavernier (2014; 2017, 339 n. 11) assigns to the reign of Hallutuš-Inšušinak II (cf. I.5.3). This suggestion can also be rejected based on the fact that the Babylonian king Nergal-ušezib, whom Hallutuš-Inšušinak I had installed on the Babylonian throne, occupied Nippur in 693 BC (ABC 1, ii 46-iii 2). If Nergal-ušezib had attacked Elamite territory, it would have undermined his loyalty to the Elamites. It is not entirely certain whether Sennacherib’s 7th campaign was a retribution attack against the Elamite king Kutur-Nahhunte (693-692 BC) for his active support of the Babylonian ruler Nergal-ušezib or whether Kutur-Nahhunte was meant to suffer for his father’s aid to Nergal-ušezib, who had dethroned Sennacherib’s 133 The impact of the battle of Kiš varies in the different Assyrian official accounts: 88 fortresses and 820 settlements (RINAP 3, 1 36-50); 89 fortress and 820 villages (RINAP 3, 2 11-12 + 3 11-12 + 9 10-11); 89 fortresses and 620 villages (RINAP 3, 4 9-10 + 8 9-10); 75 fortified cities and 420 villages (RINAP 3, 15 i 12’-20 + 16 i 49-58 + 17 i 41-9 + 22 i 35b-49 + 23 31b-34).

118

THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY

son Ašur-nadin-šumi (Waters 2000, 31). In any case, Sennacherib attacked Kutur-Nahhunte from the north in 692 BC: In the course of my 7th campaign, I conquered and plundered the cities Bīt-Ha’iri and Raṣā, cities on the border of Assyria that the Elamites had taken away by force in the time of my ancestors. I had my garrisons stationed inside them. I brought (those cities) back inside the border of Assyria and placed (them) under the authority of the garrison commander of Dēr. The cities Bubê, Dunnu-Šamaš, Bīt-Risiya, Bīt-Ahlamê, Dūru, Dannat-Sulāya, Šilibtu, Bīt-Aṣusi, Kār-Zēra-iqīša, Bīt-Giṣṣa, Bīt-Katpalāni, Bīt-Imbīya, Hamānu, Bīt-Arrabi, Burutu, Dimtu-ša-Sulāya, Dimtu-ša-bītiētir, Harri-ašlakê, Rabbāya, Rāsu, Akkabarina, Tīl-Uhuri, Hamrānu, Nadītu, together with the cities of the passes, namely Bīt-Bunakki, Tīl-Humba, Dimti-ša-Dume-ili, Bīt-ubiya, Baltī-līšir, Taqab-līšir, Ša-nāqidāte, Masūti-šaplīti, Sarhudēri, Ālum-ša-Bēlet-bīti, Bīt-Ahhē-iddina, Ilteuba, I surrounded, conquered, plundered, destroyed, devastated and burned with fire (those) 34 cities together with the small(er) settlements in their environment. RINAP 3, 18 iv ’9-’36; 22 iv 55-80

Kutur-Nahhunte lost the border territories between Bit-ha’iri and Raši near Der as far as the pass of BitBunakki134 (ABC 1 iii 9-11; RINAP 3, 18 iv ’9-36’; 22 iv 55-80; 23 iv 47-71; 26 ii 7’-13’). Sennacherib explicitly refers to his ancestors, not to the reign of his father. Therefore, one can assume that Huban-nikaš I had secured these areas after the battle of Der (Stolper 1984, 47; Levine 1982, 41-48) and that they had been part of the Elamite kingdom ever since. The raids of Sennacherib were so intense that the Elamite population of the Elamite-Assyrian border region had to retreat to the mountain stronghold. Even the Elamite king KuturNahhunte had to flee from his royal city Madaktu to Hidalu (RINAP 3, 18 iv 1’’-11’’; 23 iv 72-76; ABC 1, iii 23-35).135 Eventually, the winter weather prevented the Assyrian army from marching against Madaktu (RINAP 3, 22 iv 81b-v 5). Based on the Assyrian sources, Kutur-Nahhunte had moved the Elamite capital from Susa to Madaktu. Although Madaktu is mentioned for the first time under the reign of Kutur-Nahhunte and exclusively appears in the Mesopotamian sources (ABL 281: 7, 23; ABL 285: r. 11-12; ABL 794: 7, r. 5, 9), it is one of the most important royal cities of the Neo-Elamite kingdom. The name Madaktu is actually an Akkadian word meaning ‘military camp’ (CAD 10/I, 10). The word was used in a Mesopotamian sense as a temporary fortified settlement that was set up for a certain time near a war zone. After the battle had taken place, the troops broke down the camp. Unlike the Assyrian madaktus, all references to the Neo-Elamite capital Madaktu are preceded by the determinative URU/KUR, indicating a geographical name. One wonders whether the Neo-Elamite kings did not initially intend to construct a temporary military stronghold to defend the Elamite territory against Assyrian raids or that they built a capital, north of Susa, to keep a closer eye on the Assyrian activities (de Miroschedji 1986, 209-225; Vallat 1993, 162). Several Neo-Assyrian kings, like Sennacherib (883-859 BC), moved their capital for strategic reasons as well. In 691 BC, the Elamite king Huban-menanu (692-689 BC) offered help to the Chaldean prince MušezibMarduk, who had ascended the throne of Babylon (692 BC). This political interference evoked the Assyrian anger and resulted in the battle of Halule (ABC 1 iii 16-18; RINAP 3, 23 v 50b-52).136 The Elamite forces consisted of a confederation of multiple people, including some that were considered Assyrian clients, such as the Ellipians and the tribes of Gambulu, Puqudu and Hindaru. The lands Parsuaš, Anzan, Pašeru, (and) Ellipi, the people of Yasil, Lakab(e)ra, Ḫarzunu, Dummuqu, Sulāya, (and) Sam᾿una, (who was) a son of Merodach-baladan II, the lands Bīt-Adini, Bīt-Amukāni, Bīt-Šilāni, Bīt-Sāla (BītSa᾿alli), Larak, the city Laḫīru, the people (of the tribes of the) Puqudu, Gambulu, Ḫalatu, Ru᾿u᾿a, Ubulu, Malaḫu, Rapiqu, Ḫindaru, (and) Damunu, a large host, formed a confederation with him (Huban-menanu). RINAP 3, 22 v 43b-v 52 a 134 De Miroschedji (1986, 215; also Potts 1999, 271-272) has proposed that Bit-Bunakki or Bit-Burnakki was located north of Susa in or near the Deh Luran plain. 135 Oppert (1882, 826) situated the fortified city Madaktu along the Ab-e Diz to the north of Susa, a proposal rejected by Billerbeck (1893, 70-72) who suggested Qal’at-i Raza to the northwest of Susa. Cameron (1936, 165 n. 25) located Madaktu in Derr-i Shahr along the Karun northwest of Susa, while de Mecquenem (MDP 33, 10) placed the fortress at Tepe-Patak along the Duwairij river about 60 km northwest of Susa. De Miroschedji (1981c, 174; 1986, 209-225) eventually accepted the identification of Madaktu with Tepe Patak, a 6 hectares site, between the Karkheh and Duwairij rivers close to the modern road between Andimešk and Deh Luran (Potts 1999, 272). On the location of Hidalu, see II.2.2.3. 136 Halule is a settlement along the Tigris river, although the exact location is yet unknown (Potts 1999, 273).

THE NEO-ELAMITE LOWLANDS

119

The outcome of the battle is seen as one of the most problematic events in military history, as the Babylonian Chronicle (ABC 1 iii 16-18) praises the victorious Elamites, while the Sennacherib’s Annals obviously assign the victory to the Assyrians (RINAP 3, 22 vi 24-29a). Since the Assyrian army was able to continue its campaign to besiege Babylon (Levine 1982, 50-51) Sennacherib did not suffer severe losses. However, he might have lost the Elamite border regions in the Trans-Tigridian corridor (Chaldea, Yadburu, Puqudu, etc.) that he had subjected during the reign of Kutur-Nahhunte. For eight years after the battle of Halule, Sennacherib ruled Babylonia and no significant confrontations with the Elamites were recorded. Mušezib-Marduk on the other hand received asylum in Elam (SAA 17, 170; RINAP 3, 22 v 26-27).

1.1.2. The Hubanid Dynasty (c. 688-646 BC) For decades, Elam and Assyria were involved in a struggle for power over Sealand in Southern Mesopotamia with variable successes. When the sons of Merodach-baladan II, ruler of Sealand (Bit-Yakin; Chaldea), fled to Elam after the death of their father, a cruel fate was waiting there for them. Once arrived in Elam, the Elamite king Huban-haltaš II (681-675 BC) murdered Nabu-zer-kitti-lišir, governor of Sealand, in Susa. The two remaining brothers, Na’id-Marduk and Ummanigaš, escaped the Elamite violence and turned to Assyria (RINAP 4, 2 ii 24-33; 3 i 16’; 30 4’-12’, 31 2’-8’; 32 ii’ 1’-9’). The Assyrian king Esarhaddon (680-669 BC) installed the Chaldean Na’id-Marduk as the new governor of Sealand, gaining an ally against the Elamite interference in Southern Mesopotamia (Reynolds 2003, xxv-xxvi). Nabu-zer-kitti-lišir, the rebel, the traitor, heard of the approach of my army and fled like a fox to Elam. Because of the oath of the great gods, which he had transgressed, the gods Ašur, Sîn, Šamaš, Bel, and Nabu imposed a grievous punishment on him and they killed him with the sword in the midst of the land Elam. Na’id-Marduk, his brother, saw the evil deeds that they had done to his brother in Elam, he fled from the land Elam to save his life, and came to Assyria, before me. I had pity on Na’id-Marduk and Ummanigaš, his brother, I made the Sealand subject to him. I imposed upon him the tribute and payment of my lordship yearly, without ceasing. RINAP 4, 31 2’-8’

The Elamite king Huban-haltaš II, on his turn, tried to persuade the new-appointed governor Na’idMarduk to give up his loyalty to the Assyrian king by sending an Elamite diplomatic messenger, apparently Te’umman, the brother of the Elamite king. The Elders of Sealand, fearing retribution, reported the arrival of the Elamite envoy to the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (SAA 18, 87). The Elamite messenger alleged to the Elders of Sealand that Na’id-Marduk had died, proposing to accept the king’s brother Nabu-ušallim as governor. In a second letter to king Esarhaddon (SAA 18, 86), the Elders of Sealand expressed their distrust in the Elamite message. In a third letter (SAA 18, 68), the Elders of Sealand announce the invasion of their territory by Nabuušallim with help of the Elamite army (Dietrich 1970, 24-25). Nabu-ušallim, the son of Merodach-baladan, and the Elamite forces with him have crossed over [t]o Bit-Yakin. They have [proceeded] from [...] Epadu to Dummuqu, [Targib]atu, Bananu, and Bit-Šulâ.137 SAA 18, 68

One of the Assyrian letters demonstrates a well-established overland route that connected the Elamite kingdom with Sealand in the southern marshes. At a certain point, a bridge of crucial strategic importance connecting Elam and Sealand, was taken and destroyed by the Elamites to prevent Assyrian mingling. After the Elamites had marched against us and taken control of the bridge. […] Now they have dismantled the bridge, but have retained the floats of the bridge in .... They have not released them. We do not know whether or not they will go on. SAA 18, 85

Since the Elders of Sealand had forbidden the Elamite envoys to enter their land (SAA 18, 85), the Elamites positioned their candidate Nabu-ušallim at the Elamite border with Sealand instead. The area mentioned in the fragment below corresponds to the regions that the Elamites had passed upon their march to Sealand. 137

All the towns in the abovementioned fragment are located on the border of Elam and Sealand.

120

THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY

When they [Elamites] saw that we were holding his messengers, they brought in Nabu-ušallim, the son of Merodachbaladan, settled him among the Targibateans, and gave him the Nahaleans, the Duteans, and the Bananeans, Na’idMarduk’s frontier region. SAA 18, 87

The annexation of these people and the creation of a chiefdom for Nabu-ušallim can be seen in the light of the territorial expansion of the Elamite borders. Since Na’id-Marduk was merely a governor under Assyrian rule, Nabu-ušallim had required likely a similar position under Elamite rule, even though this was a short-lived encounter. Presumably the primary aim of the Elamites was the creation of a new buffer zone between Elamite territory and Sealand that had become Assyrian territory. Potts (1999, 275) suggested that this event was simply a power struggle for Sealand between the two remaining sons of Merodach-baladan II, one who sought support with Elam, the other with Assyria. Neverheless, Potts underestimates the economic and strategic importance of Southern Mesopotamia for both Elam and Assyria. By the time Esarhaddon (680-669 BC) ascended the Assyrian throne, the head of the Persian Gulf was firmly under Assyrian control. The successor of Merodach-baladan II (of the house Yakin) had received the status of ‘governor of Sealand’, tributary to the Assyrian king. Although the political situation in the south was far from stable, the Assyrians had hereby consolidated a passageway to the Persian Gulf. The Elamites, on the other hand, did not recognize the Assyrian domination in Southern Mesopotamia. Hegemony over Southern Mesopotamia implied power over the Persian Gulf, so the Assyrian territorial extent had far-reaching implications for Elam. Firstly, the Elamites had to share the Persian Gulf with the Assyrians, who controlled the Mesopotamian harbors and by consequence the maritime trade (at least partially).138 Secondly, the Sealand or Chaldea had always been the southwestern buffer zone for Elam, like Ellipi had been its northern equivalent. Without this buffer zone, Assyria could monitor the Elamite coastline, imposing on the Elamites yet another line to defend from Assyrian attacks. The Assyrian raids on Elamite coastal towns had already begun in the final years of Sennacherib’s reign and continued under the reign of Esarhaddon. Moreover, this area provided navigable rivers such as the Nar-Kabari that offered a direct connection to the Elamite capital Susa (Waerzeggers 2010, 790, 804).139 Mesopotamian travelers gathered in the town of Bab-Nar-Kabari, located at the mound of the Kabari canal and accessible from the Euphrates and the Tigris, where they changed boats to reach Susa. It was the waterway to the heartland of Elam. In the margins of the Sealand succession war, Sennacherib plundered Bit-Dakkuri in Chaldea (RINAP 4, 1 iii 62). A former Elamite ally, Bēl-iqīša, the lord of the Gambulu tribe, went over to the Assyrians and brought tribute (including bulls and white mules from Elam) to the Assyrian king (RINAP 4, 1 iii 71-83).140 In return, Esarhaddon fortified the Šapibel fortress of Bēl-iqiša against the Elamites and the Gambulians were considered as an Assyrian ally protecting the border (RINAP 4, 2 iii 37-52). Some other sheikhs, who were settled over Harmašu (Assyria), had gone to Elam for an unknown reason (SAA 18, 80). In 675/4 BC, the Babylonian Chronicle (ABC 1 iv 9-10) reports the sack of Sippar by Huban-haltaš II. As Huban-haltaš II did not attack undisputed Assyrian territory before, one wonders whether the scribe inserted an event that happened twenty years earlier in the time of Ašur-nadin-šumi (AN.SÁR-MU-MU), whose name was quite similar to Huban-haltaš’s (AN.SÁR-ŠEŠ-MU) name in cuneiform script (Brinkman 1990, 92; 1991, 44; Potts 138 Very little is known on Neo-Elamite maritime trade and harbors (Álvarez-Mon 2010a, 7). The tissue of the Arjan tomb garments was probably made in Dilmun, suggesting an active maritime contact (Álvarez-Mon 2010a, 41-42). Presumably the Bushehr harbor was still functional. Other harbors were probably located closer to the head of the Persian Gulf. These were probably used for trade between Elam and Chaldea, and as a Chaldean escape route into Elam, when fleeing from the Assyrians. Merodach-baladan II hided from the Assyrians in Dur-Yakin, a fortified city located deep in the marshes of Sealand, where they lost track of him. Accordingly, the Bit-Yakin must have been located in the deep south. From Dur-Yakin, Merodach-baladan was able to escape the Assyrian hunt initiated by Sennacherib through the marshes to Elam, where he lived in exile. Several decades later, Elamite nobility fearing the Elamite governmental regime escaped Elam along the same route. 139 VS 6 302, BE 9 4: boats from Bab-Nar-Kabari to Susa, YOS 3 111 = Abraham 2004, n° 25: boats from Babylon to Nar-Kabari, BE 9 84 = TuM2/3 202: boats from Nippur to Nar-Kabari, Abraham 2004, n° 27: changing of boats at Nar-Kabari. Although these documents account on river transport in the early Achaemenid period, we may assume that this transport route existed already in the Neo-Elamite period. 140 The hexagonal prism (RINAP 4, 1) containing Esarhaddon’s military deeds, was recorded by the governor of Lahiru in 673 BC. Lahiru, the city that had been one of the Elamite confederates in the battle of Halule (691 BC), had been incorporated into the Assyrian empire nearly twenty years later.

THE NEO-ELAMITE LOWLANDS

121

1999, 275). If the sack on Sippar had actually taken place, did the Assyrian king intentionally omit this passage in the Assyrian Annals? The Elamites (and) Gutians, obstinate rulers, who used to answer the kings, my ancestors, with hostility, heard of what the might of the god Aššur, my lord, had done among all of (my) enemies, and fear and terror poured over them. So that there would be no trespassing on the borders of their countries they sent their messengers (with messages) of friendship and peace to Nineveh, before me, and they swore an oath by the great gods. RINAP 4, iii 26-33a

A year later (c. 674 BC), the newly appointed Elamite king Urtak (675-664 BC) negotiated a peace treaty with his main rival Esarhaddon in order to restore the international relationship and diplomatic contact between the two kingdoms (SAA 4, 74). The treaty (SAA 18, 7), involving the return of some plundered cult statues (RINAP 4, 105 vii 5-11; 107 vii 7-14), was probably a mutual exchange of temple goods that were taken at previous conquests. Urtak returned the statue of Ištar of Agade/Akkad and those of other gods of Agade (ABC 1 iv 17-18, Brinkman 1990, 88; 1991, 44). The temple goods that were sent from Elam arrived at the 10th day of the month Adar of Esarhaddon’s 7th regnal year (Gerardi 1987, 12-13) in Assyria. Esarhaddon honored the agreement by sending precious silver items, preserved at Nineveh, to Susa accompanied with an audience gift of 10 shekels for the Elamite king Urtak (Fales & Postgate 1992, xxiv-xxv, 78-80). In a letter (SAA 16, 1), Esarhaddon confirmed his friendship with Urtak. This peace treaty allowed the Elamites to settle temporary on Assyrian territory during a famine that probably occurred during the early reign of Urtak in Elam. They probably went not much further than the region of Der that was once in possession of the Elamite kings. Assurbanipal (668-627 BC), who succeeded his father to the Elamite throne, returned the Elamite refugees to Elam as sign of respect, when there was sufficient rain and harvest in Elam (BIWA B iv 18-26). The northern frontier of Elam is difficult to determine during the period 675-669 BC. As a consequence of the peace treaty, the Elamite western border region disappeared out of the military scope and the geopolitical settings remained largely the same as during the reign of Huban-haltaš II (SAA 4, 76, 77, 79). At the northern Elamite border the Ellipian kingdom had disappeared, probably due to Cimmerian invasions, and its territory was incorporated in the Assyrian kingdom. From the late reign of Esarhaddon onwards, the Elamite northern territory bordered directly to Assyrian Media (Henkelman 2003b, 197: c. 660 BC). The Assyrians would gradually expand their territory over the Araši or Raši area, though not without battle (SAA 3, 20). The Assyrian correspondence implies that Araši or Raši had become an independent unit (SAA 16, 138), while it was still attached to Elam during the reign of Sargon II. In one letter an Elamite trader coming from Malaku in Elam asked permission to take the caravan road to Dunnu-Šamaš, an outpost in Araši on the border of Elam (SAA 16, 140). After the accession of Assurbanipal, the Elamite-Assyrian relations abruptly changed in hostility when Urtak convinced Bel-iqiša of the Gambuleans and Nabu-šum-ereš, the governor of Nippur (Cole 1996), who was a servant of the Assyrian king, to attack the Babylonian territory that was occupied by the Assyrian empire. In 664 BC, the joint army marched under the command of Marduk-šum-ibni, Urtak’s commander-in-chief, into Assyrian territory. When the Elamite army besieged the gates of Babylon, they heard the news of an approaching Assyrian army and fled. Assurbanipal hunted the Elamite army down until they were driven back within the borders of the Elamite kingdom (BIWA B iv 27-53; SAA 4, 271). The successor of Urtak, Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I (664-653 BC), demanded every month the extradition of the Elamite princes who had fled to Assyria, but Assurbanipal refused (BIWA B iv 87-v 3). Assyrian sources claimed that Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak gathered his Elamite forces to march upon Nineveh: He g[athered] the [... force]s of Elam; and [although] I had not done to him [evil], he [...... and planned for] ... and the conquest of my land. But he [...] the forces of [Elam] and marched on, saying: ‘I will not [sleep until] I have come and din[ed] in the center of Nineveh!’ SAA 3, 31

However, the location of the eventual confrontation and the several attempts of Assurbanipal to reach the Ulai River suggest that Assurbanipal was looking for a motive to attack Susa. In the preparation for the battle of Til-Tuba (653 BC), Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak (664-653 BC) stationed his army at Bit-Imbi in the Elamite-Babylonian

122

THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY

border region, while Assurbanipal assembled his army in Der. The line for battle was drawn at the Ulai river: the Assyrian at the side of Der, the Elamites at Til-Tuba. The Elamite camp was located upstream, so that they were able to cut of the water supply for the Assyrians (BIWA B v 84 – B v 97). After three attempts, the Assyrian army reached the Ulai River and crossed it in the direction of Susa. The Elamites were probably forced in a defensive position at Til-Tuba. Based on the proximity of Til-Tuba to the Elamite capital Susa, the battle was fought on Elamite grounds. After the Assyrian victory, Assurbanipal plundered the area between the Ulai River and Susa (Susiana; BIWA B vi 13), but did not seize it. The military confrontation between the two armies is depicted on the reliefs of Assurbanipal’s Southwest palace and North palace (Barnett 1976, pl. 24-25; Barnett et al. 1998, 94-95 pl. 286-299; Reade 1976, 99). Danunu, son of Beliqiša, sheikh of the Gambulu tribe, had remained loyal to the Elamites after the battle of Til-Tuba. Since the Elamites refused to recognize the Assyrian authority, Assurbanipal marched upon his fortress Šapibel, situated between the two watercourses, and destroyed the city (BIWA B vi 23-24). After the battle of Til-Tuba, Huban-nikaš II (653-652/1 BC), the Elamite client king of Assurbanipal (BIWA B vi 4-5), ascended the Elamite throne in Madaktu. According to Waters (2000, 57), Elam became a province of Assyria. [By] the might of my gods and their [righteous] command, [I established] a creation of my own hands to kingship over them. [By the command] of Aššur, Bel, Nabu, Nergal, Ištar of [Nineveh], and the Lady of Arbela I unified (the whole) of Elam; I settled Assyrians [there], and imposed tax and tribute upon them. SAA 3, 31

However, being reduced to a tributary status does certainly not mean being incorporated into the Assyrian empire. Several Median tribes along the major Zagros route lived in such a relation to Assyria since the reign of Esarhaddon.141 The local ruler remained in charge of the territory as long as he recognized the supreme authority of the Assyrian king, paid the requested tribute to an Assyrian provincial governor and provided specialized units for the Assyrian army. Assurbanipal lists amongst the countries of which he received tribute the ‘sandy countryside of Elam’ (SAA 3, 28), i.e. Susiana. Unsatisfied with his position, Huban-nikaš II tried to cast off this subordinate status with the help of the sheikhs of Pillatu and Ḫilmu by engaging in battle against the Assyrians (652 BC). Sennacherib once subjugated those chiefdoms to the Assyrian empire, but his control did not last. In Mangisu near Sumandir the Assyrian crossed the Tigris and in Hiritu, a fortress in the Diyala region, it came to the military confrontation (Potts 1999, 281). Sumandir is known in the Babylonian sources as Sumandar/Sumundar and is situated in the Uruk region (Zadok 1985a, 275).142 One year later, Tammaritu I (652/1-650 BC) marched against the Assyrians and intended to invade Nippur. Assurbanipal feared that the Puqudeans in the Assyrian army would become rebellious by hearing the news of the Elamite offensive (SAA 4, 289). During the reign of Indabibi (650/49-648 BC), Assurbanipal threatened to invade Elam and destroy the royal cities Susa, Madaktu and Hidalu (BIWA C ix 69), if Elam refused to extradite Nabu-bel-šumati. From the reign of Indabibi to Huban-haltaš III, the Assyrian general Bel-ibni was stationed in Sealand to monitor the Elamites. Bel-ibni reports the internal unrest in Elam, because the Elamites suffered from the famine that had paralyzed the country, especially the Elamite-Sealand border region (ABL 280:15-23; 281:5-23; 521:15-20). 141 Humbareši, city lord of Nahšimarti, concluded an adê-agreement with Esarhaddon (Parpola & Watanabe 1988, 28-29 n. 6: 3). Not only the name of the city lord has an Elamite origin, also the city name must have had an Elamite variant attested as a personal name on one of the Kalmakarra inscription as Akšimarti (Kal. 10 Henkelman 2003b, 221-223; 2008, 358 n. 835). Radner suggested that the city lord Humbareš may have been the official mentioned in two Neo-Assyrian letters (CT 53 638; Parpola &Watanabe 1988, xxxi; Baker & Schmitt 2000; CT 53 376). Herein, Humbareš is mentioned in connection to events in Elam and with another Elamite official Humbappi. Henkelman consequently connects Humbareš with a couple of letters describing the adê-agreement (Luukko & Van Buylaere 2002, xxii, xlviii n. 43, 128 n; 146-147). Liverani (1995) concluded therefore that the people from Elam, or at least people from an area under Elamite cultural influence, were in service of the Assyrian court. 142 However, the Uruk region seems quite far for Elamites to engage in battle. Either the location of Sumandir, as suggested by Zadok (1985a, 275), in the Uruk region should be revised or there is a second city by the name Sumandir that is located closer to the Elamite border, where one would expect the battle has taken place.

THE NEO-ELAMITE LOWLANDS

123

Bel-ibni positioned Assyrian garrisons at the Elamite-Babylonian border (ABL 280, 462, 520, 792, 794). These garrisons conducted raids against the Chaldean and Aramean border tribes and in Elam. The Assyrians besieged the vestiges of Hilmu, Pillatu, Dummuqu, Sulaya, Lahīru and Dibirīna, all Elamite allies (BIWA A iv 116). Bel-ibni mobilized for this campaign 400 archers who crossed the head of the Persian Gulf in groups of 100 (ABL 1000). The first campaign probably started in the third month of 647 BC and a few tribal groups and towns along the Elamite-Babylonian border surrendered instantly to Assurbanipal, amongst them some Gambulians and the town of Lahiru. The town of Lahiru has two possible geographical locations. Either was this the main city of a homonymous province, situated in the northeast of Babylonia (Brinkman 1979, 178 n. 1093). In that case, the Elamites would have recaptured the city after the Šamaš-šum-ukin revolt, since the governor of Lahiru was an associate of Assurbanipal. Or Lahiru was a town of an Aramean tribe that dwelled along the Elamite-Babylonian border southeast of Der (Zadok 1985b, 71). Frame (1992, 204) suggests that the determinative URU does not necessarily needs to be interpreted in a strict sense. In that case, it would be a reference to the tribe of the Lahiru. Next to Lahiru, the troops of Bel-ibni seized a large amount of cattle from the Pillatu and Hilmu tribes as war booty (ABL 1000). Nabu-bel-šumati on his turn assembled 250 men of the Gurašimmu tribe to fight the Assyrian garrison (ABL 1000). Although several border regions were plundered along the road, Bīt-Imbi was the main target of the first Assyrian campaign (647 BC) against Huban-haltaš III (648-647 BC). Bīt-Imbi is described in the Annals of Assurbanipal as ‘a royal city’, and was a major defensive stronghold at the Elamite-Babylonian frontier. The fortified city was actually a recent construction. In version A of the Annals (BIWA A iv 23-32), Bīt-Imbi mahrû (the previous Bīt-Imbi) indicates that during the reign of Sennacherib the Elamites and Assyrians fought for a homonymous city at another location. The Elamites had to give up their line of defense, when the Assyrians captured the fortified Elamite city of Bit-Imbi, after which the Assyrian army had a free access into Elam. Huban-haltaš III fled from his royal city Madaktu to the Elamite mountains. The most detailed account of the Assyrian campaigns against the Elamite king Huban-haltaš III is given in the correspondence of the Assyrian general Bel-ibni to his king Assurbanipal (De Vaan 1995; ABL 462: 14-16; ABL 794). At one point, Bel-ibni sent a garrison of 500 soldiers to raid the town of Zabdanu (Zadok 1985a, 332). The Assyrian troops marched to the Elamite city of Irgudu where they imprisoned and slew 200 Elamites. Irgudu was located at a two-double hours march from Susa (Röllig 1980, 162a). The Assyrian violence in the border region made the rulers of the town of Lahiru and the people of Nugu submit to Bel-ibni’s nephew Mušezib-Marduk (ABL 280). Since Assurbanipal had ruled over the people of Lahiru during the first campaign, ABL 280 might well be dated to 647 BC. Zadok (1985a, 243) identified the people of Nugu with the Nuguhu tribe who had supported Nabu-bel-šumati against Bel-ibni. The army of Bel-ibni also ravaged the regions of Aqbanu and ‘Ale, even though the locals had tried to ambush the Assyrians. At the same time, Belibni advanced with 600 archers and 50 horsemen to Bab-Marrati (Zadok 1985b, 59), located in a lagoon of the Persian Gulf.143 From there, the Assyrian soldiers entered the hostile territory of Elam on rafts, where they captured the town of Mahmitu. In Mahmitu, the Assyrians took 1000 cattle belonging to the Elamite king and captured the chief man of the Pillatu tribe (ABL 520). King Tammaritu, who had requested for refuge at the Assyrian court when Indabibi dethroned him, regained the Elamite throne at Susa with the help of Assurbanipal. Still, his reign was short-lived. Once installed as king of Elam, Tammaritu objected to the plundering of Elamite goods by Assyrian soldiers. Assurbanipal, offended by the accusation of Tammaritu, took the trouble of removing him from the Elamite throne. Assurbanipal claimed to have destroyed 24 Elamite cities before he retreated to Assyria: Gaudu, Daeba, Nadi’, Dur-Amnani, Hamanu, Taraqu, Hayusi, Bit-kunukki-bissu, Bit-Arrabi, Bit-Imbi, Madaktu, Susa, Bube, Kapar-Marduk-šarrani, Urdalika, Algariga, Tubu, Til-Tuba, Dun-šarri, Dur-undaši, Bupilu, Samunu, Bit-Bunakki, Qabrina, and Hara’ (BIWA F iii 82- iv 16). All these cities were located in the Elamite western border region and in Susiana. The second Assyrian campaign against Elam was most likely initiated in the beginning of 646 BC, since the Assyrians had not succeeded to capture Huban-haltaš III. The Assyrian army headed from the Sealand to the border fortress Bit-Imbi. When the border region was put under Assyrian control, the Assyrian army 143

In ABL 418, Bab-Marrati is considered the southernmost town in Babylonia. See also ABL 462:14; ABL 520:12; ABL 1000:15-16.

124

THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY

invaded the Elamite heartland and plundered Raši and Hamanu. However, Huban-haltaš III was able to escape the Assyrians again and left his capital Madaktu for Dur-Untaš.144 He crossed the Idide River, which became his defense line. The Assyrian advanced further into Elam, where they looted and destructed fourteen Elamite fortified cities in the lowlands that Huban-haltaš III called ‘his residence’: Bit-Imbi, Susa, Madaktu, Dur-Untaš (Chogha Zanbil), Nadite, Bit-Bunakki, Hartappanu, Tubu, Haltemaš, Din-šarri, Sumuntunaš, Pidilma, Kabinak (Haft Tepe) and Bupilu (BIWA F iv 29-43). This was probably the first time that the Assyrians were able to penetrate the Elamite heartland. During the Assyrian campaign against Pa’e, the people of the previous conquered cities Bit-Imbi, Kuzurtein, Dur-šarri, Masutu, Bube, Bit-Unzaya, Bit-Arrabi, Ipat, Dimtu-ša-Tapapa, Akbarina, Gurukirra, Dunnu-Šamaš, Hamanu, Kaniṣu, Arabziaše, Naqidate, Dimtu-ša-Simame, Bit-Qatatti, Ša-Kisaya, Subahe and Til-Humba (BIWA A vii 51-81) fled to Saladri, an Elamite mountain fortress. When these people heard of the approaching Assyrian army, they eventually surrendered. When the Elamite king Huban-haltaš III was captured, the Assyrians interest in Elam gradually vanished.

1.1.3. The late Neo-Elamite Period (645-520 BC) Although the Assyrian king Assurbanipal turned his attention to the western Assyrian empire after the sack of Susa (646 BC), the Assyrian governors remained at post to exert pressure on the Elamite western and northern border regions. Although not explicitly mentioned, most disputed territories in the Trans-Tigridian corridor were presumably placed under Assyrian influence in the period between 653 BC (battle of Til-Tuba) and the end of Assurbanipal’s reign (c. 627 BC). This political manoeuvre reduced susceptibly the limits of the Elamite kingdom. Nonetheless the Assyrians lost their grip over Southern Mesopotamia as a result of the emergence of the Neo-Babylonian kingdom. The friendly contact between the Elamite king Šutur-Nahhunte (?) and the Babylonian king Nabopolassar (626-605 BC) may point to the fact that both kingdoms had secured their former part of the Trans-Tigridian corridor. During the early reign of Nebuchadnezzar II (605-562 BC), son and successor of Nabopolassar, the Babylonian army fought battles with foreign states along the Tigris in 596 BC (ABC 5; Wiseman 1956, 72). The 9th year, [in the month of…, the king of Akk]ad and [his] troops [moved] along the banks of the Tigris. The king of El[am…]. The king of Akkad […]. He set up his camp [at…] on the bank of the Tigris. [It was] a day’s journey between them. The king of Elam became frightened and, fear having griped him, he re[turned] to his own country. ABC 5; CM 24:16-20

Wiseman (1987, 34; 1991, 233) originally suggested that the damaged toponym could be restored as Elam but questioned his own suggestion later on. Zawadzki (1988, 140) indeed points to the strength of the Elamite army to engage in war with Babylon. The prophecy of Jeremiah (49:34-39) suggests that Elam lost its independence early in the reign of Zedekiah of Judah (597-586 BC): LUGAL N[IM.MA.KI],

The word of the lord that came to Jeremiah the prophet against Elam in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judeah, saying: ‘Thus the lord of hosts behold, I will break the bow of Elam, the chief of their might. And upon Elam will I bring the four winds from the four quarters of heaven and will scatter them towards all those winds and there shall be no nation whither the outcast of Elam shall not come. For I will cause Elam to be dismayed before their enemies, and before them that they seek their life. And I will bring evil upon them, even my fierce anger, saith the Lord; and I will wend the sword after them, thence the king and the princes, saith the Lord. But I shall come to pass in the latter days, that I will bring again captivity of Elam, saith the lord’. Myers, 1979; Conti 2008

144 Potts (1999, 284) correctly remarks that the ceramic assemblage of Dur-Untaš or modern Chogha Zanbil marks the last occupation phase of the city around the conquest of Nebuchadnezzar I (late Middle Elamite period). Perhaps some areas of Chogha Zanbil were reoccupied in the Neo-Elamite period on a very limited scale or perhaps the Neo-Elamite toponym refers to a different location.

THE NEO-ELAMITE LOWLANDS

125

Some scholars believed that this prophecy referred to the chronicle in which Nebuchadnezzar II conquered all of Elam (König 1931, 23; Weidner 1939, 929; Zadok 1976a, 61). This would correspond to a number of inscribed objects and bricks with the name of Nebuchadnezzar II that were found in Susa (Langdon 1905-1906; 1912, 44; Thureau-Dangin 1912, 24-25; Scheil 1927, 47-48). In Scheil’s opinion, the inscribed stone vessel and weights with the royal names of Nebuchadnezzar, Amel-Marduk (562-560 BC) and Neriglissar (560-556 BC) could have been taken to Susa at any time, but inscribed bricks were generally fabricated at the construction site of the building and less frequently moved (Scheil 1927, 47; also Dandemaev & Lukonin 1989, 59). However, the inscribed brick of Nebuchadnezzar II found in Persepolis (Schmidt 1953, 144, 179; Zawadski 1988, 142), an Achaemenid city, may indicate that the Persians had taken bricks as war booty after their conquest of Babylonia in 539 BC. Potts (1999, 291) adds that the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian eyestones, seals and beads recovered in the Persepolis treasury (Schmidt 1957, 57) must have arrived in Persepolis long after their manufacturing. Moreover, the inscribed bricks of Nabopolassar carried a standard inscription with his titulary, which are recovered in Susa, Borsippa, Eridu, Hillah, Kiš, Sippar and Tell Nasrat Pasha (Berger 1973, 180, 185-186, 195-196). Far more common were the inscribed bricks naming the specific building for which they were manufactured. Since none of the Susa inscribed Nabopolassar bricks is dedicated to a building erected in Susa, one has no proof of actual Neo-Babylonian building activity in Elam and by consequence no Babylonian domination of Elamite territory. If the word ‘Elam’ is correctly restored in the text, it is still not clear why a battle was fought between former allies. The only reasonable explanation to me seems a border dispute. Despite the dearth of sources for the last century of Elamite independence (c. 627-521/20), many of these toponyms and geographical references resonate with what may often be nothing more than a sidelong glance into the late Neo-Elamite geopolitical power. However, the late Elamite archives and royal inscriptions provide us with some breadcrumbs, suggesting a modest extension of the Elamite geopolitical space compared to the reign of Assurbanipal, especially in the Trans-Tigridian corridor, which may have caused conflicts with the emerging Neo-Babylonian empire. Three corpora yield information on the late Elamite western periphery in the Trans-Tigridian corridor. 1.1.3.1. The Susa Acropole Archive The most prominent corpus of this period, the Susa Acropole archive, provides the majority of the late Neo-Elamite toponyms (Appendix 3). Although most of these place names are not yet connected to actual geographic locations, some regions may be approximately located based on onomastic characteristics of individuals connected to a certain toponym. The best example of this approach is the people of Zari, who were incorporated into the Susian economic system. In the Susa Acropole tablets, Appalaya is called the king of the Zarians (S. 71), denoting their semi-autonomous status. Zari is alternately written with the determinative be or aš (S. 27; S. 178), suggesting that Zari is rather an ethnonym than a toponym (Henkelman 2003a, 212-213). If Appalaya was the king of an ethnic group Zari, he must have been a tribal leader or a sheikh. Next to Appalaya two other members of the Zari clan, Nabin-naṣir (S. 168) and Marduk (S. 126), are named. The personal name Marduk is actually a Babylonian deity. Nabin-naṣir is a corrupted orthography for Nabu-naṣir, a perfect Semitic name, while Appalaya is a Semitic name with a clear West-Semitic ending -aya (von Dassow 1999, 236). Analyzing the origin of the anthroponyms of the Zarians, one encounters a purely Semitic name corpus. Therefore, the Zari people were probably an Aramean entity dwelling in the Elamite-Babylonian borderland, i.e. the Trans-Tigridian corridor, belonging to the Elamite geopolitical power (cf. I.6.3.). 1.1.3.2. The Elamite Nineveh Letters A second corpus informing us on the Elamite borderlands is the archive of the Elamite Nineveh letters.145 In these letters, the king of Zamin communicates with the king of Haran and Assyria. In the section on Bahuri, 145

25 fragments were found in Nineveh, two in Susa and a third in Behbahan (Arjan tomb). The Nineveh letters refer to the palace managers of the court of Ayapir and Katmurti and the kingdom Zamin of Elam (halza-mín halha-tam-ti-na; Nin 5).

126

THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY

king of Zamin (cf. I.6.1.), I already postulated that the toponym Zamin may have been the Elamite name for Samūnu, Šutruk-Nahhunte II’s (717-699 BC) stronghold in Yadburu. In the 13th letter (81-02-04,137), Bahuri, the king of Zamin, writes to one of his officials Haba[..] about the ‘envoy of the king of Haran and the king of Assyria’. Since the Assyrians are well represented in the Elamite Nineveh corpus (Nin 3; Nin 15), and this particular toponym has striking similarity to the Assyrian city Harrān, it is tempting to suggest that the Neo-Elamite kings had direct contact with the last Assyrian capital Harran in the south of Turkey. However, the Near Eastern political climate of the late 7th century BC was rather unstable to undertake such a long journey from Elam to the Assyrian cult center Harran. One hypothesis could be that the Elamite official Haba[..] (Nin 13), who lived at the Assyrian Nineveh court, was the intermediary to transfer the message to Harran. Since the exact information on the envoy in Nin 13 is broken off, one cannot confirm such a practice. On the other hand, the syntax of the Elamite phrase beSUNKI aš halha-ra-na beSUNKI haláš-šu-ra-na with the double logogram for king indicates that Bahuri referred in this letter to two fellow kings; one in Assyria and another in Hara(n). If king Bahuri would have described the envoy of a single king, the texts should have stated SUNKI aš halha-ra-(na) haláš-šu-ra-(ik)-ka4 in analogy with the royal Elamite titulary SUNKI ašan-za-an aššu-šuun-ka4. Since the cultic city Harran was an integral part of Assyria during the Neo-Assyrian period, it did not have its own king, nor did the late Assyrian kings refer to Harran in their royal titulary (Holloway 2002, 421). And unless we have to interpret Nin 13 as the ‘king of Harran, (who is) the king of Assyria’, this option must be excluded. Since the Elamite Nineveh letters seem to deal with events happening in Elam and its environment and since the king of Harran is mentioned before the king of Assyria in order of importance, we can assume that there are better alternatives for the location of the Elamite toponym Haran (Gorris 2018). Next to the above-mentioned Elamite Nineveh letter (Nin 13), three more Elamite documents mention the toponym Haran: two Susa Acropole texts (S. 117:5; 147:3’) and one tablet from the Persepolis Fortification archive (PF-NN 161:13; Vallat 1993, 80). All of these sources were roughly written within the same century, which is from the end of the 7th to the end of the 6th century BC. 1) Susa Acropole archive: In a first fragment (S. 117:1-5), ‘a certain person received 7 spears in total: 1 for the city of Haran, 1 for the Dullians, 1 for the Tankians, 1 for the dŠiksians, 1 for the Persian man and 2 for Kiliman-Anzan’: 1 ašha-ra-an-ma d[a-…] 1 ašdu-ul-lu-ip-pe-ma 1 aštan-ki-ip-pe-ma 1 dše-ik-sìp-pi-ma 1 be pár-sir-ra du-iš 2 dki-li-man-an-za-an du-iš PAP 7 giššu-kur-ru-um. Here, Haran is listed amongst three tribal groups, indicated with the nominal suffixes -ippe ‘the people of …’. Of these four geographical references, only the Dullians are attested in the Persepolis administration and the dŠiksians possibly in the stele of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II (EKI 85). But as far as I know, no noteworthy suggestions have been made as to their respective locations. 2) In a second document (S. 147:3’), ‘Ahhazzaka-Inšušinak, the man from Haran, received an amount of iron and one bow’ [X] ma-na AN.BAR.MEŠ 1 gišBAN.MEŠ [be] a-ah-haz-za-ka-dPÍR beha-ra-an-ra du-iš. In this text, several toponyms are mentioned, two of which, Ayapir and Rakka(n), can be approximately pinpointed on a map. Ayapir, which is located in modern Izeh, was also attested in another Nineveh letter (Nin 5). If the Neo-Elamite toponym Rakka is identical to the Achaemenid Rakkan, as Vallat (1993, 227) suggests, then Rakka(n) would be located in the Persepolis region. Since there are no archaeological traces of Neo-Elamite contact with the Kur River Basin, it seems doubtful that the location of Haran should be sought in the vicinity of Rakka. One can even question whether the people of Rakka already lived in the Persepolis region during the late Neo-Elamite period at all. A Median district south of modern Tehran is also called Rakka in the Achaemenid sources, although it seems rather doubtful that the Neo-Elamite Haran was located so deep in Median territory. Moreover, this reference to Haran is written on the postscript of this economic document after the date and place of issue. So, the content of the document is not necessarily connected to the provisioning of the man of Haran. 3) Persepolis Fortification archive: A Persepolis document (PF-NN 161:13; Vallat 1993, 80) lists ašha-ra-ma among six villages. Unfortunately, three villages cannot be restored and the other two, Rabakka and

THE NEO-ELAMITE LOWLANDS

127

Marmašda, have not yet been localized. Since the geographical framework of the Persepolis Fortification archive is largely restricted to the Kur River Basin and the Fahliyan region, it is possible, that ašHarama was just a village with a similar name. In all four Elamite attestations, Haran is written differently. In the Susa Acropole texts, the root of the toponym is ha-ra-an-. In S. 117, the postposition -ma ‘in, for’ (Tavernier 2011a, 335) is added, while in S. 147 the delocutive -ra is connected to the root. In this case, one has a clear reference to Haran, with the final consonant -n belonging to the root. In the 13th Nineveh letter and the Persepolis text, the orthography of the toponym is less convincing. Hara-na of Nin 13 ends with the late Neo-Elamite and Achaemenid genitive marker -na (Stolper 2004a, 74, 86-87), leaving hara as root. This would mean that the actual name of the region was Hara, leading to a translation of its attestation in Nin 13 as ‘the king of Hara’. Alternatively, one can divide the word halha-ra-na in Haran with a suffix -a (relative clause), since this postposition is generally the last particle of the word (Tavernier 2011a, 333). However, this option is less likely within the syntax of the phrase. The city ašha-ra-ma from the Persepolis Fortification text (PF-NN 161: 13; Vallat 1993, 80) may have an identical orthography, because of the labialization from /n/ to /m/ in late Elamite linguistics (Stolper 2004a, 71; Tavernier 2011a, 318). If all four fragments refer to the same toponym Haran, then the last consonant -n is not always written, suggesting that the pronunciation of the -n was rather weak. This would not be unusual since the Elamites probably put the stress on the initial syllable of the word. The best solution to this orthographical issue is to assume that the final -a of Hara is in fact a nasal vowel. Nasal vowels are not exceptional in Elamite (Stolper 2004, 72; Tavernier 2011a, 320). This leads to a translitteration Haran for the toponym discussed here. Next to the Assyrian cult city Harran, six other possible matches could be found in the Assyrian text corpus. Harrania, HAR-na and Harhar are excluded, because these cities/lands were located far beyond the Rūmišgān region, which is possibly the most northern limit of the late Neo-Elamite kingdom.146 HAR was a border city in or near Elam (SAA 10, 12; SAA 15, 32). It is possible, albeit still uncertain, that the city name should be read Hara147 and that it might then be identical to Dur-Abi-Hara, located in the vicinity of Der. According to Fuchs (1994, 430), this location may have been Šaiḫ Ya’qūb al-Yūsuf. When Sargon II had to return to Elam (710 BC), Merodach-baladan II had gathered his troops at DurAbi-Hara situated at the Surappu-river. Despite last-minute fortification works on this Gambulean stronghold in preparation for the Assyrian attack, Merodach-baladan II could not hold the place and Sargon II took over control. Sargon went on to conquer Yadburu from the cities Samūna, Bāb-dūri, Dur-Telītim, (until) Bubē (and) Til-Humba in the territory of Elam (e.g. Fuchs 1994, S5 20-23). Sargon II renamed Dur-Abi-Hara as Dur-Nabu and made it the capital of the newly-founded province of Gambulu whose territory extended to the border of Elam, far beyond the tribal area of the Gambulu. In a list of cities that were destroyed during the Elamite campaigns of Assurbanipal, a town Hara’/Harâ is attested together with 22 toponyms in the Trans-Tigridian region (BIWA F iv 1-11/ A v 45-60). It is not excluded, though hard to prove without further textual and/or archaeological information, that Hara’, in turn, is the city HAR, whose dynasty delivered horses to Esarhaddon (SAA 10, 112, 26-29); and, maybe, one or both of these toponyms can further be equated with Sargon’s Dur-Abi-Hara, modern Šaiḫ Ya’qūb al-Yūsuf. Returning to the geographical extent of the Elamite Nineveh letters, the location of Elamite Hara(n) in or near Dur-Abi-Hara at the Surappu-river would certainly fit the picture. Therefore we can conclude that Hara(n) was probably a chiefdom in the Trans-Tigridian region within the geopolitical power of the Elamite kings (halza-mín halha-tam-ti-na; Nin 5), like Zamin and Zari. The ‘envoy of the king of Hara(n) and the king of Assyria’ (Nin 13) would by consequence not refer to the order of importance of the kings, but to the 146

Harrania was suggested by Scheil (1907, 105), but Lanfranchi (1995, 136) ultimately identified the toponym with modern Rāniya in southern Khuzestan. The city Harhar is probably Giyan Tepe in the Nehavand valley in Hamadan province, on the Great Khorasan road (Radner 2013, 446). 147 See MacGinnis (2014), who links this HAR to Hara in I Chronicles 5.26 (reign of Tiglath-pileser III); if so, Israelites may have been deported to HAR/Hara following Tiglath-pileser III’s campaign in Media and his march down to the Elamite border (9th regnal year, i.e. 737 BC).

128

THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY

geographical location of Zamin towards Hara(n) and Assyria. From Zamin (Samunu) in Yadburu, an envoy passed by the chiefdom Hara(n) in Gambulu (via Der) on the road to Assyria. Moreover, an identification of the Elamite Hara(n) with Dur-Abi-Hara suggests that the Elamites had extended their territorial boundaries to a significant part of the former Assyrian Gambulu province, which the Babylonians had recaptured after the reign of Assurbanipal. 1.1.3.3. Akkadian Texts from Elam A third text corpus referring to cities on the Elamite western borderland is the three Akkadian documents from the reign of Hallutuš-Inšušinak II (cf. I.5.4.). One document was found in Nippur, but written in Sumuntanaš (Weisberg 2003, 1). Although it was a Neo-Babylonian adoption contract, the date formula was recorded in regnal years of Hallutuš-Inšušinak (II). Therefore, the city Sumuntanaš was situated within the Elamite territory. Sumuntanaš corresponds to Sumuntunaš in the Annals of Assurbanipal (BIWA A v 85/ F iv 37). Herein, Sumuntunaš is called one of Huban-haltaš III’s royal cities and is directly linked to Dur-Šarri (El. Dun-sunki). I (Assurbanipal) conquered Naditu, his residence, next to his district. I conquered Bit-Bunaku, his residence, next to his district. I conquered Hartappamu, his residence, next to his district. I conquered Tubu (no residence) next to his district. I conquered the ‘whole of Mesopotamia’ (i.e. Trans-Tigridian corridor) and Madaktu, his residence, next to his district. I conquered Haltemaš, his residence. I conquered Susa, his residence. I conquered Bit-Bunakki, his residence. I conquered Dur-Šarri and Sumuntunaš, his residence. I conquered Pidilma, his residence. I conquered Bupilu, his residence. I conquered Kabinak, his residence. BIWA A v 85/ F iv 37

The conquest of the abovementioned cities follows the annexation of Raši and Hamanu (BIWA F iv 23). Between taking Madaktu and Dur-Untaš-Napiriša on the Idide River, these cities in the Yadburu region and Susiana plain were conquered. Further, the fragment of the Annals indicates to which towns Dur-Untaš-Napiriša bordered (‘next to his district’), but Sumuntunaš was not one of them. Based on the Annals, the direct environment of Dur-Untaš-Napiriša, and by extension the Susiana plain, can be excluded. Therefore, Sumuntunaš must have been one of the fortified cities in the Elamite western borderland inhabited by a mixed Elamite-Babylonian population. A second Akkadian contract (PTS 2713) was drafted in Bīt-Hulummu in the first year of Hallutuš-Inšušinak (II) (c. 598/93-583/78 BC). Waters (2000, 28) convincingly argues that the place of issue Bīt-Hulummu could be an orthographic variation on the toponym uru/lúHilimmu/Hilmu along the southern Elamite-Babylonian border, as described in the Neo-Assyrian Annals of Tiglath-Pileser III, Sargon II and Sennacherib (Parpola 1970, 162; Röllig 1975, 410). The toponym may correspond to the royal residence Pidilma (Bīt-Hilma) described in the Annals of Assurbanipal (BIWA F iv 38). A similar orthography uru/lúHilim is used in the Neo-Babylonian documentation (Zadok 1985a, 160; ABL 1000: 6, 13, 8’; 1007: 21’; TCS 5, 78, ii 37). In Elamite literature (Vallat 1993, 45), ašbì-it-hu-ul-mi (EKI 48) is attested in a text from Šilhak-Inšušinak I. Stolper (1978a, 93) tentatively identifies this toponym with the site of Chogha-Pahn (KS-3). If the identification in the Annals of Assurbanipal is correct, then Bīt-Hulummu would be located in the direct vicinity of Sumuntunaš, the city in which the adoption contract was drafted. The place of issue of the third Akkadian contract (VS 4 1) is broken off. The context, however, is quite similar to the second document, suggesting perhaps that the document was written in Bīt-Hulummu or Pidilma as well. For an era with scant source material, the references to the late Elamite western borderland are abundant. When focusing on the northern limits of the late Elamite kingdom, the region north of the capital Susa, one receives a quite accurate image of the region, based on iconographic, archaeological and textual features. 1) The people living along the northern fringe of the late Neo-Elamite kingdom were the Samatians (cf. I.6.4.). The dynasty of Samatian kings is known to us through the vessels of the Kalmakarra hoard that were found in the Ma’leh mountain cave, situated about 15 km northwest of Pol-e Dokhtar and 18 kilometers southeast of Chigha Sabz (Overlaet 2012, 124-127). Of this silverware 44 vessels were engraved with late NeoElamite inscriptions. Curtis (apud Curtis & Stewart 2005, 17) interpreted the Kalmakarra hoard as evidence

THE NEO-ELAMITE LOWLANDS

129

for an independent political entity in southern Lurestan, a hypothesis to which I cannot agree. In my opinion, the relation between the Samatians kings and the Susian court can be seen in two ways: either the Samati people lived within the borders of the late Neo-Elamite kingdom or they dwelled in Neo-Elamite politically and culturally influenced territory. Not only the late Neo-Elamite script, language and artistic tradition of the vessels assigns the Samati people to an Elamite cultural influenced territory, their numerous attestations in the Susa Acropole administration suggest that this tribal entity lived within the geopolitical power of the late Neo-Elamite kingdom or was at least part of the larger Elamite economic network that included northern Khuzestan and southern Lurestan. 2) In his royal inscriptions (EKI 79-80), Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II organized military campaigns against the lands of the Balahute and the Lallari (ha-almeš ba-la-hu-te-ip-pe; ha-almeš la-al-la-ri-ip-pe) to bring them under tributary status (cf. I.5.6.). Presumably the ethnonym Lallari derived from the river Lallar (Labat 1963/1975, 493; Vallat 1993, 33, 155), situated in the land of Zamua during the Neo-Assyrian period. This region corresponds to the Zagros foothills south of the Little Zab in Lurestan (Röllig 1983, 438). If the Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II inscription describes the facts in chronological and geographical order, then the Elamite king marched first against the Balahute people and then took up weapons against the Lallari people. So the Balahute were situated geographically closest to Elam or Susa. The Balahute people are known for plundering the Susa sanctuary in the late Middle Elamite period. The Middle Elamite king Šilhak-Inšušinak I therefore initiated a retribution campaign against the Balahute people (EKI 46:96-100), who probably dwelled in southern Lurestan (ElW 130; Vallat 1993, 33; Henkelman 2003b, 188 n. 24). Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II probably ruled during the second half of the 6th century BC. In this era, the Teispid dynasty had enlarged its territory in the direction of the Elamite highlands and the Medes had incorporated the Zagros area that belonged formerly to the Neo-Assyrian empire. Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II probably brought back tribal groups under Elamite authority. Likely the Balahute and the Lallari had been subdued by Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II’s immediate predecessors, but tried unsuccessfully to cast off the Elamite yoke. The fact that Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak still campaigned in southern Lurestan indicates that his geopolitical power must have reached into northern Khuzestan and probably also into southern Lurestan. 3) Several Neo-Elamite seals have been excavated at the Surkh Dum-e Luri sanctuary in the Kuhdašt plain (Schmidt et al. 1989, 429, pls. 236.81-82, 84, 93; 237.85-87; 238.923; Álvarez-Mon 2010a, 212; Overlaet 2012, 129-137) and in Chigha Sabz, situated in the Deh Luran plain of the Khuzestan lowland between the Zagros foothills and the Jebel Hamrin at an approximate 100 km distance northwest of Susa. In Chigha Sabz, a cylinder seal with a Neo-Elamite inscription was found (Van Loon 1988, pl. IIa; Vallat 1992b). Most settlements on the Deh Luran plain were very likely abandoned after the Middle Elamite transition phase (1300-1000 BC). The typical Elamite goblets found in central and eastern Khuzestan, Lurestan and Fars are not found in the Deh Luran plain (Carter 1981, 221-222). In the Deh Luran plain, several sites were founded during the Neo-Elamite I phase (Álvarez-Mon 2010a, 212). The largest site is Tepe Gughan (15 hectares). The limited permanent settlement in the Deh Luran plain might be the direct result of the campaigns of the Middle Elamite rulers against their Babylonian enemies along the foothill road. The intrusion of the Iron Age I culture in Lurestan (1300-1250 BC) may have had disastrous consequences for the Elamite settlements in the Deh Luran plain (Young 1967; Goff 1968). Further northwest in the Mehran plain, evidence on settlement patterns is limited (Moghaddam & Miri 2007, 23). Although these regions did not belong to the direct geopolitical space of Elam, they were part of the Elamite cultural influence zone. Since very few settlements were found in these regions, pastoralism was probably the dominant lifesyle. Tribal groups, such as the Samati, the Balahute and the Lallari, had their winter residences in northern Khuzestan and southern Lurestan (Henkelman 2003b, 225-226). During the winter months, the Elamites probably could capture them and demand tribute. However, the system may have resembled the highland traditions of Fars, where tribal groups exchanged products (cattle) with the sedentary population (grain). This would explain their appearance in the Susa administration. Therefore, it is safely to assume that these tribal groups in northern Khuzestan and southern Lurestan depended partially economically and perhaps even militarily on the Elamite kingdom.

130

THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY

1.2. The Elamite Heartland 1.2.1. Susiana The Susiana plain is geographically a part of the larger alluvial south Mesopotamian plain, although it has a higher elevation level (between 25 and 100 meters above sea level) than its Mesopotamian neighbor. The fertile Susiana valley is divided by rivers, such as the Duwaïrij, the Karkheh, the Karun, the Shaur, the Ab-e Diz, into several smaller plains. The Neo-Elamite presence in this valley is well attested by the Elamite capital Susa. Most of these smaller valleys, such as Patak, Dizful and Mainab, were inhabited during the NeoElamite period.

Map 3: The Susiana plain (after de Miroschedji 1981b, 177)

1.2.1.1. Patak Valley The Patak region is a long narrow valley in the northwest of the Susiana plain on the east bank of the Duwairij river. It provides a direct access to the Deh Luran valley into Lurestan and to the road towards Babylonia (de Miroschedji 1981b, 172). The survey conducted on the Patak plain was limited to Aïn Khosh in the east, the Duwaïrij river in the southeast and Tepe Imamzadeh Abbas in the north.148 In total 31 mounds were recorded during the survey. Of the six Middle Elamite mounds, five remained occupied in the early Neo-Elamite period. During the Neo-Elamite II phase the number of villages was reduced to three, but in the Achaemenid era the inhabited villages increased to the level of the early Neo-Elamite period. The two abandoned NE II 148

The Patak plain received the identification label DK ‘Duwaïrij-Kerkhah’.

131

THE NEO-ELAMITE LOWLANDS

settlements were reoccupied in the Achaemenid period. This region has a very limited amount of settlements during the Neo-Elamite period, because it was constantly susceptible to Neo-Assyrian attacks and looting, as it was located north of Susa. Although the pottery of these sites has similarities to the Susa ceramic, it can be identified with the Iron Age Lurestan assemblage. Patak Valley site reference

Level

DK-1 Tepe Patak

Neo-Elamite I Neo-Elamite II Achaemenid

DK-9 Tepe Biropijah

Neo-Elamite II Achaemenid

DK-13 Tepe Aïn Khosh

Neo-Elamite I Neo-Elamite II Achaemenid

DK-18

Neo-Elamite I Achaemenid

DK-20 Tepe Imamzadeh Abbas

Neo-Elamite I Achaemenid

Table 9: Neo-Elamite and Achaemenid sites in the Patak Valley

De Mecquenem (1953, 10; also de Miroschedji 1981c, 174 and 1986, 209-225) located Madaktu, one of the Neo-Elamite capitals, at Tepe Patak, the largest settlement in the Patak valley. However, this hypothesis is not generally accepted among scholars (Finkelstein 1962, 83 n. 34; Parpola 1970, 231-232; ElW 858; Vallat 1993, 162). The palace relief at the Southwest palace of Assurbanipal depicting the city Madaktu and its surroundings (Barnett et al. 1998, 96-97, pl. 300-313: room 33, slabs 4-6) suggests that Madaktu was situated on a peninsula, where a smaller stream (perhaps canal) merged into a larger river. Since we do not know the Elamite alternative name for the Elamite capital called Madaktu by the Assyrians, it is at this point in research impossible to retrace the toponym in the Susa Acropole texts in order to see whether it had connections to Susa. 1.2.1.2. Dizful Valley De Miroschedji (1981c, 169-172) surveyed 102 mounds in the Dizful valley, without including Susa. At more than twenty archaeological sites,149 the survey team found pottery sherds similar to the levels 9 and 8 of Ville Royale II at Susa. After the raid of Nebuchednezzar I, most Middle Elamite sites were destroyed. Only half of the late Middle Elamite settlements were reoccupied in the early Neo-Elamite period (de Miroschedji 1981c, 171). The most significant mounds of the Neo-Elamite I period are Tepe Chogha Pahn (KS-3B) and Tepe Senjar (KS-7). Especially Tepe Senjar seemed to be a larger town in the vicinity of Susa between the 9th and 8th century BC (de Miroschedji 1981c, 170). The mound B of Tepe Chogha Pahn was exclusively inhabited over a surface of ten hectares during the Neo-Elamite I period. At nine sites archaeologists identified sherds that resemble the Susa levels 7 and 6. The ceramic of the Neo-Elamite II period can clearly be identified at 6 sites at least, while three mounds (KS-494, KS-653, KS-681) are potential Neo-Elamite II settlements. Most Neo-Elamite II settlements were limited in surface size with the exception of KS-369. KS-369 was a large settlement (c. 12 hectares) with a fortification wall (de Miroschedji 1981c, 171). Presumably this settlement can be connected to one of the lowland royal residences/fortified cities described in the Assyrian Annals (BIWA F iv 47-50). Only four sites (KS-15, KS-18, KS-47 and KS-301) were continuously occupied during the Neo-Elamite period. The population in this part of the Susiana plain decreased in the second part of the Neo-Elamite period, whereas it increased again in the beginning of the Achaemenid period to the same level of the early Neo-Elamite period. 149

The inventory numbers KS are standing for ‘Khuzestan Survey’.

132

THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY Dizful Valley site reference

Level

Dizful Valley site reference

Level

KS-3A and B Tepe Choga Pahn

Neo-Elamite I

KS-411

Neo-Elamite I

KS-7 Tepe Senjar

Neo-Elamite I

KS-494?

Neo-Elamite II

KS-11

Neo-Elamite I

KS-566?

Neo-Elamite I

KS-15

Neo-Elamite I Neo-Elamite II

KS-570

Neo-Elamite I

KS-18

Neo-Elamite I Neo-Elamite II

KS-571?

Neo-Elamite I

KS-23

Neo-Elamite I

KS-633?

Neo-Elamite I

KS-47

Neo-Elamite I Neo-Elamite II

KS-643?

Neo-Elamite I

KS-96?

Neo-Elamite I

KS-653?

Neo-Elamite II

KS-115?

Neo-Elamite I

KS-681?

Neo-Elamite II

KS-209?

Neo-Elamite I

KS-1175

Neo-Elamite II

KS-301

Neo-Elamite I Neo-Elamite II

KS-1186

Neo-Elamite I

KS-397

Neo-Elamite I

KS-1187

Neo-Elamite I

KS-410

Neo-Elamite I

KS-1194

Neo-Elamite I

Table 10: Neo-Elamite sites in the Dizful Valley

1.2.1.3. Susa During the Neo-Elamite period, the Elamite capital Susa (modern Shush) was the largest settlement in the Susiana plain. The city of Susa is surrounded by an amount of well-watered rivers, such as the Karkheh river in the west and the Ab-e Diz in the east. The smaller Shaur river runs parallel with the Karkheh river directly next to the Susian Acropole and the Apadana hill. The Shaur continues its route about 40 kilometers to Haft Tepe (ancient Kabinak), a large 2nd millennium BC Elamite city. All rivers in the Susiana plain are orientated in a north-south direction and transport the water from the Iranian highlands to the Persian Gulf. Susa, the political and cultural center of the Neo-Elamite kingdom, is built on five hills: the Acropole, the Apadana, Ville Royale, Ville des Artisans and Tepe Shaur,150 of which only the first four were occupied in the Neo-Elamite period. The total inhabited surface of the site is estimated (depending on the historical period) between 250 and 300 hectares (Steve, Vallat & Gasche 2002/03, 361). The city dates back to the earliest Elamite state formation and kept its importance as a royal city throughout Elamite history. The most ancient settlements are attested on the Acropole and the Apadana at the Susa I period (4000-3500 BC). In the Susa II period (3500-3100 BC), settled territory was extended to the Donjon (southern part of Ville Royale) that continued to grow in the proto- and Old-Elamite I-II era until the three hills (Acropole, Apadana, Ville Royale) were completely settled by the end of the 2nd millennium BC. During the Neo-Elamite period, the occupation density reduced in all areas, except for the Acropole. From the late Neo-Elamite period onwards, the northern part of Ville des Artisans, the largest but lowest hill, was inhabited.151 When excavating the Ville des artisans in 1947, Ghirshman (1954; Stronach 1974) discovered that the earliest occupation phase of this ‘Village perse-achéménide’ can be brought back to the end of the Neo-Elamite II phase. Ghirshman suggested that Iranian settlers constructed the residential area in Susa (Steve, Vallat & Gasche 2002/03, 362). Under the Persian king Darius, Susa became one of the capitals of the Achaemenid empire. All Neo-Elamite areas remained inhabited, and the inhabited part of the city was extended to the Tepe Shaur. 150

In 1853/4, W.K. Loftus directed two small scale excavation missions in Susa and gave each of the hills a proper name, which is used ever since (Loftus 1857; Steve, Vallat & Gasche 2002/03, 375). Tepe Shaur is the only tell located at the west bank of the Shaur River and was not occupied before the Achaemenid period. 151 Although the first plan was already drawn in 1850 by H.A. Churchill and W.K. Loftus, the exact measurements of the hills remain unstudied, because scholars have never carried out a full prospection of the Susian territory.

THE NEO-ELAMITE LOWLANDS

133

The long excavation history of Susa dates back to the mid-1850s, a time in which the discipline of archaeology was still in its earliest developing phase.152 The early excavators de Morgan (1897-1912) and de Mecquenem (1912-1946) used mining techniques to dig large trenches primarily in the Acropole mound, resulting in a poor stratigraphy of the site. At the Apadana and Ville Royale, de Mecquenem was able to distinguish five different historical periods in the stratigraphy of the excavated area, where ‘époque d and e’ were described as the Neo-Elamite layers (de Miroschedji 1978, 213). R. Ghirshman (1946-1967) was the first field director of the Mission archéologique de Susiane to approach the Susa excavation with modern excavation methods (Carter 1992a, 20-24). With the intention to revise and to improve the poorly known stratigraphy, Ghirshman started a new trench ‘chantier stratigraphique’ in the northeast section of Ville Royale (A) next to the trench of de Mecquenem (Steve, Vallat & Gasche 2002/03, 396-398) and could recognize two Neo-Elamite layers. Level 9 of Ville Royale A was dated to the 7th to 6th century BC and would correspond to the époque néo-babylonienne of de Mecquenem (de Miroschedji 1978, 215). The early NeoElamite period corresponded to level 10 (end of the 2nd millennium BC to the early 1st millennium BC; Steve, Gasche & De Meyer 1980, 57-60). When Ghirshman reached the virgin soil in level 16, he continued working at Ville Royale in a much smaller trench (section B). The most recent level (B I) of this trench was dated to the late Neo-Elamite period contemporaneous to level 9 of Ville Royale A (de Miroschedji 1978, 215-217). In the late 1970’s, de Miroschedji (1978; 1981a, 1981b) reexamined the Susa historical materials (objects, stratigraphy, ceramics, …) with a special focus on the Neo-Elamite period, which was at that point the poorest documented phase. At present, this publication remains the only complete overview of the Neo-Elamite pottery. This implies that all excavations in Khuzestan and Fars after 1981 used this overview to indicate Neo-Elamite presence. De Miroschedji (1978, 217) could recognize only two phases in the Neo-Elamite period: the NeoElamite I period (levels 9-8: 1000-725 BC) and the Neo-Elamite II period (levels 7-6: 725-520 BC). As can be demonstrated from the excavation history, the archaeological reports on Susa provide little information to the urban development and organization of the Elamite capital. 1) The best-documented hill, the Acropole, was probably the religious center or ‘temple area’ of Susa. Despite archaeological evidence suggesting that the area was already occupied from the Susa I period (4000-3500 BC) onwards, Puzur-Inšušinak of the Awan dynasty (c. 2240-2220 BC) was the first Elamite king providing textual evidence to assign the Acropole as the temple quarter for Inšušinak (Potts 2010b, 479). During the Neo-Elamite period, the Assyrian king Assurbanipal describes Susa as the Elamite cultic city, in which he destroyed numerous temple buildings and took statues of the gods. The Middle Elamite textual sources described Susa as the city where the gods of the lowlands as well as the highlands were venerated (Anšan & Susa). During the course of history, no less than 26 gods had received a temple/shrine on the Acropole (Potts 2010b, 65-68 Table 1).153 The names of these deities were inscribed on building bricks that were found dispersed over the Acropole. The Elamite kings considered it as one of their major responsibilities to keep the religious buildings constructed by their predecessors in honor. Next to their own building activities, the kings engaged also in large temple renovations and restoration projects.154 De Morgan and de Mecquenem (1911) unearthed the large sanctuary of Inšušinak, lord of the Acropole ‘high-city’ (temti alimelu). When this human-made high city was excavated, it received the name haute terrasse in the archaeological reports,155 corresponding quite well 152 For an overview of the early pioneers of archaeology, who worked in Susa, see de Mecquenem 1922; 1924; 1947; 1949; 1980, 1-48; Chevalier 1997 and Steve, Vallat & Gasche 2002/03, 375-403. See also the early reports of J. Dieulafoy (1887a; 1887b; 1888) and M.-A. Dieulafoy (1893; 1913). 153 Elamite language has numerous words referring to religious buildings. The most widespread word for temple is siyan/ziyan. É is the sumerogram for ‘house’. It is often assumed that É is an alternative notation for ‘temple’. However, É can only be translated in a religious context if the name of a deity is following the sumerogram. Other references related to religious buildings are: kukkunum ‘temple tower’, zikkurtium ‘ziggurat’, É.DA ‘side wing’. 154 The Elamite vocabulary for building activities is extensively preserved on the inscribed mud bricks and glazed bricks. The construction of a building is in general expressed with the verb kuši- ‘to build’, although a wide variety of alternative verb exist: kukši-, hali-, hutta-, huhta-, kata-, murta-, kikkite-, simata- (Zadok 1995, 246; Potts 2010b, 50). The most common verb to appoint a renovation project is pepši‘to rebuild’ (Malbran-Labat 1995, 182-183). 155 Between 1954 and 1963, Ghirshman gave Perrot (chantier 29) and Steve (chantier 31) the supervision over the excavation of the large enclosure on the Haute Terrase.

134

THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY

to the ancient annotation. At the other side of the hill, archaeologists (EKI 72; MDP 5, 84 pl. 10; MDP 8, 35, fig. 66) found a small square temple dedicated to Inšušinak/Pinigir that was constructed by ŠutrukNahhunte II. In the southern part of the Acropole several unidentified structures and walls were reported, one of these structures was probably the temple of Ninḫursag. The temple complex (group of buildings) on the Acropole was probably called kizzum in Elamite literature. The haute terrasse of the Acropole was enclosed by a fortification wall, in which the Susa Acropole tablets were found (MDP 9). Next to Inšušinak, Neo-Elamite inscriptions were dedicated to several other gods, such as Napiriša, Pinigir (EKI 80), Huban (EKI 77), Umu (S. 49; Vallat 1988b; Henkelman 2008, 289-290),156 who must have had temples in Susa as well. Since most of the inscriptions were found on the Acropole, we can assume that their temples or shrines were constructed over there. In the direct environment of these temples, the royal inscription of Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak and the principal reliefs of the Neo-Elamite period, like ‘the spinning lady’ (Sb 2834) and an apotropaic scene (Sb 43) were found (Muscarella 1992, 198-201). 2) The Apadana is the northernmost tell on the east bank of the Shaur river. During the Achaemenid period, the two largest parts of the Apadana and Ville Royale were remodeled for the royal Achaemenid palatial complex. Vallat (1999, 40-41, also Henkelman 2008, 33-34; Potts 2010a, 111) noted that the Neo-Elamite palace was probably situated north or underneath the vestiges of the Achaemenid palace of Darius on the Apadana hill. Remarkably, the Susa excavations did not reveal architectural remains for a Neo-Elamite palatial structure,157 even though Assurbanipal claimed to have entered the royal quarters and depriving the Susa royal palaces of all its treasures (BIWA F iv 70). Also the late Elamite Acropole tablets give several references to the palace managers (GAL.E.GAL.MEŠ; S. 9; S.93; S. 145), who took over the function of the araš hutlak within the palace walls (cf. I.5.2.). In a foundation inscription of Darius (DSz: 20-22; DSaa: 7-9; Perrot 2010; Kuhrt 2007) it is stated that the Achaemenids had leveled the former buildings on the Apadana, dug out and filled with gravel them for the foundations of Darius’ own palace. This would suggest that most of the Neo-Elamites buildings were destroyed in antiquity to build the Achaemenid palace and that these buildings are therefore not retraceable in the archaeological record. However, Álvarez-Mon (2010a, 224; also Mecquenem 1922, 116; 1924) pointed out that the archaeological records have demonstrated that the gravel was not found over the entire surface of the Achaemenid palatial complex, but exclusively underneath the walls. The Neo-Elamite layers ‘époque d and e’ at the Apadana were discovered underneath the central and western courtyard of the Achaemenid palace (de Mecquenem 1910, 45-47). Underneath the central courtyard of the Achaemenid palace three Neo-Elamite tombs were found, and at western courtyards a couple more, with faïence pottery included (Álvarez-Mon 2010a, 225-226). Under the Achaemenid palace layers, de Mecquenem found a second group of seven Neo-Elamite tablets (MDP 11). The so-called ‘Apadana texts’ were written contemporaneously with the Acropole archive, but have a legal context. In three of these texts (S. 302; S. 303; S. 306), the witnesses are called araš ginup (ElW 82, 477, 479). 3) Ville Royale is situated east of the Apadana and the Acropole, and is twice as large as the Acropole. At the southernmost point of Ville Royale is the area called ‘the Donjon’. In the northern part of the Ville Royale, archaeologists discovered several Neo-Elamite burials, which has led to the suggestion of a Neo-Elamite cemetery (de Miroschedji 1981a, 37). From layer 17 (level 9) onwards, five earth graves (T. 732, T. 754, T. 755, T. 766, T. 726) with NeoElamite I materials were discovered. Three of them (T. 732, T. 754, T. 766) are not clearly stratified, because they were only recognized when the skeleton appeared. They float somewhere between layer 18 and layer 17, but because tomb 755 clearly belongs to layer 17, one is more inclined to date the four tombs to the early Neo-Elamite I period. The grave 732 contained some modest funerary gifts: two goblets with raised bands 156

These are exclusively Neo-Elamite references. Potts (2010b, 479-509) gives a comprehensive overview from the Ur III period to the late Neo-Elamite era of all textual sources mentioning Elamite gods in connection to the Acropole. 157 The exact translation of the word ‘palace’ in Elamite is contested. Hinz & Koch (ElW 796) describe hiyan/iyan as ‘Palasthalle, Säulenhalle, Königshof’, while Cameron prefers ‘court’ (1958, 173). According to Malbran-Labat (1995, 111), hiyan was a chapel with representations of the royal family.

THE NEO-ELAMITE LOWLANDS

135

were placed behind the skull of the skeleton. The fifth grave 726 was found in layer 16, and is slightly younger than the other four graves (de Miroschedji 1981a, 18). To the south of de Miroschedji’s trench, architectural remains of a small rectangular building (locus 724) are still visible. Within the walls of the building, a fireplace/oven were discovered. The traces of a building may indicate that a residential area or another sanctuary was located south of the cemetery (de Miroschedji 1978, 213). The ceramics of the Neo-Elamite I period (level 9-8) indicate a rupture with the preceding Middle Elamite period. The most significant characteristic of the Neo-Elamite I pottery is the use of vases made of frit. Especially the hemispherical bowls made of frit are only attested in the Neo-Elamite I period (de Miroschedji 1981a, 38). The pixie cups made of frit are generally attributed to the 8th and 7th century BC, but de Miroschedji proposed a wider dating range based on the shape of these small vases. He dates the cylindrical pixie cups with raised decoration to the Middle Elamite period (Ville Royale II, level 12-10), while the cubical and slightly conical shaped pixie cups with incised or polychrome painted decoration are assigned to the first part of the Neo-Elamite period. The decoration on the Neo-Elamite I pixie cups has a wide variation of geometrical, natural and vegetal motives. The conical pixie cups were probably still in use during the beginning of the Neo-Elamite II period (level 7), but they gradually disappeared (de Miroschedji 1981a, 19-23). By the end of the Neo-Elamite I period (level 8), the ground surface was leveled in the southeast direction. Instead of building new structures on this leveled ground, several pits were dug; most of them were used as graves. Levels 7 and 6 are dated to the Neo-Elamite II period (725-c. 520 BC). The stratigraphic layers of level 7 yielded 7 funerary structures, in which at least four burial chambers (T. 762, T. 734, T. 693, T. 647) were identified as level 7b. Three other tombs (T. 707, T. 705, T. 672) may be attributed to level 7a. Level 6 is the younger phase of the Neo-Elamite II period and marked by two floors and two walls with its fundaments on the 7a walls. The tombs of level 7b were cut into levels 8 and 9. Four level 7b tombs have a firm dating: for three of them (T. 674, T. 693, T. 762) a level 7a floor provided a sealed context. The fourth and oldest tomb (T. 734), made of walls in mudbrick tiles, was dated based on its funerary goods to level 7b, because the ceramic assemblage had a connection with the level 8 tombs. At the feet of the male skeleton, the archaeologists could recover a small round jar with a long neck and an everted rim, a small bowl and a large goblet. In a niche above the head, an identical small round jar, four small bowls and a large goblet were found (de Miroschedji 1981a, 25, fig. 29). T. 762 is a tomb built of mudbricks. Among the funerary goods, six pearls were found. Tomb 693 was used for six inhumations (de Miroschedji 1981a, 25-27). The buried people were deposed in the large vaulted burial chamber with interval as can be seen from the door. The bones of the people as well as the many grave goods are badly preserved, because they were crushed by the collapse of the vaulted ceiling. The first skeleton was of an adult, buried in the central trench with his head to the east and covered by earth. This skeleton was accompanied by several grave goods. Behind the head, four green glazed ceramic flasks were placed. In the trench two more ovoid amphorae, three small bowls, one ring made of shells, six rings made of bronze/leather and six pearls were deposed. The next two skeletons, their head directed to the east, were placed on each side of the trench, parallel with the first skeleton. Each skeleton was accompanied by additional grave goods. Archaeologists identified the amphorae with a long neck and a convex or pointed base, a carinated jar, a bronze bowl, a sheet of iron, an iron knife and an iron hair pin with gold decoration. A skeleton of a fifty-year-old woman, accompanied of three glazed flasks, was deposed against the western wall. The fourth skeleton was of a man between thirty and forty years old. His bones were spread over the cave, probably to make space for the next two skeletons. The head of the man was found on top of the woman and directed to the south. Next to an unidentified amount of pottery, animal bones and a cylinder seal in faience was discovered next to the head. The last two skeletons belonged to children. Against the southern wall, the body of a child of about six years old was found, while a baby of two months was deposed against the northern wall. The archaeologists could not match any grave goods to these skeletons. After the burial of the children, the chamber was permanently closed. The door was sealed

136

THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY

by a large round jar before the entrance, an ovoid amphora and two small jars with a flat base in the corner. The burial chamber was probably used for more than a century and contained about 150 jars (de Miroschedji 1981a, 26-27). The vaulted burial chamber (T. 693) is the youngest tomb of level 7b, judging on the grave goods. The entrance shaft with a staircase and a small vaulted door to the burial chamber was partly destroyed by the excavations of de Mecquenem. The vaulted chamber was constructed of unbaked bricks in a trapezoid plan. The walls were eighteen bricks high and covered with plaster. It might be possible that tomb 693 and tomb 762 were contemporaneous, because the same mudbricks were used. De Morgan already opened tomb 672 and removed the grave goods. The southeast northwest orientated tomb 672 is therefore impossible to give a stratigraphic indication. The skeleton was placed on the right side of the tomb in a foetus position. On the skeleton several pithoi were disposed, but these pithoi were probably positioned on the body when de Morgan closed the tomb. Tomb 674 was also discovered by de Morgan. The skeleton was removed from the pit, only one hand holding a goblet was left behind. An identical goblet was found in tomb 734. Most likely tomb 674 is older than wall 685 (7a), but younger than tomb 734 (de Miroschedji 1981a, 27). Tombs 705 and 707 are simple earth graves and can be dated to level 7b, based on their funerary goods, because the stratigraphy in this part of the excavation trench seems disturbed. Amongst the grave goods, a carinated cup, two bowls and a goblet were found near the mouth. Most likely tomb 705 was dug before tomb 707 and therefore belongs to level 7a. The dating can be confirmed by the position of skeletons. The feet of skeleton 707 were placed on the shoulders of skeleton 705. The wall of earth between the graves was demolished. In grave 707, the archaeologists could recover one plate at the feet of the lady (de Miroschedji 1981a, 28). Level 7a is visible in the south of the excavation field of Ville Royale. The main architecture of this layer consists of a room or court built of four unbaked mudbrick walls. Underneath the floor of room 738, the burial 671 was dug. The tomb was constructed in baked bricks, and resembles a stone sarcophagus. The grave goods were already removed from the grave by de Morgan in 1897. The skeleton was placed on the back with the head in a southeast direction (de Miroschedji 1981a, 28). In short, the archaeological material presents a rudimentary urban planning of the Elamite capital: the Acropole was the religious quarter and the Apadana may have been the royal quarter. Contrary to what the name suggests, the northern part of Ville Royale was a cemetery and the southern part may have been a residential area that was expanded to the Ville des artisans in the late Neo-Elamite period. Based on the Prism of Assurbanipal (BIWA 59, 242), the political centers of the Elamite power were destroyed in an unrecoverable way in 646 BC. When we fully rely on Assurbanipal’s version of this destructive campaign, this would imply that nothing of Huban-haltaš III’s royal power would have remained. Nevertheless, archaeological research proves otherwise. De Miroschedji (1981a, 38-39; 1981b) discovered during soundings at Ville royale II (197577) and at the Apadana (1978) that no major disruption in the soil could be established, assuming that the sack of Susa was not as devastating as Assurbanipal wants us to believe. More important, the material assemblage of the Acropole hill shows a continuous occupation until the Achaemenid period (de Miroschedji 1981c, 172; Boucharlat 1990, 160-162; 1994). 1.2.1.4. Mainab Valley The Mainab valley with the regional city Shushtar is situated in the east of the Susiana plain (Moghaddam & Miri 2003, 99-100). In some modern publications, the name of the city Shushtar refers often to the whole Mainab valley. This valley has a surface of about 40 by 12 kilometers and stands about 50 to 62 meters above sea level. The Karun river and its branch Ab-i Gargar surround the entire plain, which gives the plan the shape of an elongated island. In 1930, Le Breton (1947, 1957) conducted one of the earliest surveys of the Susiana plain. He provided the first regional historical map that indicated some prehistoric Mainab sites. The first systematic research of the Mainab plain was the archaeological survey of R. Adams (1962) before the start of the irrigation works. He registered over 250 prehistoric and historical sites on a map. Gremliza was the next to conduct a more

137

THE NEO-ELAMITE LOWLANDS

informal research between 1959 and 1966 in the Galbi area of the Mainab plain visiting 43 sites (Alizadeh 1992). In the 1970s, the Mainab valley was explored several times by western scholars who carried out brief surveys as part of a larger project. In 1970-1971, Wright and Johnson did research on prehistoric settlements, early state formation and local exchange. In 1973, Wright returned with Ganjavi and Wenke to conduct the first full coverage survey to locate and map all archaeological sites. They registered over a thousand sites (Johnson 1973; Wright & Johnson 1975). Carter (1971) focused in 1968-1969 more on the 2nd millennium BC sites during an overall research on the Middle Elamite settlements and history. In 2001-2002, Moghaddam & Miri (2003, 99-100) received a grant from the Iranian cultural Heritage Organization (ICHO) to set up the Mainab project. This project was created to record some endangered archaeological remains, which were exposed due to a decade-long failed irrigation project. The aim of the Mainab project was to conduct a regional survey to reconstruct the occupational history of the region, as well as the population fluctuation during these historical periods. Moghaddam & Miri (2003, 99-100) started with reevaluating the archaeological sites that were recorded in the research of Wright and Wenke. Unfortunately, several sites had disappeared due to the farming activities and the agricultural Khuzestan Development Project. Moghaddam & Miri’s systematic approach of the site locations started on the northwestern corner of the plain south of the city Shushtar. They continued southwards to the Band-i Qir area at the conjunction of the Karun with the Ab-i Gargar River. They visited an area of about 400 square kilometres with 124 remaining archaeological sites. Most of the mounds had a total surface size between one and 11 hectares. Additionally, they dug some test soundings to confirm the results of the surface samples. Moghadddam & Miri (2003, 102-103) recorded eleven occupation sites for the Middle Elamite period (1600-1000 BC) at a surface of 29 hectares and ten occupation sites dating to the Neo-Elamite period (1000646 BC) with a total inhabited area of about 23 hectares. All Neo-Elamite sites are recorded in the table below. Most of the Neo-Elamite sites are located in the western part of the valley close to the Karun River. Only KS-1586 lies near the Ab-i Gargar River. During the Achaemenid period, the Mainab settlements witnessed an explosive growth with 29 inhabited sites over a surface of about 121 hectares. These locations cover most of the Neo-Elamite villages. Mainab Valley site name

Mainab Valley site reference

Mainab Valley site coordinates

Jambolava 1

KS-1516

N31°58.634' E48°50.496'

Jambolava 2

KS-1517

N31°58.970' E48°50.556'

Haj Monem 1

KS-1520

N31°59.388' E48°51.402'

Tall-e Qabaz 2

KS-1543

N31°54.908' E48°51.862'

Aboo Amoud Nejat

KS-1558

N31°44.731' E48°50.790'

Unknown

KS-1567W

N31°44.594' E48°53,655'

Unknown

KS-1586

N31°54.228' E48°58.574'

Tappe Gelšouneh

KS-1607

N31°51,088' E48°54,090'

Ishan Al Dovveh

KS-1616

N31°48.253' E48°54.733'

Tappe Emamzadeh

KS-1624

N31°53.420' E48°53.272'

Table 11: Neo-Elamite sites in the Mainab Valley

1.2.1.5. Eastern Corridor A recent survey of the Eastern Corridor, situated between the Mainab plain and Ram Hormuz, has revealed additional Neo-Elamite settlements in the lowlands of southwestern Iran (Moghaddam & Miri 2007, 23-24). During the late Middle Elamite period, the amount of settlements increased drastically in the Eastern Corridor and several temples were erected. Šutruk-Nahhunte I built the Pinigir temple at Bard-e Karegar (KS-1625), which was restored by Šilhak-Inšušinak I (Kozuh 2014, 134). Šutruk-Nahhunte I also restored the temple of

138

THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY

Map 4: Location of the Neo-Elamite settlements of the Mainab plain (after Moghaddam & Miri 2003, 102)

Kamul (Kozuh 2014, 139). While most Middle Elamite towns were implanted into the landscape on a line following the transport corridor connecting Susiana with the Ram Hormuz, the amount of settlements reduced drastically in the Neo-Elamite kingdom. As witnessed above, the large Susiana plain revealed a general tendency of a settlement decline during the Neo-Elamite period, a pattern that can also be established for the Eastern Corridor. Two Middle Elamite sites, KS-1653 and Tall-e Hosniyeh (KS-1661), provided ceramic evidence for a continuous occupation into the Neo-Elamite and Achaemenid period. According to Moghaddam & Miri (2007, 41), the development of the irrigation system in the Mainab plain may have caused the changing settlement implementation in the Neo-Elamite period.

1.2.2. Ram Hormuz The Ram Hormuz plain is an Elamite lowland plain situated about 160 kilometres southeast of the Susiana plain at the foothill of the Bakhtiari Mountains. This fertile valley was a densely populated sedentary NeoElamite center at the crossroad of the ancient Elamite road system. The traditional main route linking Susiana with Fars crossed the Ram Hormuz valley from northwest to southeast. Ram Hormuz was connected to Susiana and Mesopotamia by two roads: one in the direction of modern Ahwaz, another following the western edge to modern Shushtar. These two roads continued via Ram Hormuz in the direction of the Iranian plateau. Ram Hormuz was also situated on the crossroads of the north-south axe connecting the Izeh valley (Malamir) to the Persian Gulf (Moghaddan & Miri 2007, 35).

THE NEO-ELAMITE LOWLANDS

139

In 1969, Wright & Carter (2003, 61-82) surveyed the plain west of the Ala River.158 The Ram Hormuz region appeared to be an important Elamite region from the late 2nd millennium BC through the first half of the 1st millennium BC. The valley was continuously inhabited during the late Middle Elamite (c. 1350 BC-1100 BC), Neo-Elamite I (c. 1100-725 BC), Neo-Elamite II (c. 725-646 BC) and Neo-Elamite III (c. 646-520 BC) periods. Wright & Carter documented 350 square kilometres, which is about 80% of the surface. In total 40 archaeological sites were recorded, seven of which are dated to the late 2nd millennium BC, four of which are permanently occupied through the Neo-Elamite and Achaemenid periods. While the settlements in the Susiana region decreased, one can establish a reverse pattern for the Ram Hormuz plain. Carter (2003, 69-72) suggested that because the Susiana region was exposed to attacks of the Assyrians and infiltrations of the Medes, the Elamite population settled in the Ram Hormuz, which was more inland and better protected against possible border disagreements with the neighboring states. The towns of Tepe Bormi (RH 11; 18 hectares) and Tall-i Ghazir (RH1-mound 1; 7,5 hectares), situated at the end of the valley along the road leading towards Fars, flourished as the two largest urban centers of the Ram Hormuz plain (Carter 1994, 68-69; de Miroschedji 1990). 1.2.2.1. Tall-i Ghazir The site of Tall-i Ghazir covers an area of about 25 hectares. The tell is constructed out of two groups of mounds, each provided by their own large natural spring. The natural water resources probably contributed to the long unbroken settlement period. The southeastern sector of Tall-i Ghazir consists of three major mounds and several smaller ones. Mound A (one hectare) stands about 19 meters above the Ram Hormuz plain and is occupied since the fifth millennium BC. In trenches I and II, McCown identified remains of an Elamite fortification wall that probably dates between the end of the 2nd millennium BC and the early 1st millennium BC (Carter 1994, 69-70). On mound B, McCown could find three building levels I-III. Level III (late 2nd millennium BC) contained several walls. In level I, the youngest level (early 1st millennium BC), archaeologists uncovered a tomb in the southwest corner that was dug into level II. At mound B of the southeastern sector, three pots (B9, 11, 12) were found beneath the walls of level III. In level II, six pots (B2-6, 10) were documented, while one pot (B1) was registered from level I. The burial from level I dug into level II yielded two pots (B7-8). The plain jars from level BII and BIII have close parallels with Susa (Ville Royale II, level 8-9) and with the EDD levels III-IV at Anšan. The pottery of these layers can thus be dated to the late Middle Elamite period and the early Neo-Elamite I period (c. 900 BC), where the assemblage of the gritt-tempered plain ware and painted Qaleh ware dominated. The Ram Hormuz plain seemed to have local variants of the Anšanite Qaleh ware. According to Carter (1994, 69-71), this implies close cultural contact with the highland region, but no pottery traffic. The northwestern complex of Tall-i Ghazir consists of three mounds that are all larger than the tells in the southeastern section. The Fort mound (or mound A, one hectare) provides the most interesting details for the research on the Neo-Elamite period. Underneath a large Islamic wall, McCown found an ‘Elamite dump’. In this layer of the Elamite dump, the archaeological team discovered a number of burials. According to Carter (1994, 69-71), who studied the tombs in detail, only five burials were sufficiently documented to be reconstructed. The material of the oldest burial, in stratigraphic position K, may belong to the early Neo-Elamite period. Burials E and F were discovered in the upper layers more or less on top of each other and might be dated to the Neo-Elamite I (burial E) and Neo-Elamite II (burial F) period. Burials L and M were also found on top of each other. The burial goods of these graves — seals, pottery, small finds — correspond to the Susa burials in Ville Royale II and the Apadana trench 5244 (de Miroschedji 1981a) which were constructed in the Neo-Elamite II and III periods. In the tombs, all the heads of the skeletons were facing south. Burial L was constructed as a simple burial chamber. The walls were built of mudbrick tiles and afterwards plastered with a green-gray gypsum. A comparable 158

The Ram Hormuz valley was first investigated by McCown. In 1948-1949, he dug a number of trenches in the mounds of Tall-i Ghazir. However, the reports with the archaeological results remain unpublished.

140

THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY

mudbrick construction was used for the Susa Ville Royale II tombs 763 and 639 in level 7B (de Miroschedji 1981a, 41). Fragments of an infant skull and animal bones were registered near the foot of the skeleton. Burial M was the only grave that contained personal belongings, like iron bracelets on the wrists and faience beads on the neck. Also animal bones were included in the funerary offerings. In the other burials only pottery was disposed, which indicates very simple burials. The ceramic material of the northwestern section, more specific from the Fort mound, can be assigned to the Neo-Elamite period. A glazed pot with vertical pierced lugs and the spouted pots may belong the Neo-Elamite I period. The amphora base, the bottle and the corrugated cup base show similarities to the Neo-Elamite II pottery of Susa. Some pottery in the Tall-i Ghazir burials has parallels with the Achaemenid village I types of Susa. Burial L had pots at the feet of the body (Carter 1994, 88-89). Burial M had two glazed vessels (Carter 1994, 90-91). 1.2.2.2. Tepe Bormi In 1978, Wright and de Miroschedji (Wright 1979) surveyed the area and discovered amongst the finds an inscribed baked brick of Šilhak-Inšušinak I (c. 1150 BC). Vallat (1981, 193-194) identified this inscription as a Neo-Elamite copy of the original late Middle Elamite text. When Alizadeh, Ahmadzadeh & Omidfar (2014) reinvestigated the area between 2006 and 2009, they concluded that the region was unoccupied from ca. 2800 to 1900 BC when the Sukkalmah dynasty rose to power. The results of these surveys also indicated that Tepe Bormi was founded in the Sukkalmah period and continued to be occupied until the end of Sasanian times. Mofidi-Nasrabadi (2005) identified Tepe Bormi with the ancient Elamite city Huhnur based on a stone inscription from the reign of Amar-Sin of the Ur III dynasty. This identification was accepted by most scholars (Álvarez-Mon 2013, 467; Henkelman 2012b, 934 with references). In a recent NABU article, Alizadeh (2013) refuted this identification, claiming that the finding spot of the inscribed stone at Tepe Bormi was a myth: ‘During my excavations at Chogha Bonut in 1995 (Alizadeh 2003), I found this inscription under a Land Rover in the storage area behind the Susa Museum, at Susa. My colleagues and I took it up to the French Castle, cleaned it and copied it. A copy consequently was given to Bob Biggs, who could not publish it because of the lack of permit’. Alizadeh (2013) added to this argumentation that the region of Tepe Bormi was not inhabited during the Awan dynasty. 1.2.2.3. Ram Hormuz Royal Burials If an identification of Huhnur with Tepe-Bormi is excluded, then which ancient toponyms may correspond to Tepe Bormi and Tall-i Ghazir? In 2007, an elite burial chamber was found in the Joobji district east of the city Ram Hormuz (Álvarez-Mon 2013a, 467-468). This burial chamber comprised two bathtub coffins with the physical remains of two young women (resp. 17 and 30 years old). The large amount of precious funerary gifts, some inscribed with the name of the Elamite king Šutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada, indicated the royal character of the tombs (Shishehgar 2008). In the section on Šutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada (cf. I.6.1.), I already suggested that the ‘royal house’ of the late Neo-Elamite Šutur-Nahhunte dynasty may have originated from Ram Hormuz, emphasizing the geographical and political importance of the region. If the region housed a royal dynasty, one can assume that at least one of the royal cities mentioned in the Annals of Assurbanipal was situated in the Ram Hormuz. Next to a ‘royal’ city, the Ram Hormuz cities must have had a considerable economic importance, as they were situated in the northwest-southeast commercial transit corridor connecting the Elamite highlands with Susiana. Assuming that the royal cities of the Ram Hormuz plain had an economic position as well, the Ram Hormuz cities may have occurred in both Assyrian Annals of Assurbanipal and the Susa Acropole archive. Excluding Susa (38%) and Huhnur (4%) the two most frequently attested places of issue in the Susa Acropole texts, only one town, Bupilu (3%), was an important distribution center. Coincidence or not, it is the only toponym of the Acropole archive that is called a ‘royal city’ in the Assyrian Annals. Moreover, Bupilu was already the royal residence of a local dynasty during Assurbanipal’s reign (BIWA F iii 66-9 = A v 15-20).

THE NEO-ELAMITE LOWLANDS

141

However, in the Annals, Bupila is situated between Bit-Hilmu and Kabinak, both located in the Elamite border region and Susiana.

1.2.3. Behbahan The Behbahan plain, which is situated on the border of the provinces Khuzestan and Fars, is one of the crucial lowland passages between Susiana and the Kur River Basin, situated on the main route from Susa to Anšan (Potts et al. 2009, 2). The valley stands 30 meters above sea level and is separated from the lowland plains by the Zagros foothills. The Zagros Mountains arise 5 kilometers north of Behbahan at a height of 900 meters in the direction of the Mamasani plain. The geography of Behbahan also allowed the interaction between Mesopotamia and the Iranian Highlands, as the plain was situated at the same latitude as the city of Ur. Moreover, the Behbahan valley provided for Susa the main access to the Persian Gulf. A road from Susa went via the Behbahan valley to the Elamite port of Liyan (Bushehr). The imported goods recovered from the maritime trade with Dilmun passed by Behbahan. This fertile plain might have been the location of some unidentified Neo-Elamite towns. A number of archaeological surveys has been conducted in the Behbahan region, but each of them failed to uncover NeoElamite settlements and material remains (Zagarell 1982, 119; Carter 1984, 75). During the 1950s, McCown performed a survey in the Behbahan environment, but no results have been recorded (Carter 1994, 68). Nissen explored parts of the Behbahan plain and concluded that this was the best connection between Khuzestan and the Marvdašt plain (Kur River Basin) in Fars (Nissen 1976, 275; 1988; Nissen & Redman 1971). In this report, he records 59 sites dating from prehistoric times to the Islamic period; but none of them suggests Neo-Elamite presence (Nissen & Redman 1971, 48; Dittmann 1984, 266-267). In 1982, the Arjan burial chamber was discovered by coincidence during the construction of the Marun dam, when a bulldozer levelled the ground for a road leading towards the dam (Álvarez-Mon 2010a, 1, 13).159 The Neo-Elamite tomb is located on the left bank of the Marun River, about 10 kilometers north of the modern town Behbahan. It lies north of the Sassanid and medieval town of Arrajan/Argun, which was at that time an important agricultural and commercial regional center.160 1.2.3.1. Neo-Elamite Architecture at Behbahan: the Arjan Tomb At this point, the Arjan burial chamber is the only Neo-Elamite architectural evidence for the larger Behbahan-Zohreh plain. The Arjan tomb is a rectangular burial chamber 110 centimeters below the surface, built of eleven similarly rectangular stone slabs on the sides in an east-west direction. The five stone slabs were used to construct a ceiling (Alizadeh 1985, 49-73; Álvarez-Mon 2010a, 20-21). The use of stone slabs to construct burial tombs is unknown in the Susiana funerary practice (Álvarez-Mon 2010a, 22). Yet it is the most common method in the Zagros highland during the Iron Age III period (Haerinck & Overlaet 2004) and in the Pošt-e Kuh plain in Lurestan (Overlaet 2003, 62-68). Also the early Teispid tomb of Cyrus the Great (Pasargadae) was built with large stone slabs. At Tepe Bormi and Tall-e Ghazir in the Ram Hormuz plain, archaeologists (Carter 1994, 71) found the Neo-Elamite burial L constructed of a mud slab entrance and plastered walls of bricks. The plastering of the walls and floor connects the Arjan tomb with an Elamite lowland tradition. At Susa, several burials (n° 763, 639) in the Neo-Elamite layers of Ville Royale were constructed in a likewise manner (Mecquenem 1943, 43 fig. 41; de Miroschedji 1981, 41; 1982, 25), while the Anšanite burial EDD 47 was an earth pit with many grave goods (Carter 1994, 66). Álvarez-Mon (2010, 22) 159 The Iranian archaeologists Towhidi & Khalilian (1982, 233) were appointed to investigate and record their findings of the burial chamber. All objects in and around the Arjan tomb were transferred to the National Museum of Iran in Tehran. 160 In 1812, Kinnier noticed the ruins of Aragian on his way from Shushtar to Shiraz (Kinneir 1813, 72). During the mid-nineteenth century, de Bode passed through this region and described the Arjan ruins of a castle (de Bode 1843, 295-296). According to de Bode, Kinnier found at the site of Arjan a stone slab with an arrow-headed inscription, on which further documentation is missing. Stein (1840, 82), who visited the Behbahan region between 1932 and 1936, identified it with the medieval city of Arrajan.

142

THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY

Fig. 10: The Arjan burial chamber (after Alizadeh 1985)

therefore concludes that the Arjan tomb, probably constructed during the end of the 7th century BC and the beginning of the 6th century BC161, combines the funerary architectural traditions of the Elamite lowlands with those of the highlands. 1.2.3.2. Funerary Goods of the Arjan Tomb The burial chamber revealed a large amount of luxurious funerary goods outside and inside the tomb, which were all studied in detail in the elaborate monograph of Álvarez-Mon (2010). Outside the Arjan tomb two large ceramic jars (on top of the tomb ceiling), a stone bowl and a cuneiform tablet (Álvarez-Mon 2010a, 20) were found. Although the exact placement of the heavily polished stone bowl remains unknown, the original sketches suggest that it was also placed on the ceiling of the tomb. The stone bowl has a bell shape with everted rim and ring base. A cuneiform tablet was allegedly found next to the shattered ceramic jars. The Elamite language and signs correspond to those of the Susa Acropole archive and can be dated to the late Neo-Elamite period. Moreover, since the document was sent by Bahuri, son of Mazzini, it can be attributed to the archive of the Nineveh letters (Steve et al. 2002/03, 482-497). Inside the tomb, a large variety of objects was discovered: a bronze bathtub (or U-) shaped coffin, textiles, a golden ring, an iron dagger and a silver rod. The bronze coffin contained a male skeleton between 40 and 50 years old in a foetus position (Amirloo 2004, 8). The two ribbed pairs of handles were placed parallel below the rim of the coffin. According to a detailed study of Álvarez-Mon (2010, 23-29), the Arjan coffin was used for an elite burial, based on the wealthy funerary goods and the required craftsmanship for the construction of the tomb. This type of bathtub coffin is modelled in a Neo-Assyrian court-style (Curtis 1983, 93: end 8th to 7th century BC); the coffin shape quickly spread to southern Mesopotamia and reached the eastern highlands of Elam at least by the beginning of the 6th century BC (Stronach 2005, 180-181). Examples of these coffins were found in the Taurus foothills (Zinjirli), the Zagros Mountains (Khorramabad), Assyria (Nimrud) and Babylonia (Ur). a) Funerary Goods inside the Bronze Coffin Inside the bronze coffin, the archaeologist discovered next to the skeleton fragments of cotton textiles, 98 golden bracteates, a golden ring-like object, a silver rod and an iron dagger, all comparable to the recently 161

Alizadeh (1985, 68) dated the tomb to the first half of the 8th century BC, while Majidzadeh (1992, 142) stretched the date to the mid7 century BC. Meanwhile a general consensus among scholars (Curtis 1995, 21; Stronach 1997, 41; 2004, 712; Curtis 2000, 204; ÁlvarezMon 2010a, 271-273 with references) has been established that the Arjan tomb was constructed between the late 7th century BC and early 6th century BC. th

THE NEO-ELAMITE LOWLANDS

143

found royal Ram Hormuz burial (Shishehgar 2008, 1-19). The Arjan textiles are interpreted (Motaghed 1990, 84) as the remains of an Elamite upper garment, the kuktum, decorated with embroidered rosettes on the fringe and ornamented with golden bracteates. Examples of the court style fashion are depicted on the Neo-Elamite rock-reliefs of Kul-e Farah, where the individuals also wear garments with fringes including rosettes and disks (Álvarez-Mon 2010a, 47-56, 70-71). This late Neo-Elamite cotton garment (between 650 and 550 BC) was possibly imported via the Elamite harbor of Liyan from the island of Dilmun where there was a cotton industry (Álvarez-Mon 2010a, 41-42). The Arjan ring (Sarraf 1990; Álvarez-Mon 2010a, 72-90) is a golden object with flaring disc-shaped finials. The ring was placed on the chest of the deceased close to his left hand, indicating a symbol of office (Stronach 2003, 253). The interior of the disc-shaped finials was decorated with a palmetto tree flanked by rampant winged lion-headed griffin (ÁlvarezMon 2011, 99-118). The animals are standing with the hind feet on a mountainous ground line, while their forelegs are pointing up. A guilloche band frames the whole scene. The position of these monsters is comparable to the figures on the seal imprints of the Susa Acropole texts (Amiet 1973, nos. 11, 12), but also to the paired Persepolis griffins and the AchaeFig. 11: The Arjan ring menid bracelets (Oxus treasure) of the late 6th century BC (Álvarez-Mon (after Stronach 2005) 2011, 78-85). The straight iron dagger of 31 centimeters was found on the left side of the coffin parallel to the skeleton. The blade was heavily corroded and the hilt damaged. The object was embellished with agate and a brown stone framed in granulated gold and circular golden bracteates in a rosette shape inlaid with red glaze. The quillon-guard was wrapped in gold foil and decorated with incised triangles between two horizontal lines (Álvarez-Mon 2010a, 199-200). The Neo-Elamite rock-reliefs depict several examples of Elamite daggers, but the hilt of the Arjan dagger is too damaged to make a comparison based on the shape. The techniques used to decorate the Arjan dagger, like granulation, are well known in the Elamite civilization since the Middle Elamite period. The silver rod is a straight hollow tube of about one-centimeter diameter and nearly half a meter and is interpreted by Álvarez-Mon (2010, 121) as a luxurious filtering device for beer. b) Funerary Goods outside the Bronze Coffin Several grave goods were deposited in the Arjan tomb next to the coffin: a bowl, a candelabrum and numerous vessels. These objects are all dated between the 8th and early 6th century BC, which delivers the first evidence of Neo-Elamite presence in the Behbahan region. The large shallow Arjan bowl has received much scholarly attention during the last decades (Alizadeh 1985; Majidzadeh 1992; Stronach 2003; Álvarez-Mon 2004). The interior is decorated with five concentric registers and a rosette in the middle. The registers are described from the outer to the inner circle. The first register shows a royal caravan with an exceptional representation of a yurt (Stronach 2004, 717-718; 2005, 190-192). One recognizes the food gathering and the mountainous landscape with trees. The second register illustrates a fortress and a battle scene with a chariot. The design of the fortress might be inspired on the fort at Tepe Nush-i Jan (Stronach 2004, 213-217; 2005, 186-187; Stronach & Roaf 2007, 127, 184, 198-199). The third register depicts a court protocol. A ruler sits on a throne, with the crown prince and three eunuch servants standing behind him. In front of the ruler, one can see a tribute procession with animals. This type of scene is known from Neo-Assyrian as well as from Achaemenid iconography (Stronach 2003, 252-253). The fourth register illustrates a musical scene with musicians playing on the harp and the sistrum, comparable to the Kul-e Farah reliefs. Also dancers and acrobats are presenting themselves in front of the seated ruler. The inner register is decorated with twelve running lions (Álvarez-Mon 2010a, 122-143).

144

THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY

Fig. 12: The Arjan bronze bowl (after Majidzadeh 1992)

The Arjan bronze candelabrum presents a mixture of chronological elements. The lower part of the stand includes Atlas figures, which are common in Neo-Assyrian iconography (c. 720 BC, Sargonid era). The bull and the three representations of lions with outwardly turned heads indicate a later date (6th century BC). The bulls of the candelabrum have similarities with the bull knob (Sb 6711) found by de Mecquenem in Susa, while the lions are similar to the scene on the Arjan ring (Álvarez-Mon 2010a, 144-149). At the backside of the coffin, a group of thirteen bronze vessels along with a silver jar, a bronze lamp, a bronze long necked jar and a drinking beaker stood on the ground of the burial chamber. These vessels can be closely compared to the vessels from the burial chamber 693 of Susa. Potts (1999, 302) ascribes these vessels to the Neo-Elamite IIIB period. A silver jar was placed against the western wall of the tomb. It has a carinated bodyline interrupted by a ribbed band worked at repoussée around the shoulder of the vessel. Although the shape of this silver jar has Elamite characteristics comparable to the Neo-Elamite II vessels from Susa (burial 693), the decoration on the shoulder is unique (Álvarez-Mon 2010a, 144-149). The bronze long necked jar was also deposed along the western wall (Álvarez-Mon 2010a, 164). The closest parallel to this bronze jar comes from the Susa burial chamber 693, although similar shapes are attested in Lurestan. A typical Neo-Elamite bronze lamp was discovered near the eastern wall of the tomb and has a sharp conical pyramid shape. Three circular bands decorate the lower body of the lamp. An almost identical lamp was found by de Mecquenem (1934, 50-51, fig 43; Álvarez-Mon 2010a, 165) inside a grave of the Apadana mound at Susa. Amongst these vessels, the Arjan bronze beaker (or rython) was found (Álvarez-Mon 2008). The upper register around the neck of the heavily eroded beaker was incised with a band of six identical running ostriches, while the lower section on the convex base was worked at repoussée into the shape of four overlapping lion

THE NEO-ELAMITE LOWLANDS

145

heads converging on a central rosette (Álvarez-Mon 2010, 150-162). The shape of the beaker is inspired on the Neo-Assyrian drink beakers that were used during royal Assyrian banquets in the Sargonid period (end of the 8th century BC). 1.2.3.3. Arjan’s geopolitical importance for the Neo-Elamite State The burial chamber with the high-quality objects indicate that the Behbahan region belonged to the geopolitical sphere of the Neo-Elamite kingdom. The tablet of the Elamite Nineveh archive includes Arjan in a regional diplomatic network of local rulers, reaching from Ayapir, Susa, Zamin, Katmurti to the Assyrian capital Nineveh. The fortress depicted on the Arjan bowl, if representing the local Neo-Elamite landscape, may even refer to one of the fortified cities to which Kutur-Nahhunte and Huban-haltaš III sent their people in order to protect them from the approaching Assyrian army (RINAP 3, 22 iv 81-v 5). Since the Arjan bowl portrayed a fortress as well as a yurt, Henkelman (2008, 42-43) suggested that their ruler owned both residences. By consequence, this bowl could depict a lifestyle of a people with both pastoralist and sedentary elements. Although there is no actual written evidence for a local Behbaban ruler, four of the Arjan objects (a bronze bowl, a bronze chandelier, a silver vessel and golden ring) are engraved with the inscription of ‘Kitin-Hutran, son of Kurluš’.162 Kitin-Hutran had an Elamite name, of which the first element ‘Kitin’ is attested exclusively in the Neo-Elamite and Achaemenid period (Vallat 1984, 3-4). The father’s name Kurluš could be Iranian (Tavernier 2011b, 194, 240). An individual named Kurluš occurs in the Susa Acropole tablets (S. 16; S. 50; S. 127; Vallat 1992a; Henkelman 2003b, 212-213), where he is supplying garments to the Elamite court in Susa in service of the Unsakeans. A second reference to the name ‘Kurluš, father of Parsirra’ is carved on a high-quality cylinder seal from Susa (Amiet 1973). Since the Arjan tomb objects, the Susa cylinder seal and the Susa Acropole text all belonged the late Neo-Elamite period, Vallat (1984; 1992b) identified the Kurluš in the different attestations as the same person. Álvarez-Mon (2010, 10) consequently suggested that this Kurluš, connected to the Unsak people, must have been the father of Parsirra and Kitin-Hutran. Since one son had a name of Iranian origin (Parsirra) and the other son had an Elamite name (Kitin-Hutran), the practice of anthroponyms from a different ethnic origin within the same family could reflect a far advanced ‘ethnogenèse’ between Elamite and Iranian population. However, in my opinion, the sources refer at least to two individuals named Kurluš for several reasons. Firstly, the social status of the Kurluš, father of Kitin-Hutran, does not correspond to that of an official of the people of Unsak. It seems highly unlikely that the father of Kitin-Hutran, who was buried in a magnificent vaulted burial chamber, was in charge of transporting garments as a sort of tribute to the Elamite crown in service of the Unsakeans. In order for his son to possess such valuable objects and such a tomb, Kurluš must have belonged already to the highest echelons of the Elamite society as either a high-ranked official of the Elamite bureaucracy or a tribal leader of a people dwelling in southern Kuzestan (Behbahan). Secondly, the geographical outlines of the sources contradict an association of Kurluš with the people of Unsak, because Vallat (1984; 1992b) demonstrated that Unsak was a tribal leader of the Samatean people living in southern Lurestan. The only other possible way to connect these individuals would be if Kurluš, who originated from the Behbahan region, was employed at the Susa court as a tax collector and that tax collectors went personally to the different regions of the Elamite kingdom to retrieve the tribute for the Elamite treasury. In that way, Kurluš could have been responsible for the region north of Susa, since he had no personal commitment to the people of this administrative district. However, this hypothesis cannot be confirmed with the present source material. Furthermore, as the palace reliefs of Persepolis (Schmidt 1953, 85-90 pl. 27-49) and Nineveh (Barnett 1976; Barnett et al. 1998) demonstrate, they were mostly tribal representatives that came to the royal palace to present the contribution of their people to the king.163 162

Vallat (1984) dated the inscription to c. 650-525 BC, while Steve (1986, 20-21) lowered the relative date to 608-539 BC. From administrative documents we know that the Assyrians made an exception for the Medes. The Assyrians organized tributeexpeditions to collect the goods themselves (Fuchs & Parpola 2001, xxviii-xxix). 163

146

THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY

It seems therefore more plausible that, although Kitin-Hutran is not called ‘king’,164 he was the leader of a chiefdom in the Behbahan region. Henkelman (2008, 43) argued that, since these people had a particular lifestyle combining lowland (sedentary habitation) and highland traditions (pastoralists), the Elamite crown could appeal to these Behbahan rulers as mediator between the lowland and highland regions. Stronach (2004, 712) even suggested that Kitin-Hutran was an early 6th century ruler of Hidalu. Since one might expect that the king of Hidalu actually ruled in Hidalu, Stronach’s hypothesis is rather improbable. However, the Behbahan ruler did control a crucial part of the ‘Royal Road’ going into the Elamite highlands. At this point in research, two Elamite toponyms, Dašer and Sullagi, may be situated between the Behbahan district and the highland Mamasani region. According to Hallock (1978, 109), Dašer was located about halfway between Persepolis and Susa. Based on a town called Tašan near Ram Hormuz on the road to Behbahan, several scholars (Guépin 1965/66, map 1; Gaube 1973, 112) identified this town with ancient Dašer. However, this town, which was already mentioned in a statue of Puzur-Inšušinak in connection to Huhnur (Potts 2008, 291), was probably not located in the Susian lowlands. The numerous attestations of the toponym Dašer on Persepolis Fortification tablets165 imprinted with the seal PFS 0002 (Garrison & Root 2001, 535; Potts 2008, 283-284) convinced Henkelman (2008, 112) that Dašer must have been the westernmost large town within the administrative Persepolis district. Although the toponym Dašer is not attested in Neo-Elamite sources, the correspondence of the Achaemenid Dašer (da-še-ir) with the Tasarra district (uruta-sa-ar-ra) described in the Annals of Assurbanipal (BIWA F iv 56) and the Tahhasaru people (ABL 281: LÚ taḫ-ḫa-sar-ú-a) in a NeoBabylonian letter confirm that the town was situated in the Neo-Elamite kingdom. According to the Assyrian Annals, the district of Tasarra was situated next to Bašimu and Banunu (Borger 1996, 240-241). Since ancient Bašimu (Elamite Pessitme) was probably situated near Bašt (cf. II.2.1.3.), Dašer can be pinpointed near Do Gonbadan/Gachsaran (Arfa’i 1999, 44). In ABL 281 (de Vaan 1995, 247), the palace herald took refuge in a city called Šuharisungur, which is probably Šursunkiri in the Fahliyan region (Vallat 1993, 264 for references), before he continued his journey to Huhan (El. Huhnur) and Haijadalu (El. Hidalu). Upon his return to Maduktu, the Elamite king Huban-haltaš III had to deal with the complaints of the Dahhašereans and the Šallukeans, because these cities did not receive grain and the people suffered from famine. Based on a Neo-Babylonian letter, one can assume that Dašer and Šullake belonged to the same administrative district in which a šarnappu was responsible for the grain supply to the cities. The toponym Šullakke of the Mesopotamian sources (ABL 281; ABL 789; ABL 1311) corresponds to the city Šullaggi in the Susa Acropole archive (S. 123; S. 235) and the Persepolis Fortification Texts,166 where it is mentioned on tablets stamped with PFS 2 (Henkelman 2008, 44 n. 112; Potts 2008, 284). Potts (2008, 295) argues that the entire region between Bašt and Ardakan (via Nurabad, Fahliyan) is traditionally known as Šulistan. Moreover, the river flowing through the Dašt-e Rostam-e Do is called Solak, another possible reference to Sullaggi. In the classical sources, Strabo (Geogr. xvi 1.8) mentioned a town Soloke that Pliny (Nat.Hist. vi.31.136) described as Seleuka-on-the-Hedyphon. This town is situated between Behbahan and Ahwaz at the site of Gan-e Šin. Although several scholars (Hansman 1978; Zadok 1984, 136 n. 20; Henkelman 2008, 43) support the idea of identifying the Elamite Šullaggi with the town in western Khuzestan, it does not match the Mesopotamian and Achaemenid references to the highlands and can therefore be excluded. Considering all arguments, I would locate Šullaggi between Do Gonbadan/Gachasaran (possibly Dašer) and the Dašt-e Rostam-e Do (DR2) in the Mamasani plain.

164 It is known from the Kalmakarra objects that the Samatian kings engraved their titulary in a short or a long version. In the short version the name of the ruler and the patronym is mentioned without the official position of king. It is therefore possible that the Arjan tomb exclusively yielded objects with the short titulary of Kitin-Hutran. 165 aš da-iš-še-ir: PF 671, PF-NN 947, ašda-še-ir: PF 664, 1072-3, 1125-6, 1608, 2082, PF-NN 137, 430, 554, 574, 802-3, 1152, 1403, 1582, 2101, 2285, 2554, 2572, ašda-šir8 PF 2057. 166 PF 17, 136, 112, 125, 465, 1215, PF-NN 764, 867, 1399, 2494, 2549, PFa 27, 29.

THE NEO-ELAMITE HIGHLANDS

147

2. THE NEO-ELAMITE HIGHLANDS During the Neo-Elamite period, the highland region (Fars) is much more difficult to place in a geopolitical context than the Elamite lowlands. Traditionally, the Elamite highlands comprise four mountainous regions: Izeh/Malamir, the Mamasani plain, the Kur River Basin, and the Fasa & Darab region.

Map 5: Southwestern Iran (after de Miroschedji 2003, fig. 3.1. with modifications by Álvarez-Mon 2010a, pl. 2)

This chapter will therefore examine how much power the Elamite state exercised over the highland regions of Izeh, the Mamasani, the Kur River Basin and Fasa & Darab during the Neo-Elamite period. More particularly, I will focus on how firm the grip of the Elamite monarchy was on the highlands after the Dark Ages and before the rise of the (Indo)-Iranians to whom the Elamite monarchy gradually had to give up the highlands. 2.1. Izeh/Malamir167 The Izeh valley in the Bakhtiari mountains (ancient Ayapir), 150 kilometers southeast of Susa, is geographically a part of the Zagros highlands in Southwestern Iran. The plain, situated about 750 meters above sea 167

In scholarly literature, this region at the Zagros foothills has a double name Izeh/Malamir. The confusion derives from the fact that the name of the region switched under the influence of political aspirations during the course of its history. Under the Arabs, the region was called Izaj or Idhaj. When the dynasty of the Atabāks of Great Lurestan (1155-1424 AD) established the center of their power in the region, they renamed the valley into Malāmir (Calmeyer 1988a, 275). The toponym Malamir was used until the early 20th century, when the Iranian authorities in 1935 switched back the name to Izeh, an updated version of the historical name.

148

THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY

level, was accessible via the Ram Hormuz by a major route (Petrie 2005). It is surrounded by a mountain range with its canyons bearing the traces of rock reliefs on four different locations (Rawlinson 1839, 84; Vanden Berghe 1963, 24-25). Only two of these four locations bear traces datable to the Neo-Elamite era: the Kul-e Farah gorge in the northeast of the plain and Šekaft-e Salman in the southeast of the plain (De Waele 1980, 50-52).168 In the canyon of Kul-e Farah, six groups of reliefs are depicted (Vanden Berghe 1963, 25-27). Kul-e Farah I is of paramount importance to prove that the Izeh region was incorporated within the borders of the NeoElamite kingdom. The most interesting rock relief depicts a sacrificial scene in honor of the god Tirutir by the kutur Hanne, son of Tahhi, with a large cuneiform inscription of 24 lines covering the width of the relief without running over the imagery (EKI 75; Hinz 1962). Ten short captions (EKI 75 A-K) identifying the figures are placed on the clothes of the individuals or next to the persons. Standing tall and facing right, the leading figure fills the entire height of the panel. Despite the head being severely damaged, a headdress with a braid is still identifiable. The lower face of the kutur is covered by a beard. His hands are placed on the chest. Behind the image of Hanne (EKI 75A) are several small figures also facing right. The upper one is identified as the palace manager Šutruru (EKI 75B: ragipal) and the lower one as the official cup bearer Šutruru (EKI 75C: nisikkir), a member of the local court. In front of the kutur are two superimposed compositions. The upper composition consists of three musicians in long simple robes with a belt (EKI 75D-F; De Waele 1989, 35-36). The first two figures play the vertical and the horizontal harp respectively. The third instrument is a square tambourine (Potts 1999, 302). The lower composition shows a sacrificial scene, where a hunter Tepti-Huban (EKI 75G: muhhutu ullira ‘the one who delivers the sacrificial victim’) brings the offerings to the slaughterer (EKI 75H-I). A priest Kutur (EKI 75K: šatin) standing in front of a small altar probably brings a libation offer of the three rams bordering the scene. Recently, Henkelman (2011, 128-133) has connected the scene with the Elamite šip feast. As previously mentioned, this relief is the most important of all Izeh sculptures, and the only carving from Kul-e Farah whose late Neo-Elamite date is undisputed (Álvarez-Mon 2010, 49). The fact that the inscription in Neo-Elamite does not cover the figures suggests a date later than the reign of Assurnasirpal (883-859 BC) during which inscriptions covered up entire reliefs, even the images (Vanden Berghe 1963, 27). The iconography and stylistic elements all lead one to date the relief to the 8th or 7th century BC. The rich embroidery on Hanne’s dress resembles the one on the stele of Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak of Susa and the relief of the spinning lady of Susa (8th-7th century BC; Muscarella 1992, 200; Tavernier 2013a, 283). Especially the decorative elements of the fringes with metal appliqués in the gown are distinctive features for 7th and 6th century BC elite garments. Álvarez-Mon (2010, 266) indicated that a similar garment style may be depicted on a fragmentary faïence slab from Susa (ML Sb 11411; Bouquillon et al. 2007, 110 fig. 47) The headdress closely reminds the royal bulbous headdress of the Elamite king Huban-haltaš III (646-645 BC) depicted in Assyrian reliefs. The stylistic features made Álvarez-Mon (2010a, 49-50, 201, 266) propose a date between 650 and 550 BC for the imagery. Scholars have assumed that the Kul-e Farah I relief was carved together with the inscription that has been dated more recently to the late Neo-Elamite period after the Assyrian campaigns (585-539 BC: Vallat 1996a, 387-389, 393; 2006a; Steve, Vallat & Gasche 2002/03, 484; end 7th century BC: Tavernier 2004, 16-21; 2006; Henkelman 2008, 329). Although Álvarez-Mon (2010a, 50) argues that the Kul-e Farah I scene is the youngest of all Kul-e Farah reliefs, it does not necessarily mean that the relief and the inscription were engraved in the same phase. The uncareful composition of the text between the images (for example the upper part of the horizontal harp is erased by the cuneiform signs) suggest that the text was carved over the imagery at some sections (Potts 1999, 303; Álvarez-Mon 2013b, 226). The stylistic connections to the Assyrian art (musical instruments, headdresses, ...) and the fact that the sculptor did not take the cuneiform text into account in the original composition suggests that the text was added in a later phase. Therefore, it may be possible that there is a generation between the engraving of the Kul-e Farah I relief and its inscription. If Hanne ruled during the reign of Šutur-Nahhunte, the Hanne inscription on the Kul-e Farah I relief was probably a secondary composition, notwithstanding the late Neo-Elamite date of the relief itself. Since I already postulated (cf. I.5.1.) that 168

Shah Savar in the north and Hung-i Nauruzi in the northwest of the plain are much older and date to the 20th-18th century BC (Vanden Berghe 1983, 103; Calmeyer 1988b).

THE NEO-ELAMITE HIGHLANDS

149

Hanne’s overlord Šutur-Nahhunte probably ruled Elam between c. 635 and 610 BC, the relief and the Izeh inscriptions can be dated to the second part of the 7th century BC. The other five reliefs (II-VI) in the Kul-e Farah canyon are not inscribed and can only be dated based on iconographic features. They consist of offering scenes; some of them including a royal figure. On the Kul-e Farah II and Kul-e Farah V panels, a ruler is positioned in a praying attitude and the officiants, his servants, are sacrificing animal offerings (Henkelman 2011, 128). The vertical face of Kul-e Farah III relief shows a cultic procession with at least 200 participants (Álvarez-Mon 2013a, 466). The Kul-e Farah IV relief depicts a banquet scene with at least 141 attendants (Álvarez-Mon 2013b, 210-215). At the outer end, the royal figure is seated on a high-backed throne overlooking his company. Kul-e Farah VI is an adoration scene of a royal or leading figure with his attendants (Calmeyer 1988b, 281). Based on stylistic elements concerning garments and distinct anatomical features (Jéquier 1901, 142; Vanden Berghe 1963, 31, 39; Calmeyer 1973, 15; De Waele 1976a, 337; 1981, 52; 1989, 30), the uninscribed Kul-e Farah reliefs (II-VI) have been considered as a single group of Neo-Elamite works of art for a long time in scholarly tradition. Vanden Berghe (1983, 103) dated the whole group to the 8 th -7th century BC. More recently, scholars have argued that these reliefs were not made within the same era, but carved in various stages between the 10th and 6th century BC. Carter (1984, 187) proposed a pre-1000 BC date for the Kul-e Farah IV relief. Amiet (1992, 81, 86; also Seidl 1997, 200-203) even suggested that all reliefs were engraved in the beginning of the 1st millennium BC after the raid of Nebuchadnezzar I (c. 1104 BC), with exception of the Kul-e Farah I and Kul-e Farah V reliefs. However, Álvarez-Mon (2013b, 227-229) has demonstrated that at least the Kul-e Farah IV relief should be dated to the 9th or 8th century BC. According to De Waele (1979; 1981, 52; Carter 1999, 289) the relief of the platform bearers on the Kul-e Farah III and VI boulders were carved during the 8th-7th century BC, while Calmeyer (1988a, 283 also Seidl 1997, 200-202) proposed a much earlier date to the end of the 2nd or the beginning of the 1st millennium BC. Again, Álvarez-Mon (2010a, 39, 266; 2010b; 2010c contra Amiet 1992, 87; de Miroschedji 2003, 33) brought that date back to the 7th-6th century BC based on the short hairstyles and the iconographic similarities to the Persian art. However, further research is needed in order to observe larger patterns concerning the Neo-Elamite presence in the area. At the other side of the plain, southwest of the town of Izeh facing the gorge of Kul-e Farah, another canyon is visible, Šekaft-e Salman, bearing four rock reliefs with Neo-Elamite inscriptions. Two are positioned on boulders at the entrance of the canyon; two other panels are located in a cave at the other side of the site. These inscribed reliefs have one thing in common: the presence of a royal or at least an important figure. In general, the Šekaft-e Salman rock reliefs (Calmeyer 1980, 110 n. 49; also De Waele 1981, 50 n. 4 and 52 n. 4; Seidl 1986, 326; Stolper 1987/90, 278; Potts 1999, 253-254) are dated to the 12th century BC, although Álvarez-Mon (2013b, 207) suggests a date between 1200 and 950 BC. As the imagery was carved during the late Middle Elamite Šutrukid dynasty, the captions identifying the figures on the panels are secondary additions (Waters 2000, 84) made by Hanne and his palace officials.169 Contrary to Hanne, the figures appearing on the Šekaft-e Salman reliefs belonged to royalty. They might represent the royal aspirations of Hanne, but this is not sure. In any case, Hanne adapted the reliefs of his Šutrukid predecessor for his own purpose. The first relief (ŠS I) shows three male figures, a woman and a child between them walking towards the cave. The man is identified as the kutur Hanne (EKI 76C-F), wearing a headdress similar to the one described on the previous relief and a beard. His hands are crossed at his chest. The child is presented in a similar fashion as its father and is wearing similar clothing. Hanne’s wife has her hands depicted in the same manner as her husband’s. One line of text crosses Hanne’s short tunic, his son’s and the lower end of his wife’s dress and mentions the names Hanne, his wife Huhin and their son (Vanden Berghe 1963, 35). The second relief (ŠS II) at the entrance depicts five figures: three large ones and two smaller ones. All the figures are standing and moving towards the left. The first person from the left is a girl, hands crossed at the chest. The girl is followed by two male characters, both wearing a long beard and a helmet from underneath of which braids descend to the chest. They are followed by a child or adult reduced in size in the same clothes as the two preceding characters. The final figure is a woman. Details are missing due to the poor state 169

For the correlations of the rock reliefs with the inscriptions, see De Waele 1976b, 499 and 1981, 61.

150

THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY

of preservation. An inscription crosses the relief and covers part of the skirts and legs of the first person and maybe also the second figure. This stele represents a family, possibly the family of Šutruru, an official of Hanne’s court (EKI 76G-I; Vanden Berghe 1963, 34). According to an inscription of Hanne in the cave, Šutruru wanted his relief to be carved in Šekaft-e Salman (Hinz 1962, 113). The two other reliefs are located at the other side of the gorge and are sculpted in a cave. Both are badly preserved. The first one (ŠS III) is a large relief of which only the central part has been engraved by a long inscription of thirty-six lines (EKI 76). Next to it the figure of Hanne is shown, walking towards the right, his hands lifted to his face in a ritual gesture of adoration. There is a short inscription on his tunic (EKI 76A). The second relief (ŠS IV) in the cave shows a large figure with a short caption on his tunic (EKI 76B) walking towards the right (Vanden Berghe 1963, 36). Both reliefs inside the cave depict Hanne and possibly his wife in adoration before the goddess DIL.BAT (Stolper 1987/90, 276-281). This as well as the fact that the figures all move from left to right seems to be a trend in the Šekaft-e Salman reliefs, which may have pointed to a temple located at the end of the gorge. The theory of a sanctuary in this area seems confirmed by an inscription of Hanne in the cave. De Bode (1845, 30-31) and Layard (1846, 79) describe a construction in ruins at the far end of the gorge resembling an altar or perhaps a temple.170 In reality, it may have been an open-air sanctuary (Malbran-Labat 2004, 45-47; Henkelman 2011, 128). The rock reliefs of Šekaft-e Salman and Kul-e Farah demonstrate a continuous religious and cultic Elamite interest in the Izeh region from the late Middle Elamite Šutrukid dynasty (12th century BC) until the late NeoElamite period (6th century BC). However, the region was not only an open-air sanctuary to the Elamites, it was presumably also a district capital. The Hanne inscriptions on the rock panels reveal a political and territorial importance of the Izeh region for the Neo-Elamite kingdom. According to the two large rock inscriptions at Kul-e Farah (KF I) and Šekaft-e Salman (ŠS III) sanctuaries, the kutur (or governor) Hanne, son of Tahhi, controlled the Ayapir area in service of the Elamite king ŠuturNahhunte, son of Indada. In order to maintain his power over the eastern fringes of the Elamite kingdom, Hanne conducted several military campaigns against twenty other Elamite kuturs in the Šilhite, Tarriša and Pesi mountains (EKI 75). The Šilhite mountains were situated east of the Kul-e Farah canyon, which is beyond the eastern side of the Izeh valley towards the highlands. The Tarriša mountains, on the west side of the Šekaft-e Salman range, were situated west of the Izeh valley in the direction of the lowland. König (1965, 155) suggested that the Pesi region was the area north of Izeh. Since Ayapir was the operating base of Hanne for these military campaigns and since the Šilhite mountains were disputed territory, one can assume that the Izeh region was the most eastern part of the Elamite heartland, that was firmly under Elamite political control. Consequently, Izeh must have been a permanent Neo-Elamite settlement with a fortress or a stronghold to defend the eastern fringes of the Elamite kingdom, having a similar status as Bit-Imbi at the western border or Hidalu in the south.171 At this point in research, one cannot determine how much further the Elamite territory reached into the Šilhite mountains. I suspect that it was rather a ‘grey zone’ that the Elamites were capable of incorporating occasionally into their kingdom throughout the 1st millennium BC, but nomadic tribes in the area probably interfered with that territorial claim on regular basis (on pastoralism in the Bakhtiari mountains, see Henkelman 2011, 131 with references). A Neo-Elamite limestone fragment, probably from a stele, that was found in the 1930’ at Qal’eh-ye Tol, south of the Izeh Valley, depicted a dynastic scene (Hinz 1964, 107 pl. 17; Vanden Berghe 1966, 60 pl. 90a) or even more likely a scene of two rulers conducting a treaty (Börker-Klähn 1982, 72, 233 n° 272). The scene may be seen in the context of the kutur of Ayapir and his overlord Šutur-Nahhunte or the kutur of Ayapir alone concluding a treaty with local ruler of the Šilhite mountains. Even though there is nowadays very little archaeological evidence of a Neo-Elamite occupation in the Izeh region, 19th century textual references suggest otherwise. In the mid-19th century, Layard (1846, 74-75) described a vast number of mounds in the central part of the valley, east of the town Izeh, that were ‘ruins of a very ancient city’. On the central large irregular mound, the remains of a castle, belonging to monarch of the mountains, 170

Some cuneiform texts may refer to a Middle Elamite temple in the Izeh plain (Walker 1981, 136-137). Several Elamite fortresses are known to us. One fortress is depicted on the Arjan bowl and another on the Assyrian palace reliefs. On the the so-called Zagros fortresses see Stronach (2004, 713-717) and Stronach & Roaf (2007, 127, 184, 198-199). 171

THE NEO-ELAMITE HIGHLANDS

151

would have been visible. Since ancient Ayapir is identified with the Izeh valley (Vallat 1993, 26-27), it is highly possible that the castle mentioned by Layard was indeed the palace or stronghold of Hanne. The rock inscriptions at Kul-e Farah and Šekaft-e Salman reinforce the existence of a palace in Ayapir during the Neo-Elamite period by emphasizing the position of the palace manager (ragipal) Šutruru and his family (EKI 76). The court of Ayapir is mentioned together with the court of Katmurti in the diplomatic correspondence of Bahuri, ruler of Zamin (Nin 5; Vallat 1998b, 99), which indicates that the Ayapir court was integrated in a regional network of local rulers. Ayapir was not only integrated in a political network, it was also part of a broader economic system managed from Susa. As shown in the Susa Acropole texts, Ayapir was especially involved in the fabrication of clothes and tissues (Álvarez-Mon 2010a, 39). The frequency of references to the city of Ayapir (aša-a-pír) and to its population (aša-a-pír-ip-pe) in the Susa Acropole archive may even suggest that there was a regional storage depot,172 that may have existed until the reign of Darius (PF-NN 749:6-7; Fort 622-1). Then how is it possible that Neo-Elamite archaeological evidence is practically non-existent. Firstly, archaeological activities in the Izeh region are very limited. It was not until 1908 that the first excavations took place some 50 kilometers west of Izeh, which did not render any information concerning ancient remnants of Izeh (Vanden Berghe 1963, 24). An archaeological survey conducted in 1976 yielded very few results. Possibly an alabaster sherd with a fragmentary late Middle Elamite inscription was uncovered in a small sounding on the east face of a mound located in the modern town of Izeh (Sajjidi & Wright 1979, 106; Stolper 1978a, 93). And there was one village near Kul-e Farah that was possibly populated during the Neo-Elamite period. Since the Neo-Elamite ceramic assemblage was poorly known in the seventies, the archaeologists admitted the possible failure to recognize the Neo-Elamite ceramics on other sites (Bayani 1976, 102; Eqbal 1979, 114). Another problem for identifying the Neo-Elamite occupation layer is the modern damage to the ancient mounds. Farmers have scraped off the fertile top layers of the mound, which may have yielded traces of Hanne’s palace (Henkelman 2008, 46-47; Potts 2010a, 124; Álvarez-Mon 2013a, 465). At this point, chances are rather small to recover the archaeological traces of Elam’s eastern fortress. Therefore, the only remaining signs of Neo-Elamite presence are currently the rock reliefs of Kul-e Farah and the secondary inscriptions on the rock reliefs of Šekaft-e Salman. The dating of the relief gives the same impression as the archaeological data of Susa. Under the Middle Elamite dynasty, the Izeh sanctuary had gained importance as is shown by the rock reliefs at the Šekaft-e Salman gorge. After a gap of a century (11th century BC), the Izeh region received renewed attention from the first Neo-Elamite dynasty. The Kul-e Farah rock reliefs are carved throughout the Neo-Elamite period, indicating a lasting interest of the Elamite monarchy in this area. The permanent Neo-Elamite presence therefore assigns the Izeh region to the Elamite heartland. At the same time, ancient Ayapir was most probably one of the eastern frontier regions of the Neo-Elamite kingdom. That Hanne battled against kuturs of Šilhite east of Ayapir in the Bakthiari mountains may denote that Ayapir was the eastern stronghold of Elam.

2.2. The Mamasani Plain With the rather uncertain position of the Kur River Basin (ancient capital Anšan) within the geopolitical setting of the Neo-Elamite kingdom, the focus on the highland territories shifts towards the Mamasani region,173 which lies in the heart of the southwestern Zagros (Fars) on roughly the same latitude as the head of the Persian Gulf. The region itself has several intermontane plains like the Dašt-e Nurabad, the Dašt-e Rostam-e Yek (or Dašt-e Fahliyan) and the Dašt-e Rostam-e Do (or Deh-e Now) that are situated at an altitude of about 1000 meters above sea level. These intermontane plains are connected to each other by mountain passes. Together they 172 aš a-a-pír: MDP 9: 4, 66, 95, 147, 173; EKI 75, EKI 76, EKI 86; aša-a-pír-ip-pè: MDP 9: 29, 47, 101, 120, 147, 169, 172; aša-a-pír-ra: MDP 9, 119; Nin 5, a-a-pír-in-na: PF-NN 749: 6-7 (Fort 622-1). 173 In modern scholarly literature, Mamasani is often called the ‘Fahliyan’ district, a geographical name that is essentially interchangeable (McCall 2009, 28-29; 2013, 193 n. 6). The first person with an archaeological interest in the Mamasani district was E. Herzfeld (n.d.; 1907; 1926; 1928). He visited the area several times between 1905 and 1924, in which he described amongst others the Elamite rock relief of Kurangun and the mound of Tol-e Spid.

152

THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY

provide the second largest fertile area (after the Kur River Basin) of the Fars province, which permits irrigated agriculture to maintain a large sedentary population (Roustaei et al. 2009, 26-27). However, the fertile ground was not the only advantage of the Mamasani region in ancient times. The geographical location on the ridge of the high mountains and the wide accessible mountain passes made Mamasani one of the main northwest-southeast traffic axes in the Elamite kingdom and the Persian empire, connecting the Elamite political centers Susa and Anšan and later on the Achaemenid capitals Susa and Persepolis over a distance of 500 kilometers (Stein 1940; Petrie 2005). This road, which was later integrated into the ‘Royal Road’ of the Achaemenid transport system, went from Susiana over the lowland plains Shustar, Ram Hormuz and Behbahan to the highland passes of the Mamasani via Dogonbadan. Once the travelers had arrived in the Mamasani, they had several options according to the season and weather conditions to continue their route to the highland capital Anšan (Speck 2002, 16-17; Petrie 2005; Potts 2008, 280-283). While Behbahan and the adjacent plain along the banks of the Zohreh river were still located at the Zagros foothills, one can consider the Mamasani region the first historical highland plain leading towards the Iranian Plateau when travelling from the Elamite lowlands to Fars. The Mamasani region has monuments of various historical periods, suggesting that the valley had a long occupation history. Stronach (1978) visited the rock-cut tomb Dau-o Dokhtar and dated the monumental tombs to the late 5th to 3th century BC. In 1947, R. Ghirshman, who excavated in Susa as well, published a first detailed study of the tower of Dum-e Mill (Ghirshman 1944/45, 143; Álvarez-Mon 2013a, 470). Schippmann (1971, 153) and Kleiss (1972) documented Dum-e Mill in their research on Iranian fire-temples, while Huff (1975, 191) was the first who dated Dum-e Mill to the Sassanid area, which makes the famous tower contemporaneous with the rock relief of Sarab-e Bahram. Evidence of Elamite culture in the Mamasani remained limited to an inscribed brick from Tol-e Spid and the rock relief of Kurangun (Lambert 1972, 61), until in 2002 a team of Australian and Iranian archaeologists conducted a large-scale archaeological survey of the Mamasani district (Potts 2009 et al.). The Australian team chose the two largest settlements of the Mamasani plain, Tol-e Nurabad and Tol-e Spid, to conduct a field research (Potts & Roustaei 2006, 180-182). In Tol-e Nurabad, there is a continuous occupation from the Neolithic to the post-Achaemenid period, while the Tol-e Spid presents a Chalcolithic to Sassanid stratigraphy. However, Tol-e Nurabad is the only site with a clear Neo-Elamite sequence and will therefore be examined more closely. The conclusions described in this chapter are largely based on the published report of this scientific mission (Potts et al. 2009).

2.2.1. Tol-e Nurabad Tol-e Nurabad is a large, flat-topped mound covering around 9 ha and standing 23 meters above the height of the surrounding plain and 965 meters above sea level (Weeks et al. 2009, 31). The mound is situated in the fertile Dašt-e Nurabad at about 200 meters north-northwest of the Korr-e Sangan stream, which has surely influenced the inhabitancy of the site that was occupied from the Neolithic to the post-Achaemenid period. Tol-e Nurabad is located approximately 30 kilometers to the south of Tappeh Sorna (MS 1). The geographical position and the size of Tol-e Nurabad, at approximately one day of travel from Tappeh Sorna, suggests that the city was a paramount location on the inland route linking the lowlands with Bushehr and the southern plateau. The Mamasani team excavated at Tol-e Nurabad two trenches A and B that yielded ceramic material from the early prehistory to the 1st millennium BC.174 Especially trench B, situated near the top of the main mound, was excavated to a depth of approximately seven meters and sampled the highest and latest deposits on the site. The several stratigraphic phases of trench B describe the transition from the Middle Elamite period to the Neo-Elamite and the Achaemenid period. Phases B8 and B9 belong to the late Middle or Neo-Elamite I period, which is the end of the 2nd millennium BC – beginning of the 1st millennium BC. In phase B9 (loci 351-358), they reached the bottom of a mudbrick 174

In 1995, Alizadeh (1994; 2003) surveyed Tol-e Nurabad and proposed a continuous occupation of the site between the Bakun and the Kaftari periods.

THE NEO-ELAMITE HIGHLANDS

153

structure/wall in the southeast corner of the trench (Weeks et al. 2009, 38). The northwestern part contained several layers of the collapsed mudbrick wall. In phase B9, the ceramologists registered a rather limited number of sherds belonging to the Elamite chaff- and grit-tempered ware,175 which was fabricated during the Middle Elamite period and continued to be used during the Neo-Elamite period (Weeks et al. 2009, 58). Phase B8 (loci 341-350) reveals the upper layers of a collapsed mudbrick wall (L342). In the mudbrick rubble, one could recover deposits of cultural material like ceramic sherds, bones and charcoal (Weeks et al. 2009, 38). In addition, new shapes appear in the Elamite chaff- and grit-tempered ware (Weeks et al. 2009, 58-59). The characteristic shapes of these wares include the Elamite goblet with the small convex base, thin body and long neck (TNP 2514). The goblets were decorated with horizontal lines (TNP 2465) and vertical raised bands with a round cross-section (TNP 2460). Close parallels to this Elamite goblet can be found in Middle Elamite Chogha Zanbil (Ghirshman 1966, LXXXVIII GTZ 8-3), Tall-i Malyan (Carter 1996, fig. 40.9) and in the Neo-Elamite layers at Susa (de Miroschedji 1981a, fig. 12.17 fig. 44.7). The most remarkable aspect on the early Neo-Elamite ceramic assemblage in Tol-e Nurabad is the complete absence of the painted Shogha and Teimuran pottery176 (Weeks et al. 2009, 77), which are the most common types in the Kur River Basin during the late 2nd and early 1st millennium BC. Phase B7b can be firmly dated to the Neo-Elamite (II) period. There are no intact architectural remains, only hardened mudbrick (Weeks et al. 2009, 38). This stratigraphic level revealed a rich homogeneous assemblage of Neo-Elamite wheel-made, well-fired chaff- and grit-tempered wares. In this layer, characteristic pottery consisted of small jars with everted rims, carinated body and fine raised cordons (with circular or square section on the shoulder). Although the manufacturing of the small jars started as early as the Middle Elamite period, the overall use of these small jars can also be assigned to the Neo-Elamite culture. A few shapes of the Elamite chaff- and grit-tempered wares remain present in the Neo-Elamite II period, despite a wide range of new shapes in the Neo-Elamite II period. Innovative decoration of the Neo-Elamite II phase (B7b) consists of incised grooves below the vessel rim. The slip on the outer surface had a wider variety of colors than in the previous phase and was sometimes smoothened (Weeks et al. 2009, 59). Phase B7a (loci 332-335) is leaning towards the end of the Neo-Elamite II period. It has no intact architecture (Weeks et al. 2009, 38). The area shows small patches of river pebbles. It is possible that these pebbles are related with the stone pavement of the subsequent phase B6 deposits. Neo-Elamite ceramics are present in this phase, in addition to a small number of possibly intrusive Achaemenid wares. In phase B7a, next to the Neo-Elamite II chaff- and grit-tempered ceramic assemblage, also early Achaemenid intrusions were found.177 Only one of them had an identifiable shape (TNP 2316), being an undecorated necked jar with flattened rim (Weeks et al. 2009, 59-60). Phase B6 (loci 327-331) belongs to the Neo-Elamite III period. The layer has a mixed assemblage of Neo-Elamite and Achaemenid ceramic sherds, bones and charcoal. The architectural remains consist of mudbrick collapse (sometimes hardened) and a paved floor (Weeks et al. 2009, 38). In the southwestern corner, a part of a mudbrick wall was recovered (L329). The deposits of this phase were probably placed against this wall. A paved floor of river pebbles (L330), likely to be associated with the L329 wall, was recorded in the southeastern corner. Although relatively few sherds were recovered, the mixed assemblage of Neo-Elamite and Achaemenid pottery indicates the transition from the Neo-Elamite to the Achaemenid period. The Elamite chaff- and grit-tempered wares are largely similar to the previous phases. The most common shapes for this period are the flat string-cut base (TNP 2245) (de Miroschedji 1981a: fig. 10.16 for parallels) and the convex base (TNP 2307, 2326). The only traceable decorations were incised grooves on the jar body (TNP 2305). The 175 The wheel made, well-fired ceramic is worked on the outside with thick brown, black and cream slip, but initially no additional decoration is identified. The fine paste with mineral and chaff inclusions has a color range from brown-orange to grey. 176 The Shogha vessels are hand made red grit-tempered ware. The exterior is sometimes smoothened with white slip of buff. The decorations are made with black paint and consist of horizontal bands, trees, animals or stars. The Teimuran ceramic is wheel-made grit-tempered ware with an orange-red colour. It is often decorated with slip, horizontal lines in brown or black or geometric designs like upright triangles (Carter 1992a, 295-297). 177 This wheel-made, well-fired Achaemenid pottery has a fine to coarse surface finish. The paste has a medium-fine grit with limestone inclusions and a color that ranges from orange-brown to orange buff.

154

THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY

undecorated Achaemenid pottery has finer surface finish compared the B7a phase. Except for one inverted rim (TNP 2329), all Achaemenid B6 ceramic examples were body sherds and therefore unable to define (Weeks et al. 2009, 60). Phase B5b is the first layer where Achaemenid deposits are dominating. At the northern edge of the trench, some mudbrick collapse was visible. Below this mudbrick, sections of the river pebbles paved floor were recorded (Weeks et al. 2009, 39). The floor was completely disposed in phase B6, which provides a closed context. The ceramic assemblage of phase B5b has the typical Achaemenid shapes, like the carinated bowls with everted rims. Most of the Achaemenid pottery shows no signs of surface treatment, and have a coarse exterior and interior surface finish. The sherds were decorated with carved horizontal lines and raised cordons with rectangular and circular sections (Weeks et al. 2009, 60). The limited size of the Tol-e Nurabad trench B prevented the archaeologists to find large Neo-Elamite architectural remains (Weeks et al. 2009, 72-73). The mudbrick wall, which appears in phase B8 and B7a-b, might be built on the foundations of an earlier late Middle Elamite mudbrick wall. The river pebbles paved floor from phase B6 provides a well-defined stratigraphy for the Neo-Elamite II phase (phase B7a-b). Phase B6 indicates a period of disruption and chaos. The ceramic assemblage of Tol-e Nurabad, however, represents the best highland reference to the Neo-Elamite pottery. The stratification of the Tol-e Nurabad assemblage is therefore mostly based on the better-known Neo-Elamite Susa and Ram Hormuz pottery, as the highland Talli Malyan site has an occupation gap. Some shapes that were used for a longer period can match the Tall-i Malyan assemblage. The ceramic results identify the arrival (B6) and the settlement (B5b) of the Achaemenids in the Mamasani region (Petrie et al. 2009, 181).

2.2.2. Neo-Elamite Settlements in the Mamasani Plain Within the frame of the Mamasani Archaeological Project, archaeologists conducted an extensive regional field survey (2003) in the Dašt-e Rostam-e Yek (DR 1) and the Dašt-e Rostam-e Do (DR 2) valleys of the Mamasani plain (Zeidi et al. 2009, 147-168).178 These particular valleys were part of the ancient transport corridor connecting the highlands of Fars (Kur River Basin) and lowland Khuzestan (Tuplin 1998, 104-108; Potts 1999, 88). According to McCall (2013, 193), the main route to Khuzestan via Behbahan and Ram Hormuz is accessed through the northwestern pass out of Dašt-e Rostam-e Do, while several passes in south and southeast Dašt-e Rostam-e Yek grant access to the Kur River Basin. Although the preliminary assessment of the survey results yields settlement patterns in the Mamasani region from the beginning of the 6th millennium BC until the 1st millennium BC (Zeidi et al. 2009, 147-168), this section will focus mainly on the Neo-Elamite findings and the transition periods preceding (Middle Elamite period) and following (Achaemenid period) the Neo-Elamite occupation phases. The survey team of the Mamasani project mapped 51 sites (MS-label), of which 8 Neo-Elamite I sites (MS 1, 8, 14, 18, 24, 42, 44, 51) were identified based on diagnostic sherds, apart from the Kurangun relief (MS 40). The settlement transition from the late Middle Elamite to the early Neo-Elamite period (NE I) in the surveyed Mamasani valleys is marked by the highland Shogha and Teimuran pottery from the Kur River Basin, where these types of pottery continued to be fabricated until c. 900-850 BC (Carter 1992, 295-297; Jacobs 1980, 115-119; Sumner 1994, 106; Boucharlat 2003, 261-263). However, the surveyed Mamasani sites also contain numerous references to late Middle Elamite plain-ware ceramic (Zeidi et al. 2009, 155), which is comparable to pottery found in Susa, Chogha Zanbil (Gasche 1973), and the Deh Luran sites (Wright 1981). Because the survey happened in an early stage of the Mamasani archaeological research and little comparable ceramic evidence from the Tol-e Nurabad soundings was available, not all Neo-Elamite sherds could be identified. Especially the local Neo-Elamite II ceramic could not be identified yet. During her doctoral research, 178

Sir Aurel Stein, who had worked in 1935 in the region, documented the settlements of Kurangun, Jinjan, Tol-e Spid, Dau-e Dokhtar and Tappeh Sorna (Stein 1940, 36-38, 47). In 1959, a Japanese team of the University of Tokyo conducted the first archaeological excavations in the Mamasani region. They completed the first sounding at Tepe Survan (Atarashi-Horiuchi 1963). These soundings confirmed the findings of Herzfeld (1926, 258), who described the mound as an Achaemenid city.

155

THE NEO-ELAMITE HIGHLANDS

McCall (2009; 2013, 196) revised the survey pottery and increased the Neo-Elamite presence in the Mamasani to 12 towns (MS 1, 3, 4, 8, 12, 14, 18, 22, 23, 24, 37, 51) of which 6 villages belonged to the Neo-Elamite II period (MS 1, 3, 12, 22, 23, 24) and 6 remained undefined (MS 4, 8, 14, 18, 37, 51). During the Neo-Elamite II period, the Mamasani region reveals a similar ceramic assemblage as sites such as Susa (de Miroschedji 1981a, 1981b, 1981c) and Ram Hormuz (Carter 1994). Additionally, a new type of local pottery, the so-called ‘NeoElamite plain ware’, with no parallels in the Susiana or the Anšanite ceramic was found at several Mamasani sites, including the well-stratified B7a-b layers of Tol-e Nurabad (Zeidi et al. 2009, 156; McCall 2013, 201). The archaeological sites with Neo-Elamite ceramic evidence are listed in the table below. Except for the Kurangun relief (MS 40), all Neo-Elamite sites are mounds or tells. The surveyed sites with numbers up to and including MS 24 are located in the northern Dašt-e Rostam-e Do valley, whereas the other tells belong to the southern Dašt-e Rostam-e Yek. Mamasani Valley site reference

Mamasani occupation period in the Site Gazetteer (Zeidi et al. 2009)

Mamasani occupation period by McCall (2013) and Potts (2008)

Mamasani site coordinates

Tol-e Nurabad

NE I = B9-8 (Tall-i Malyan EDD BL2) NE II = B7ba (Susa VRII 6-7) NE III = B6 EAch = B5b

NE I = B9-8 (Tall-i Malyan EDD BL2) NE II = B7ba (Susa VRII 6-7) NE III = B6 EAch = B5b

N30°07,344' E51°31,273'

MS-1 Tappeh Sorna

NE I (Shogha - Teimuran) Achaemenid

NE I NE II Achaemenid

N30°20,640' E51°17,627'

MS-3

/

NE I NE II

N30°20,406' E51°17,528'

MS-4 Tappeh Khajeh Mohammadi

Qaleh post-Achaemenid

NE I

N30°20,227' E51°17,241'

MS-8 Tappeh Pashedan

NE I (Shogha - Teimuran) NE II/III ?

NE I

N30°21,650' E51°18,941'

MS-12 Tol-e Khasm

Qaleh Achaemenid

NE I NE II Achaemenid

N30°20,951' E51°18,447'

MS-14 Tol-e Bondu

NE I (Shogha - Teimuran) Achaemenid

NE? Achaemenid

N30°19,522' E51°21,450'

MS-18 Tappeh Dehnau Sadat

NE I (Teimuran) Achaemenid

NE I Achaemenid

N30°18,739' E51°22,747'

MS-22 Tappeh Pahnu

Qaleh Achaemenid

NE I NE II Achaemenid

N30°20,548' E51°22,259'

MS-23 Tol-e Borj

Qaleh Achaemenid

NE I NE II Achaemenid

N30°19,493' E51°23,038'

MS-24 Tappeh Dozak

NE I (Shogha – Teimuran) NE II

NE I NE II

N30°17,742' E51°24,424'

MS-37 Tol-e Band Barik

Achaemenid

NE II Achaemenid

N30°15,292' E51°29,808'

MS-40 Kurangun reliëf

NE II

NE II

N30°14,675' E51°27,638'

MS-42 Se Tolun 2

NE I (Shogha-Teimuran) NE Achaemenid

Achaemenid

N30°14,906' E51°27,706'

MS44 Tol-e Mirza Mohammadi

NE I (Shogha-Teimuran) NE Achaemenid

Achaemenid

N30°15,1684 E51°24,640'

MS-51 Tol-e Spid

NE I = phase 13 (Teimuran)

NE I

N30°15,137' E51°29,060'

TOTAL

10 Neo-Elamite sites

13 Neo-Elamite sites

Table 12: Neo-Elamite and Achaemenid sites in the Mamasani Valley

156

THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY

The second largest site in the Mamasani, Tappeh Sorna (MS 1), is located approximately 30 kilometers to the north of Tol-e Nurabad. Tappeh Sorna is situated on the main communication route between the Kur River Basin and lowland Khuzestan. From this site, all passes to access the valley could be seen. MS 1 is described in the ‘Site Gazetteer’ (Zeidi et al. 2009, 159-167) as a site with Middle Elamite Qaleh, Shogha, Teimuran ware and Achaemenid pottery. After further research, B. McCall (2013, 196) was able to bridge the gap between the early Neo-Elamite period and the Achaemenid period by identifying Neo-Elamite pottery. MS 3, situated 300 meters south of Tappeh Sorna (MS 1), is initially identified as a Sassanid to Islamic site (Zeidi et al. 2009, 159), whereas McCall (2013, 200-201) could assign Neo-Elamite II diagnostic sherds to the site in a later analysis. The site has no traces of 3rd and 2nd millennium BC inhabitancy. So, this site is a rather isolated example of a temporary new settlement during the Neo-Elamite II period that does not extend into the Achaemenid period. In the Mamasani plain similar settlement patterns as in the Susiana lowland can be established: the amount as well as the surface size of villages declined during the Neo-Elamite period.179 The settlements which were strong enough to endure the century of Neo-Elamite political instability remained occupied after the arrival of the Persians. The site’s profile, a temporary Neo-Elamite occupation, seems unusual. In my opinion, a revision of the ceramic material of MS 3 would therefore be appropriate. The Site Gazetteer (Zeidi et al. 2009, 159) indicates the site of Tappeh Khajeh Mohammadi (MS 4) as a Qaleh (2nd millennium BC) occupation. The site was re-occupied in the post-Achaemenid period. McCall (2013, 196) adds a Neo-Elamite settlement phase. The occupation history of the site indicates several abandonments (Banesh, Achaemenid, Sassanid) and re-occupations (Lapui, Kaftari, post-Achaemenid, Islamic). So, a NeoElamite re-occupation can be influenced by the continuously settlement of the large site MS 1. MS 4 is situated towards the pass of Pol-e Pirim a kilometer southwest of Tappeh Sorna (MS 1), which was the best-orientated site in the Dašt-e Rostam-e Do. As Zeidi (et al. 2009, 156) already suggested, the relocation of some NeoElamite towns may be related to ‘the desire to monitor the pass between the valleys’. Tappeh Pashedan (MS 8), at 500 meters of the Sarab Siah springs, is evaluated in the Site Gazetteer (Zeidi et al. 2009, 160) as a possible Neo-Elamite (I) settlement with a continuous occupation history dating back to the Lapui period. McCall (2013, 200-201) confirmed this result and extended the occupation to the Neo-Elamite II phase. The inhabitancy at the MS 8 site does not continue into the Achaemenid period. The sites of Tol-e Khasm (MS 12) and Tol-e Bondu (MS 14) are located next to the river. MS 12 was permanently occupied from the Lapui to the Achaemenid period. The first survey of MS 12 (Zeidi et al. 2009, 161) was not able to select Neo-Elamite diagnostics, but McCall (2013, 200) solves that gap by revising the ceramic material. McCall does not include MS 14 in her list of Neo-Elamite sites, although the graph in her article (McCall 2013, 196 fig. 3) demonstrates a Neo-Elamite occupation phase. The Site Gazetteer (Zeidi et al. 2009, 169) already indicates a Shogha-Teimuran as well as an Achaemenid settlement. This means that the site was still inhabited during the Neo-Elamite I period and again in the Achaemenid era. The site’s profile is therefore highly suitable for further field research and a good candidate for finding a Neo-Elamite settlement as well. Tappeh Dehnau Sadat (MS 18) was a Middle Elamite village that gradually declined in the Neo-Elamite I period. The sites MS 22, MS 23 and MS 24 were also Middle Elamite towns in the vicinity of MS 18. The second analysis of McCall (2013, 200-201) resulted in additional information on the Neo-Elamite II settlement. Tappeh Pahnu (MS 22) and Tol-e Borj (MS 23) were occupied from the Middle Elamite to the Achaemenid period. Although Tappeh Dozak (MS 24) does not know an Achaemenid occupation phase, the town (MS 24) is considered one of the more important sites of the region during the late Middle Elamite (Shogha-Teimuran phase) and the Neo-Elamite periods.

179

From the 15 Middle Elamite towns (Tol-e Nurabad and 14 surveyed sites), 12 towns (Tol-e Nurabad and 11 surveyed sites) had a transitional 2nd to 1st millennium BC occupation. From that number only 7 sites (including Kurangun) could demonstrate a Neo-Elamite II presence (McCall 2013, 200-201). During the Achaemenid period, the amount of settlements again increased to 16 settlements (Potts 2008, 277).

THE NEO-ELAMITE HIGHLANDS

157

Although McCall predominantly evaluated the sites in the Dast-e Rostam-e Do, she assigns Tol-e Band Barik (MS 37) and Tol-e Spid (MS 51) in the Dast-e Rostam-e Yek to the Neo-Elamite I period, based on the presence of Shogha-Teimuren ware. However, since the Site Gazetteer assigns MS 37 to the Achaemenid and Islamic periods, it must have been a temporary settlement. In the Site Gazetteer, Se Tolun 2 (MS 42) and Tol-e Mirza Mohammadi (MS 44) are marked as continuously occupied from the Middle Elamite to the Achaemenid period. After reevaluating the ceramic assemblage of these villages, situated near the Kurangun relief (MS 40), McCall (2013, 196) catalogued them as Middle Elamite settlements. In the 1970s, Vanden Berghe (1983) documented the rock reliefs of the Mamasani region in a study on Iranian rock reliefs, while Seidl (1986) made a detailed description of the Kurangun relief. The Kurangun relief was enlarged with a side panel of worshippers probably during the Neo-Elamite period (Álvarez-Mon 2014, 756-758).180 If the Kurangun relief was adjusted in the 8th or 7th century BC, craftsmen needed a residence while working. In the fortress on the Kurangun hill, ceramic sherds of the 2nd and 1st millennium BC were found (Kleiss 1993). Although contested by McCall, the villages MS 42 and MS 44 could have provided a shelter for these men, while the inhabitants profited from this temporal presence. Tol-e Spid (MS 51) is situated about 6 kilometers of the Yagheh Sangar pass, which is the main connection between the Dašt-e Rostam-e Yek and the Dašt-e Rostam-e Do. At the site of Tol-e Spid, Herzfeld (1928, 83) found a brick inscription of Šilhak-Inšušinak I (c. 1150-1120 BC), confirming late Middle Elamite presence at the site (Potts 1999, 238). At a distance of one kilometer is the Rud-i Fahliyan stream and at two kilometers the Chešme Gurab spring arises, providing the area of agricultural land. The highest point of the mound was recorded at 16 meters above the surrounding Dašt-e Rostam-e Yek plain and at an altitude of 900 meters above sea level. Areal pictures of 1933 give the impression of a much larger surface size than the recorded two hectares (Potts 2008, 27). The proportions of Tol-e Spid might have changed throughout the 20th and 21st century due to farming activities. One small trench was dug at the northern face of the Tol-e Spid mound, which contained deposits from the early Lapui period to the post-Achaemenid era (Petrie & Seyedin 2009, 89-93). At this point, the trench does not reveal a Neo-Elamite stratigraphic sequence that could match the Tol-e Nurabad phase B7b (NeoElamite II), but that does not necessarily mean that Tol-e Spid had an occupation gap. We have to keep in mind that only a small trench was made, which does not necessarily represent all stratigraphic layers at the Tol-e Spid site, just like only one of the trenches at the Tol-e Nurabad site revealed Neo-Elamite material. Phase TS 13 probably belongs to the late 2nd millennium – early 1st millennium BC and is roughly contemporaneous to the Tol-e Nurabad phases B9-B8 (Petrie 2009, 96-97). Based on the recovery of some Neo-Elamite vessel fragments, phase 13 could be assigned to the early Neo-Elamite period (Petrie & Seyedin 2009, 181; McCall 2013, 200). Phase TS 12, on the other hand, can be firmly dated to the early Achaemenid period (c. 550-530 BC), based on radiocarbon sample of locus 3063. The survey of the Mamasani Archaeological project has shown that Neo-Elamite settlements were wellrepresented in the fertile highland plain, and that this region belonged to the geopolitical settings of the Neo-Elamite kingdom. The plain displayed a continuous Elamite occupation from the 2nd to 1st millennium BC until the rise of the Achaemenid empire. Of course, since the Mamasani region bordered the Kur River Basin, the inclusions of Achaemenid ceramic into Elamite layers must have occurred earlier than in the Elamite lowlands. After a second analysis of the ceramic assemblage, McCall (2013, 200-201) added 6 Neo-Elamite sites (MS 3, 4, 12, 22, 23, 37) to the already identified ones of the Site Gazetteer (MS 1, 8, 14, 18, 24, 42, 44, 51) and left out three other sites (MS 14, 42, 44), which were previously catalogued as Neo-Elamite sites. Since the ceramic forms between 2nd and 1st millennium BC pottery often resemble and the dating is therefore inconclusive, McCall dated MS 14 with clearly distinguishable Kaftari and Qaleh ware to the 2nd millennium BC. Therefore, we may assume that the Shogha and Teimuran pottery recorded in the Site Gazetteer (Zeidi et al. 180 Börker-Klähn 1982, 176 n° 128: Neo-Elamite; Seidl 1986, 13: late Middle Elamite; Vanden Berghe 1986, 163: Neo-Elamite; de Miroschedji 1989, 359: late Middle Elamite; Amiet 1992: late Middle Elamite; Potts 1999, 182-183 and 2004, 147: Neo-Elamite; ÁlvarezMon 2013a, 469-470: Neo-Elamite.

158

THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY

2009, 161) was not so conclusive as initially indicated. MS 42, a small site at the foot of the Kurangun rock appeared to yield exclusively Kaftari and Qaleh pottery, although the Site Gazetteer indicated a Qaleh – Neo-Elamite – Achaemenid occupation sequence. McCall assigned a similar fate to MS 44, another site near Kurangun, where initially a 2nd to 1st millennium BC settlement was established and later on reduced to 2nd millennium BC village. Moreover, one can link certain geographic patterns to the ceramic finds. The sites with compelling NeoElamite II evidence (MS 1, 3, 12, 22-24) were all situated in the Dašt-e Rostam-e Do, where they were widely dispersed and continuously occupied during the Middle to Neo-Elamite period. MS 3 and MS 24 did not continue to be occupied in the Achaemenid period. According to the analysis of McCall (2013, 196), the Dašt-e Rostam-e Yek provides evidence for two early Neo-Elamite sites (MS 37, 51), where Shogha-Teimuran ware was found. The only reference to the Neo-Elamite II presence in the Dašt-e Rostam-e Yek is the Kurangun relief (MS 40). However, until the 51 surveyed Mamasani sites are submitted to a complete field research, the Neo-Elamite results, based on ceramic diagnostics of surface finds, will remain tentative.

2.2.3. Mamasani Settlements in the Textual Sources By surveying the Mamasani area, the Australian archaeological mission gave some valuable information on Neo-Elamite presence in the highlands of Fars (McCall 2013, 200-204). Since the archaeological survey has demonstrated a Neo-Elamite ceramic assemblage in the two valleys of the Mamasani plain and since this area is the only provable Neo-Elamite ‘highland’ region in Fars at this point in research, the Mamasani area yields possible locations for the important Neo-Elamite highland cities, such as Hidalu, Huhnur and Gisat. The Annals of Assurbanipal inform us about 14 administrative districts in lowland Elam (BIWA T iv 44). Although less numerous than the lowland districts, the highland must have comprised several counties as well, assuming that the highland region was divided into a similar system. Toponym

Neo-Assyrian & Neo-Babylonian references

Neo-Elamite references aš

uru

ḫa-i-da-la: RINAP 3: 22 v 4 ḫi-da-lu: BIWA F iv 57 uru ḫa-a-a-da-a-lu: ABL 281 uru ḫ-a-a-da-lu: ABL 1311 uru ḫa-a-da-lu: ABL 1309 uru ḫi-da-lu: ABL 961; ABL 1311 uru ḫa-a-a-da-nu: ABL 280 uru

Hidalu

Achaemenid references

aš

hi-da-li: S. 65; S. 238 i-da-li: S. 69; S. 261 aš i-da-li(-ra): S. 37 be i-da-li(-ip): S. 168 aš

hi-da-li: PF 35; 200; 666; 738; 749; 842; 874; 1184; 1251; 1259; 1276; 1398; 1399; 1400; 1402-1407; 1542; 1571; 1597; 1790; 1848; 1851; 1994; 2057; PF-NN 221; 471; 485; 574; 1014; 1044; 1256; 1332; 1496; 1532; 1564; 1571; 1580; 1634; 1675; 1709; 1809; 1850; 1907; 2077; 2440; 2443; 2578

aš

lú

Huhnur

aš

ḫu-ḫa-an: ABL 281:14 (orthographic variant of Hunnir: Zadok 1981, 80). uru ḫu-un-nir: BIWA T iv 47

Hu-uh-nur: EKI 88:4; S. 28; S. 42; S. 43; S. 51; S. 63; S. 114; S. 115; S. 128; S. 159; S. 180; S. 192; S. 237; S. 244; S. 291

hu-na-ir: PF 10; 255; 479; 480; 734; 1790; 2019; 2082; Fort 4765; PF-NN 574; 1017; 1467; 1516; 1964; 2109; 2127; 2220; 2524 aš hu-na-ir-(pè-ip): Fort 6411; aš hu-nu-ri-iš: PF-NN 1216 aš ú-na-ir: PF 11; 406; 924; 970; 2026; PF-NN: 647; 1272; 1379; 1680; 1704; 1778; 1912; 1926; 2085 aš

aš

Gisat

gi-sa-at: PBP 43 aš gi-sa-at(-ir-ra): PBP 67 aš gi-sa-ti-(ip): EKI 86

gi-sa-at:

PF 35; 352; 534; 550; 1849; 1850-1851; PF-NN 182; 997; 1267; 1446; 1501; 2578 aš gi-sa-ti: PF-NN 565:4 aš gi-sa-ut: PF 1996; PF-NN 1122 aš ki-šá-at-ti: PF-NN 1013 aš

Pessitme

aš

pe-is-si-it-me: EKI 86

be-is-si-ut-me: PF 9, 102, 708, 1037, PF-NN 676, 906; 919; 1348; 1495; 2236 aš be-si-ut-me: PF 688, PFa 5

Table 13: Text references to Mamasani settlements

THE NEO-ELAMITE HIGHLANDS

159

2.2.3.1. Hidalu The toponym Hidalu is attested in the Mesopotamian, Neo-Elamite and Achaemenid sources. Although there are variations in the spelling of Hidalu, such as Haidala, Hidalu and Idali, they all refer to the NeoElamite highland capital. The geographical outlines of the city of Hidalu start with the somewhat vague description of the Assyrian king Sennacherib, who located Elam’s Neo-Elamite highland capital ‘in the distant mountains’ (qereb šadê rūqūti) on his 7th campaign against Elam (694/3 BC). Kudur-Naḫundu (Kudur-Naḫḫunte), the Elamite, heard about the conquest of his cities and fear fell upon him. He brought (the people of) the rest of his cities into fortresses. He abandoned the city Madaktu, his royal city, and took the road to the city Ḫaidala, which is in the distant mountains. RINAP 3, 22 iv 81-v 5

Half a century later, the Assyrian king Assurbanipal (646 BC) succeeded in intruding the Elamite highland region up to the district border of Hidalu. Again, this region is described as a refugee place ‘into the distant mountains’ for the Elamite king Huban-haltaš III (BIWA F iv 64; ABL 1309; ABL 281). Other than to a refugee resort for Elamite kings, Hidalu had been a royal residence for at least two ‘kings of Hidalu’, ŠuturNahhunte and Tammaritu, who were presumably client kings of the king of Elam (Stolper 2004b, 308-309). The Elders of Elam addressed a letter to the Assyrian king Assurbanipal (ABL 961: 11, 13) with a request to send Tammaritu to Hidalu in order to resolve the disorder and the sheep-rustling by the Persians (Waters 2000, 59 n. 19; PNA 3/II, 1306). The late Neo-Elamite Susa Acropole tablets connect Hidalu to an individual with an Iranian name Išpugurda, the Zampegirian (S. 238), who can be linked to the tribe called parsip zampegirip (S. 11, S. 94; Henkelman 2008, 42). These ‘Zampegir Persians’ possibly referred to a specific tribal entity with an Indo-Iranian identity, living in the neighborhood of Hidalu. Although it is described as a highland settlement, Hidalu has often been considered as an Elamite lowland city by modern scholars. Ghirshman (1954, 31) attempted to locate Hidalu in Shushtar, an area belonging to the larger Susiana plain. Since Assurbanipal marched at least 600 kilometers from Susa to reach the Hidalu borderland (BIWA F iv 66), this hypothesis can already be excluded based on the geographical proximity of Susa. As the Neo-Elamite highland capital Hidalu kept its position as an important town during the Achaemenid period, Hinz (1961, 250-251) tried to locate the city based on its occurrence in the Persepolis Fortification letters (PF 1790, 1848, 1851). The Persepolis documents demonstrate that Hidalu was intensively used as a way-station on the ‘royal road’ from Persepolis to Susa, a road that already must have existed during the NeoElamite period. Most scholars (Hinz 1961, 251; Hinz 1975a; ElW 656, 741-742; also Hansman 1972, 108 n. 54: Kuh-e Giluyeh; Koch 1986, 142; 1990, 202; Fuchs & Parpola 2001, 33-34; Stronach 2003, 255; Álvarez-Mon 2004, 16-20; Stolper 2004b, 309) locate the toponym Hidalu in or near the Behbahan region or in the direction of Bushehr (Arfa’i 1999, 42: Qaleh Sefid), which however geographically belongs to the lowlands (Potts 2005, 175; Moghaddam & Miri 2007, 23). Therefore, the suggestion of Henkelman (2008, 44 n. 112) of locating Hidalu in the Mamasani region is worthwhile investigating. Hallock (1977, 129, 131-133; also Arfa’i 1999, 36) already discovered that documents of certain districts in the Persepolis Fortification archive were stamped with the same seal. The tablets deriving from the Fahliyan district (one of the Mamasani valleys), a district that fell in the scope of the regional Persepolis administration, were impressed with two specific seals (PFS 0002 and PFS 0004: Garrison & Root 2001, 535; Potts 2008, 283-284). Based on the toponyms mentioned in the Persepolis Fortification tablets with those particular seals, Potts (2008, 284) and Henkelman (2008, 44 n. 112: western Fahliyan) have identified several towns in the Fahliyān region, one of which is Hidalu. Based on the textual evidence, Hidalu must have been a settlement in the wider Fahliyan area on the road from Persepolis to Susa. The toponym is not mentioned in the textual sources before the Neo-Elamite period, which suggests that it must have been a new settlement large enough to serve as a southeastern outpost of the Neo-Elamite kingdom (ABL 961), and provide accommodation for the Elamite highland king of Hidalu (cf. supra). Next to a mixed Elamite-Iranian population, the city also housed an enclave of Babylonians, who had their own representative body within the city (Leichty 1983). Hidalu was probably a rather large fortified city, located at a strategic position in the Mamasani valley. Returning to the Mamasani

160

THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY

survey (Zeidi et al. 2009, 151; McCall 2013, 196), there are thirteen Neo-Elamite settlements and about 18 Achaemenid settlements in the Mamasani region (Potts 2008, 277). Based on the Mamasani survey results (Potts 2008, 279; McCall 2013, 196), there are six mounds with a Neo-Elamite to Achaemenid transition (Tol-e Nurabad, MS 1, MS 14, MS 18, MS 37, MS 51). Most of these settlements (Tol-e Nurabad, MS 1, MS 14, MS 51) are occupied from the Old Elamite period onwards. Only two possible locations with a limited Neo-Elamite and Achaemenid occupation phase could be suggested for Hidalu: Tappeh Dehnau Sadat (MS 18) and Tol-e Band Barik (MS 37). However, none of these suggestions seems truly convincing when reviewing its geographical position into the Mamasani landscape. Judging on the fact that Hidalu was the outpost of the Neo-Elamite state, the location of Hidalu should be looked for in the area of Tol-e Nurabad, because this mound was the most southern point of the Mamasani survey project that yielded compelling Neo-Elamite evidence. 2.2.3.2. Huhnur The Assyrian sources locate the Huhnur181 district, where Assurbanipal conquered twenty cities, at the border with Hidalu (Borger 1996, 240-241: Cohen F5). If the Assyrian army was advancing from the northwest to the southeast, they arrived at Huhnur before reaching the border of Hidalu. In the Assyrian Annals the toponym is associated with Hidalu and Bašimu. Also in the Achaemenid Persepolis documents, the proximity between Huhnur and Hidalu is stressed (Potts 2008, 293). Similar to Hidalu, the Persepolis Fortification documents coming from Huhnur were impressed with a specific seal (PFS 0004) that was used for the Fahliyan administration (Hallock 1977, 129, 131-133; Garrison & Root 2001, 535; Henkelman 2008, 44 n. 112). Accordingly, Huhnur was located northwest of Hidalu on the road from Persepolis to Susa. Huhnur, a toponym meaning literally ‘enclosure, fortress’ (ElW 685-686), is an Elamite site that already existed in the early Old Elamite period and had a continued occupation throughout the Middle Elamite, NeoElamite and eventually Achaemenid period (Vallat 1993, 101-102). The oldest reference to the city dates from the Awan period (reign of Puzur-Inšušinak). In an Ur III text (Edzard & Farber 1974, 76-77), Huhnur is preceded by the logogram NIM, meaning ‘highland’. Other texts use the epithet ‘Gate to Anšan’ for Huhnur (Duchene 1986, 67-68). In the Middle Elamite period, texts from Haft Tepe refer to a princess of Huhnur (DUMU.MUNUS EŠŠANA šà hu-uh-nu-ri: Vallat 1993, 102) During the Neo-Elamite period, at least 4% of the Susa Acropole tablets were recorded at Huhnur, which makes the city the second largest administrative center after Susa. It is therefore highly possible that Huhnur was the main administrative center of the highlands, where most documents and commodities were assembled to be sent to Susa. Hidalu, which issued only one percent of the Susa Acropole tablets, had probably a more political and defensive function within the Neo-Elamite kingdom. Hidalu possibly had a local administration, while in Huhnur the regional administration was assembled to be transported to Susa. The importance of the city is displayed in the royal stele of Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak, where it is mentioned together with the cities of Gisat, Pessitme, Šepšilak and Šamaršušu. Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak also summons the god Ruhuratir, who was in the Old Elamite period already connected to the city of Huhnur in the Akkadian Malamir contracts (Duchene 1986, 66) and in an inscription of Amar-Sin (Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2005, also Henkelman 2007, 449). Suggestions of scholars (Cameron 1936, 58 n. 43; Hinz 1963, 19-20; 1964, 102; 1971, 647; 1975b, 488), who have tried to locate Huhnur in the Elamite lowlands, cannot be accepted based on the proximity with Hidalu, and on the highland references in connection to Huhnur. Moreover, a Susa Acropole text (S. 51) strengthens the highland hypothesis connecting the parsip datyanap, another Iranian tribe, to the Huhnur region. Based on this argument, the suggestion of Duchene (1986, 66) of locating Huhnur in current Behbahan can be excluded. Recently, Mofidi-Nasrabadi (2005; also Henkelman 2008, 112 n. 245; 2012b, 934) identified the site of Tol-e Bormi as the ancient city Huhnur, based on a stone inscription from the reign of Amar-Sin of 181

Potts (2008, 293) has already pointed out the ‘unanimity amongst scholars on the equation of Achaemenid Hunar/Unar, the Elamite Huhnur(i) and the Akkadian Hunnir(u/i)’. On the Neo-Elamite orthography hu-uh-pír, see Duchene (1986, 65-66) and Vallat (1993, 101-102).

THE NEO-ELAMITE HIGHLANDS

161

the Ur III dynasty that was supposedly found at the site. However, several surveys in the Ram Hormuz region have confirmed that the town of Tol-e Bormi was founded in the sukkalmah period and continued to be occupied until the end of Sassanian times (Wright & Carter 2003; Alizadeh 2013; Alizadeh, Ahmadzadeh & Omidfar 2014). Moreover, Alizadeh (2013) refuted this suggestion of Mofidi-Nasrabadi, claiming that he was the one who found this inscription behind the Susa Museum at Shush. Herzfeld (1968, 176-178), on the other hand, has proposed the Kotal-i Sangar pass between Bašt and Fahliyan as the location for the ancient city of Huhnur. In the 1940s, Stein (1940) already indicated this place as ‘the Persian Gates’. Hansman (1972, 118), remaining in the Fahliyan plain, identified the Tang-i Khas pass as the ‘Gate to Anšan’. Although the suggestions of Herzfeld and Hansman were refuted by Duchene (1986, 69-70), at least these sites fit the ‘highland’ pattern. Arfa’i’s (1999, 43-44) proposal that Huhnur may have been situated in the neighborhood of a mountain called Unâri (north of Fahliyan) could be an important clue. Based on the textual evidence, we are looking for a site in the Mamasani plain that already existed during the Kaftari phase (Ur III period) and remained occupied throughout the 2nd and 1st millennium BC. Since Huhnur is the gate to the highlands, it has to be located close to one of the Mamasani passes. The main pass to enter the Mamasani valley from Behbahan via Bašt is Tol-e Pirim (Roustaei et al. 2009, 23). Potts (2008, 278) suggested that the town Kurpun may have been located at Tappeh Sornah (MS 1). However, the city of Kurpun is only known from the Achaemenid period, which does not comply with the long occupation history of the MS 1. Tappeh Sornah, however, does match all the archaeological qualifications for an identification as the historical town Huhnur. 2.2.3.3. Pessitme The only Neo-Elamite attestation of the toponym B/Pessitme occurs in the late Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak stele. Although the context is not entirely certain, the landlords of Bissitme and Šepšilak refused to show obedience to the Elamite king Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak and his gods (EKI 86:9-11). Although not mentioned in the texts with the specific Fahliyan seal impression, Henkelman (2008, 44 n. 112) catalogues Bessitme among the Fahliyan towns. In the Persepolis Fortification texts, Pessitme is recorded as the 21st way-station on the road from Persepolis to Susa. Unlike Vallat (1993, 40-41), Koch (1990, 399) differentiates between the toponyms Pessitme and Pezatamme. Pessitme would be located near the modern Dizful (Koch 1986, 146-147), while Pezatamme was the fifteenth stage on the Persepolis-Susa road presumably somewhere in the Ram Hormuz plain (Koch 1986, 144). Koch (1986, 146-147) situated one of these toponyms in the Ram Hormuz area because of a large early Islamic site (RH-26) called Bisetin (Wright & Carter 2003, 81; Potts 2008, 290) According to König (1965, 173 n. 11), Pessitme is the same toponym as Pesi in the rock reliefs of Hanne (EKI 75:27; EKI 76:11). The Elamite toponym Pessitme is often associated with the Akkadian variant Bašimu, which is already attested in the 3rd millennium BC texts as vassal state of the Southern Mesopotamian Ur III dynasty (Steinkeller 1982, 242-243). In the Annals of Assurbanipal (Borger 1996, 240-241: Cohen F5), Pessitme is mentioned before the Assyrian army entered the Huhnur district or the ‘Gate to the highlands’, which would indicate that the toponym was located northwest of Huhnur in a transition zone between the Elamite lowland and highlands. Disagreeing with Le Strange (1912, 332: Bašt = Anburan), Hinz (1971, 661; also Hallock 1978, 109; Arfa’i 1999, 44; Henkelman 2008, 121, 502 n. 1164) identified ancient Bessitme with modern Bašt between Fahliyan and Behbahan. Roustaei (et al. 2009, 23) recorded that when leaving the Mamasani plain via the Pol-e Pirim pass, one passes by the town of Bašt on the road to Behbahan. If Huhnur could be identified with Tappeh Sornah (MS 1), then the modern town Bašt seems to me a plausible candidate for ancient Pessitme. 2.2.3.4. Gisat Gisat is a toponym exclusively attested in the Neo-Elamite and the Achaemenid period. In the Atta-hamitiInšušinak stela, the people of Gisat are mentioned in connection to a local king Halkataš (EKI 86:2). Next to

162

THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY

Pessitme, the stela also mentions the toponyms Šepšilak and Šamaršušu, which were probably located in the highland region as well. The toponym Gisat became famous in scholarly literature as the town from which the Persepolis Bronze Plaque derived (Waters 2000, 87-89; Tavernier 2004, 39; Basello 2013, 257). This rectangular bronze slab was uncovered in the Treasury room (Schmidt 1953, 180) during the Persepolis excavation of Herzfeld (1931). However, scholars (Potts 1999, 291; Henkelman 2008, 172) assume that the Persians took this bronze object from Gisat to Persepolis, when this region changed from the Susa administrative jurisdiction to the Persepolis administration under the early Achaemenid kings (Darius I). The Elamite text on the slab (c. 590-550 BC) is probably a royal charter from a Neo-Elamite king that assigns land to a man Ururu in Gisat (Steve, Vallat & Gasche 2002/03, 483; Basello 2013, 252). Based on these associations, Koch (1987, 266; 1990, 213-216; also Vallat 1993, 68) placed Gisat on the boundary between Elam (Khuzestan) and Persia (Fars) and catalogued the site as the 18th stop on the Royal Road (contra Tuplin 1998). Gisat is not mentioned in the Neo-Elamite Susa Acropole archive, which may indicate that at that time Gisat was not a major administrative center. Based on the political-administrative organization of the NeoElamite kingdom, the city must have been situated in one of the Elamite highland districts. From the Persepolis Fortification texts (PF 35; 534; 550; 1849; 1850-1851; 1996; PF-NN 182), it becomes clear that this administrative district must have been Hidalu (PF 35; PF 1851). In the Achaemenid era, Gisat was an important cultic center, where lan-offerings were performed. The Persepolis tablets mentioning Gisat are imprinted with the sealing PFS 20 and PFS 53, which are not the common seal impressions for the Fahliyan district (Basello 2013, 253 n. 50). Henkelman (2008, 482-483) connects PFS 20 specifically to the provisioning of lan-sacrifices, an activity which was popular in other former Neo-Elamite cities such as Hidalu and Huhnur. Gisat also had a large storage facility for grain, where the harvest of the surrounding area was collected. If there was a grain surplus at Gisat, the Achaemenids occasionally traded commodities for livestock of Zagros agro-pastoralist tribes (Henkelman 2005b; 2008, 314-317). In the Achaemenid era, the primary importance of the city Gisat was situated on a cultic level, which might have been the case under the Neo-Elamite kingdom as well. Since Gisat was probably no district capital, its proximity to Hidalu, as pointed out by Henkelman (2008, 314), can be secured. In sum, one can conclude that the Mamasani plain yields the best evidence for Neo-Elamite settlements in the highlands of Fars. Several highly important cities of the Neo-Elamite crown, such as Hidalu, Huhnur, Gisat and Pessitme were located in or near the Mamasani region. This plain was by consequence of primary importance for the geopolitical setting of the Neo-Elamite kingdom.

2.3. The Southern Periphery Beyond the Mamasani region, the evidence for Neo-Elamite political power or even Elamite occupation becomes scarce. In the 2nd millennium BC, the Kur River Basin182 had been for centuries one of the paramount regions of the Elamite kingdom. The monarchs ruling over both the Elamite lowlands and highlands named themselves su-un-ki-ik ašan-za-an aššu-šu-un-ka4 ‘I am king of Anzan and Susa’, a royal title highlighting the importance of the highlands. The earliest Elamite king referring to his kingdom using this titulary was Eparti II (c. 1960 BC; MDP 28, 7), the 9th king of the Šimaški dynasty as well as the first sukkalmah ruler (Stolper 1982, 55). From the Kidinuid monarchy onwards (c. 1500-1400 BC), ‘king of Anzan and Susa’ became the principle element in the titulary of the Elamite kings and this lasted throughout the Middle Elamite kingdom (c. 15001100 BC). During the reigns of the late Middle Elamite Šutrukid kings, the Kur River Basin as well as the Fasa & Darab region still belonged to the geopolitical setting of the Elamite kingdom. Although there is ample archaeological evidence, the excavation of Tepe Darvazeh in Fasa reveals that regions south of the Kur River Basin were abandoned during the late Middle Elamite period. Based on the high 182 The Kur River Basin is a region in the contemporary province of Fars and is divided in several counties with historically important cities. These counties are Darab & Fasa, Marvdasht, and Pasargad. Anšan, the Persepolis district, the Kamfiruz & the Naqš-e Rostam district are located in Marvdasht; Pasargadae in Pasargad; Darvazeh Tepe in Fasa.

THE NEO-ELAMITE HIGHLANDS

163

percentage of Shogha ware (1600-1000 BC), Darvazeh Tepe reached its peak in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. Since Teimuran ware was found in the latest occupation phase of Darvazeh Tepe, one can conclude that the site was abandoned after that date (Jacobs 1980, 115-119; 1994, 71-72). Radiocarbon data determine that the latest fabrication date of the Teimuran ceramic on the Darvazeh Tepe site is 800 BC. Jacobs (1994, 72) assumed that Darvazeh Tepe lost its importance when the late Middle Elamite kings created the southern outpost of the Elamite kingdom at Anšan around 1200 BC. Thereafter the town remained inhabited until c. 800 BC, but became isolated from the Elamite kingdom. Probably pastoralism became the dominant lifestyle during the 1st millennium BC (de Miroschedji 1990, 62-65; Amiet 1992, 86-88). Returning to the discussion of the geopolitical setting of the Neo-Elamite kingdom, one can see, based on the Tepe Darvazeh results, that Neo-Elamite political power in the 1st millennium BC did not exist in the Kur River Basin (Potts 1999, 253, 262). Most certainly after the reign of Hutelutuš-Inšušinak (c. 1120-1100 BC), the late Middle Elamite kings gave up their southernmost part of the highlands. The reasons for this reduction of territory are speculative. Perhaps the decline of Elamite monarchy after the military confrontation with the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar I (c. 1125-1104 BC) in combination with the arrival of (Indo-)Iranian nomadic tribes in southwestern Iran may have contributed to the abandonment of Elamite settlements in this area. And if the inhabitants of the Fasa & Darab plain survived the Elamite Dark Ages, they must have migrated before the Neo-Elamite kingdom regained international power under the Neo-Elamite king Hubannikaš I (743-717 BC). Therefore, the Kur River Basin in the Fars province is the southernmost plain over which the Neo-Elamite monarchs could have ruled. This large highland plain, primarily watered by the Kur and Sivand rivers, comprises a number of smaller intermontane valleys (Kamfiruz, Persepolis, Marvdašt), in which highly important cities for the history of Elam as well as the Persian empire are located: Anšan (Tall-i Malyan), Pasargadae (Tal-e Takht) and Persepolis (Takht-i Jamshid). Pasargadae was built by the Teispid king Cyrus the Great (c. 550-529 BC), while Persepolis, founded by the Achaemenid king Darius I (521-486 BC), became one of the major centers of the Persian empire.

2.3.1. The Kur River Basin The Neo-Elamite history of the Kur River Basin is a highly problematic issue, because there is hardly any archaeological or philological material available for this region (Potts 1999, 262). The lack of historical evidence is partially due to the limited amount of excavations in the Kur River Basin.183 In the Kur River Basin only a few references to the Neo-Elamite culture can be analyzed. A hilltop fortress Qal’eh Tal-e Kabud, located some 73 kilometers south of modern Shiraz, has been attributed to the Iron Age based on diagnostic surface sherds (Kleiss 1995; Potts 1999, 262), although a more accurate date within the Neo-Elamite period is difficult to determine. Similarly, a few cairn burials in the Fars province may date to the early Iron Age (Boucharlat 1998). Potts (1999, 262), however, remarks that due to our limited knowledge on these burials, a Neo-Elamite I dating would be a premature conclusion. 2.3.1.1. The Kur River Basin during the Dark Ages It was Sumner’s (1972, 24, 40-41; 1994) archaeological survey work in 1968 that forms much of the basis for our current understanding of settlement patterns in the Kur River Basin. Most sites in this area have an occupation gap between 1000 and 600 BC. The most prominent city in the Kur River Basin for Elamite civilization is doubtlessly the ancient highland capital Anšan, which was identified by Sumner in 1971 with the site of Tall-i 183

The earliest systematic fieldwork in the Kur River Basin was undertaken by Vanden Berghe (1952, 212-215; 1954, 400-405; 1959, 41-44) in the early 1950s. He developed a regional chronology of the region based on the ceramic evidence recovered from the twenty soundings in the Marvdašt area. He distinguished four chronological phases for the 2nd to the 1st millennium BC, which he named the Kaftari, Qaleh, Shogha and Teimuran cultures.

164

THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY

Malyan, covering around 200 hectares.184 The main feature of the site is a low flat-topped mound of about 130 hectares, standing about four to six meters above the surrounding plain. Sumner (1974, 155-180; 1989) uncovered on three sides of the mound are the remains of a 5 kilometers long city wall, dating to the late Banesh (early 3rd millennium BC) and Kaftari phases (early 2nd millennium BC) when the city reached its largest extent. During the 2nd millennium BC, the settlement patterns for the Kur River Basin point to a gradual decline of the sedentary occupation and by consequence a reduced focus on this region. Summer (1974, 157-158; 1988, 318; also Jacobs 1980, 63-83) noted that the Kur River Basin comprised about 20.000 to 30.000 inhabitants divided over 77 villages during the Kaftari period (2000-1600 BC), while this number shrunk during the Qaleh and Shogha-Teimuran period (1600-1000 BC) to about 4000 to 8000 people living in 28 villages, concentrated in the southeastern and central Kur River Basin (Sumner 1973; 1994, 102), such as Tall-e Teimuran (Vanden Berghe 1959, 44; de Miroschedji 1990, 52) and Tall-e Zahar (Miroschedji 1990, 53). In the ceramic assemblage of these villages, two new types of pottery, the Shogha and Teimuran ceramics, appear during the late 2nd millennium BC and early 1st millennium BC (Vanden Berghe 1954, 404). The Shogha and Teimuran pottery continued to be used until c. 900 BC, although Sumner (1994, 105) proposes a later date c. 850 BC in an attempt to bridge the gap between the Middle Elamite and Achaemenid period. This proposal is followed by Young (2003, 246-248), because a certain number of sherds found on Achaemenid settlements have no match with the Pasargadae diagnostics and therefore can only predate the Achaemenid era. Sumner (1994) also connected the Shogha/Teimuran ceramic to the emergence of Iranian immigrants in Fars between 1500 BC and 1000 BC, while the Qaleh pottery would be fabricated by the highland Elamites. Nevertheless, such a connection between pottery types and different ethnical groups in the Kur River Basin is not generally accepted (Dyson 1973; Sumner 1974, 156-158, 175; 1994; de Miroschedji 1985, 289-292; Overlaet 1997; Stronach 1997, 35-37; 2007; Boucharlat 1998, 149; 2003, 261-263; 2005, 226-228, 276-277; Young 2003, 246-248). Anyhow, the drastic reduction of inhabitants in this region, possibly due to climate changes (Henkelman 2008, 45), resulted in a decrease of the amount of settlements and the surface size of these settlements in the Kur River Basin. By the beginning of the 1st millennium BC, one cannot assign large-scale permanent occupation to the region anymore (Sumner 1986, 1-31). Most Assyriologists suggest therefore that by the end of the 2nd millennium BC (1300-1000 BC), Anšan had lost its prominent position as highland capital in the Elamite kingdom due to external as well as internal political problems and remained not more than an outpost on the far eastern edge of the Elamite world (Carter 1994, 65) that was abandoned around 1000 BC (Sumner 1974; 1994, 97-99; Carter & Stolper 1984, 172-176; 1994, 65-67; de Miroschedji 1985, 289-295; 1990a, 52-55, 83-85; 2003, 30-34; Potts 1999, 193, 247-252). Some architectural features shed a limited insight on the historical importance of the city of Anšan during the early Iron Age: rooms, a building, and a tomb. 1) The EE 39 trench, situated immediately east of EE 41 (10 × 12 m), might reveal some additional evidence on early Neo-Elamite settlement in the city of Anšan (Sumner 1972, 175). In the first level, a crudely built cluster of rooms was uncovered with one or perhaps two courts. The chronological sequence of this building might correspond to the 28 Shogha-Teimuran settlements in the Kur River Basin. 2) On the highest point of the EDD section at the main Malyan mound, a monumental Middle Elamite building (EDD IVa) was discovered. This building was destroyed by fire around 1100 BC. Some of the remaining walls were reused to build pottery kilns (EDD IIIb). Later, these pottery kilns were leveled, together with the old Middle Elamite structure, in order to provide a foundation for a new construction (Carter 1994, 65-66). A less formal building was erected in the IIIa phase and was found just below the surface level. This later building, which might be dated to the Neo-Elamite I period, was subjected to heavy erosion, which leaves us with only a few isolated features. The C-14 samples date level IIIa to c. 1140-1030 BC with 184

The Anšan site was first excavated by Ferydoun Tavalloli of the Archaeological Service of Iran in 1961. No records or publications of that effort seem to exist, though some artifacts ended up in the Persepolis Museum. In 1999, Kamyar Abdi (2001, 73-98) continued the work of W. Sumner at Tall-i Malyan. A further 6 weeks dig was conducted in 2004 by the Cultural Heritage Organization of Iran and the archaeological team of J. Alden (Alden & Balcer 1978, 79-92; 2005, 39-47) of Dartmouth College. Most recently, Abbas Alizadeh (2003) surveyed some intermontane valleys northwest of the Kur River Basin.

THE NEO-ELAMITE HIGHLANDS

165

an error range to 950-850 BC. The only site contemporaneous to these architectural phases of the EE and EDD section is a structure at Darvazeh Tepe that was also abandoned around this era (Sumner 1986, 4). 3) Next to a partially preserved building in phase IIIa, the EDD section also provides us a structure of a different nature: burial 47 (Carter 1994, 66, fig. 3; 1996, 47, 51, fig. 45; Potts 1999, 285-286). The bottom of this shallow grave pit was located at the same height as the eroded top of wall 50 (EDD IVa) of the Middle Elamite building. The archaeologists were not able to recognize the upper level of the burial. The tomb contained on the inside a skeleton in a fetal position facing north. The body was decorated with jewelry: five bronze or cupper bracelets, a necklace of beads, six tubular faience beads and a blue glazed faience seal. The deceased was probably covered with a shroud or wore a garment. No textile was recovered, but the four dome-head pins, of which two short and two long ones, at the neck betray the covering of the body with textile. Similar jewelry and pins were unearthed at the Achaemenid city Persepolis (Schmidt 1957, pl. 46.11). This city was founded by Darius the Great c. 520 BC, which is almost five hundred years later than the suggested date of burial 47. The blue glazed seal that was found inside the tomb is difficult to date. The seal depicts in a framed scene a man leading a horse under a sky with seven stars. The man holds a vertical object in his hand, which might be a weapon or a stick to poke the horse. The proportion of this figure with his weapon/stick and the manes and limbs of the horse have a crude stylistic comparison with the Iron Age metal figurines and vessels of the Marlik site (Negahban 1983, 16-17). The man with the horse can be found in the Middle Elamite glyptic, although the horse seems to be more a highland tradition. The additional stars on the Anšan seal also occur in 1st millennium BC Elamite as well as in Mesopotamian glyptic (Porada 1965, fig. 30). Inside the Anšanite tomb 47, archaeologists found four irregularly shaped hand-made ceramic vessels and an amount of body sherds from similar hand-made jars. A large jar was placed at the forehead, a small plain pot and a larger one was situated between the body’s arms and knees, while a fourth small jar was placed below the feet. The shape of the jars was merely the same: everted rim, narrow shoulder with round body and a flat base. One jar — the larger one between the arms and knees — was decorated with a faded painted pattern on the shoulder (Carter 1994, 66). The pottery of burial 47 can be vaguely related to a group of jars from the heavily disturbed Anšanite burial 67 in DD41. Only one handled cup from this burial 67 could resemble early Iron Age types. Outside the Anšan territory, these jars have no parallels to Neo-Elamite shapes and styles from the Susiana, Behbahan or Mamasani regions. Even the contemporaneous Teimuran pottery found in the southeastern part of the Kur River Basin provides no matches. Moreover, a link to the early Achaemenid pottery of the Kur River Basin can be excluded. The Achaemenid styled jewelry, the highland glyptic, the technical simplicity of the pottery found inside the tomb and the absence of any reference to the Neo-Elamite civilization might suggest that this territory was occupied by nomadic tribes with their own ceramic assemblage and an Elamite influenced artistic tradition during the early phase of the Neo-Elamite period. Therefore, one can assume that the Neo-Elamite kings lost their claim on the Middle Elamite highland capital of Anšan during the 1st millennium BC (Carter 1994, 66; 1996, 51; de Miroschedji 2003, 35; Potts 2009 et al., 285). Until today, we lack archaeological evidence for the Kur River Basin between roughly 850 and 600 BC. The absence of archaeological information on the Neo-Elamite II and III culture does not necessarily mean that the whole valley was abandoned. The archaeological surveys in the Kur River Basin are limited and may have overseen some important information. The ceramic material from the Neo-Elamite II and III period was not yet classified, thus difficult to recognize in the early 1970s. Once the Elamite authorities lost their control over the region, the Elamite Anšanite population might have returned to the traditional pastoralist way of life or to the border fortresses in the neighboring Mamasani plain. 2.3.1.2. The Kur River Basin in the late Elamite Sources The Anšan region is, however, not completely unspoken during the Neo-Elamite II and III period. The latest Elamite textual corpus found in the Anšan region is the Tall-i Malyan archive (NE I; Stolper 1984, 9;

166

THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY

2013, 402). Hereafter, Anšan is mentioned again in a fragmentary text of Sargon II, where the Anšanites occur in connection to Elam and the Ellipians (SAA 3, 18). In the Sennacherib prism, the Assyrian king describes a contingent of Anšanite troops within the army of the Elamite king Huban-menanu during the battle of Halule in 691 BC (Quintana 2011, 169). He (the Elamite king Huban-menanu) assembled his troops and gathered himself a large body of confederates; the men of the lands Parsuaš, Anzan, Paširu, Ellipi, Chaldea and all the Aramaeans. Frahm 1997, 132; RINAP 3, 22:43b, 23:35, 34:44b, 35, 40b; Potts 2011, 37

The Anšanite cohort is named amongst troops of Parsuaš, Paširu and Ellipi, which were all (Indo-)Iranian groups connected in a political or cultural way to Elam. The fact that Anšan is never mentioned in the Assyrian Annals as a royal city or even as a part of the Elamite kingdom may confirm that Anšan — and by extension the Kur River Basin — was in Assyrian eyes not part of the Elamite kingdom in the 1st millennium BC (Quintana 2011, 169-170). This may suggest that by the 7th century BC Anšan and the chiefdoms mentioned in the Sennacherib prism did not belong to the geopolitical space of Elam, but that the people living in Anšan, perhaps a mixed Elamite-Iranian population, as Henkelman suggests (2008, 48-49), had become an occasional ally of Elam. Indeed by the 7th century BC, the intrusion of (Indo-)Iranian tribal entities into remaining Elamite highland society resulted in an (Indo-)Iranian or Persian integration into the Elamite highland culture and eventually into an Elamite-Persian acculturation (Briant 1984; 1996, 30-32, 37-38; de Miroschedji 1985, 295; 1990a, 70; Amiet 1992, 92-93; Rollinger 1999, 123-127; Henkelman 2008, 48-49). By the rise of the Achaemenid empire, Elamites and Iranians lived on the same grounds for more than 500 years. During this initial phase, Elamite culture dominated the Kur River Basin until it gradually developed into an Elamite-Persian highland culture. Traces of the Neo-Elamite artistic style can be found at the Naqš-e Rostam relief, situated on the edge of the Marvdašt at 40 kilometers east of Anšan, where the image of a queen was added between the end of the 8th and 7th century BC to an already existing Old Elamite relief (Álvarez-Mon 2009; 2010a, 57-62). Also the isolated worshippers on a neighboring rock were added in the Neo-Elamite period (Börker-Klähn 1982, 176177 n. 129; Vanden Berghe 1983, 29, 103; de Miroschedji 1985, 279-280; 1989, 390; 1990, 74; Seidl 1986, 17-19; Young 2003, 245). According to Álvarez-Mon (2010a, 63; 2013a, 470-471), the addition to the Naqš-e Rostam relief may have been attributed to a new highland dynasty. In the neighborhood between Naqš-e Rostam and Hağiabad, Gropp (Gropp & Nadjmabadi 1970, 198, pl. 98) discovered a stele, which he dated to the late Middle Elamite period. Calmeyer (1973, 44, 148-149) and Huff (1984, 240-241), on the other hand, suggested on technical grounds a late Elamite date, which relates the stele to the Naqš-e Rostam additions. Not only physical attestations in the Kur River Basin and the Assyrian inscriptions, but also Elamite textual sources refer to Anšan. Throughout the 1st millennium BC, the memory to the large Middle Elamite highland capital remains vivid amongst the Neo-Elamite monarchs. The Neo-Elamite king Šutruk-Nahhunte II (717-699 BC), who traced back his royal lineage to the Middle Elamite Šutrukid kings, used the title su-un-ki-ik ašan-za-an aš šu-šu-un-ka4 in his royal inscriptions (EKI 71, 73). By the end of the Neo-Elamite period, the Middle Elamite royal titulary ‘king of Anzan and Susa’ regained popularity amongst the late Neo-Elamite rulers HallutušInšušinak II185 (EKI 77; MDP 53, 50) and Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak I (EKI 86).186 In the religious journal of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II (EKI 85), Anšan is mentioned in an unclear context. Whether these Neo-Elamite references implied the suzerainty over the Anšanite territory is rather doubtful. Based on the archaeological evidence, we can exclude large Elamite settlements in the Kur River Basin during the Neo-Elamite period. The rise of the Persians in the Marvdašt region during the 1st millennium BC has led scholars (Henkelman 2008, 43 with references) to believe that the highlands disappear from the political scope of the Neo-Elamite kingdom, and that the reference to Anšan in the royal titulary of the late Elamite kings was a merely ceremonial retrospective element (Henkelman 2003b, 193; Waters 2005, 529-530). A symbolic claim on the Middle Elamite 185

In the royal titulary of Hallutuš-Inšušinak II, ašan-za-an aššu-šu-un, the LUGÀL element is missing. Since the Neo-Elamite corpus provides only royal inscriptions for Šutruk-Nahhunte II of the first dynastic family and none for the royal Hubanid family, we cannot determine whether the royal titulary ‘king of Anzan and Susa’ continued to be used by the Elamite kings in the 7th century BC or whether the royal titulary revived during the late Neo-Elamite rulers. 186

THE NEO-ELAMITE HIGHLANDS

167

highland capital seems in my opinion the most probable explanation. Nevertheless, this title indicates that, by the end of the 6th century BC, Elamite kings were still interested in the Anšanite highland. The reasons might be economic (because of natural resources) or territorial (against the upcoming Teispid dynasty). Limited traces of this economic interest are recorded in the Susa Acropole administration, where men of Anšan were involved in the Elamite lowland economic activities (an-za-an: S. 117; ašan-za-an-ri: S. 281). Garrison (2006) suggests that the Susa Acropole sealings had been developed in the Anšanite artistic center. This is, however, purely speculative because no late Elamite or early Persian settlement in Anšan has been discovered so far. Moreover, if Anšan — and by extent the highlands of Fars — would be a pre-Achaemenid (before Darius) artistic center, other artistic traditions such as pottery fabrication should have flourished as well. Since the Shogha and Teimuran wares probably do not postdate 900-800 BC and the new Achaemenid pottery, ‘the late plain ware’, does not predate the 6th century BC (Henkelman 2012, 539 with references), there is a gap in the ceramic sequence of the Kur River Basin around the era of Garrison’s artistic revival. Sumner (1974, 158: only 25 identifications; 1986, 12) identified about 40 Achaemenid sites in the 1972 archaeological survey, based on the presence of ‘late plain ware’. This new type of pottery that appears in the Kur River Basin from the 6th century BC and marks a complete fracture with the previous historical periods. The settlements with a late plain ware assemblage were concentrated around three areas: one around Persepolis, one in the west and one to the south of Persepolis, with sites such as Naqš-e Rostam and the royal Achaemenid palaces of Pasargadae and Persepolis. Consequently, the late Plain ware is linked to the arrival of the Persians in the Kur River Basin. Sumner (1986, 29) estimated a sedentary population of about 44.000 inhabitants in these towns by the second half of the 1st millennium BC, although Boucharlat (2003, 264) drastically reduced this number. However, the most important characteristic of the late plain ware is the absence of decoration and paint, indicating an absolute lack of creative impulse in the Kur River Basin. The paste of the pottery varies from brown to grey and is smoothened, burnished and/or slipped (Sumner 1972, 267-270; Boucharlat 2003, 261-263, Boucharlat & Haerinck 1992, 303), which basically suggests that these vessels were objects for daily use for a (semi-)pastoralist population, rather than artefacts. Therefore, the late Plain ware does not give the impression of an artistic revival in the early Achaemenid Kur River Basin urban centers. It provides no frame for the embedding of the Susa Acropole sealing in an artistic highland tradition, as Garrison (2006, 79-92) suggests, because the Susa Acropole administration predates the late plain ware. Moreover, no evidence can be found for the transmission of the seals and glyptic styles from the Kur River Basin to lowland Susiana. However, it is highly probable that the city of Anšan remained populated at a smaller scale throughout the first half of the 1st millennium BC. At least, we know for certain that the town of Anšan was inhabited during the reign of the Achaemenid king Darius the Great (550-487 BC). In the texts of the Persepolis Fortification administration, Anšan is a town where commodities were delivered and from where individuals traveled, including the Persian army as stated in the Bisitun inscription (kur/uruan-za-anki: DB II 40:72; ašan-za-an: DB III 40:3).187 Abdi (2001, 91-93, fig. 27) identified an Achaemenid column base in the old village of Malyan, which is currently the only physical evidence of 1st millennium BC occupation in ancient Anšan. Moreover, the Persepolis archive does give some retrospective hints on the Anšanite highlands. Firstly, a substantial number of Elamite or non-Iranian toponyms mentioned in the Persepolis archive could be located in the Kur River Basin. Consequently, these geographical locations must have remained inhabited throughout the Neo-Elamite period (Henkelman 2008, 44 n. 113). Secondly, about 10% of the personal names in the Persepolis can be identified as being Elamite, which indicates a lasting influence on the Elamite-Persian highland population by the middle of the 1st millennium BC (Potts 2005, 6; Henkelman 2008, 44). Thirdly, the Persepolis archive contains several heirlooms, referring to an Elamite-Persian highland dynasty that may date back to the early 7th century BC. A sealing PFS 93 was impressed on five cuneiform texts from the Persepolis Fortification archive (PF 692-695 and 2033; Hallock 1969, 715; 1977, 127; Hinz 1976, 53 fig. 16-17; Amiet 1973b, 15 n. 28, de Miroschedji 1985, 285-287; Garrison 2011, 375-406). The sealing shows a horseman spearing an opponent, who reaches for its quiver of arrows and his broken bow as an act of submission. 187

Vallat 1993, 14-15: ašan-za-an: PF 1, 1112, 1780 PF-NN: 1803, an-za-an(-ra): PF 777; PF-NN 793 ašan-za-an-(ra): PF-NN 793; an-za-an-(ra): PF-NN 663, PF-NN 774, PF-NN 1064, PF-NN 1175. See also Garrison 2011, 401 n. 45.

be

168

THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY

The inscription on the sealing reads: dišku-ráš /an-za-/an-ir-/ra DUMU/[še]-iš-pè-iš-na, meaning ‘Kuraš the Anzanite, Son of Šešpeš’.188 Although the word king is not written, Vallat (1996a, 392; contra Quintana 2011, 175-177) is convinced that the suffix -irra after Anšan corresponds to the Akkadian expression LÚ Anzan, which might be translated as ‘the man of Anzan’ or even ‘the king of Anzan’. Although the seal impression was found in an early Achaemenid archive, it is probably an heirloom dating from the late Neo-Elamite period contemporary to the sealings of the Susa Acropole archive (Amiet 1973, 15). Young (1988, 27) questioned the royal signature of the seal impression, but according to Garrison (2011, 400), the PFS 93 sealing and some other examples of the Persepolis Fortification archive (PFS 51, PFS 77, PFS 1308) belonged to the royal family and were ‘carefully handed-down from one generation to the next’. If Kuraš the Anzanite would be the same individual as king Kuraš/Cyrus I, belonging to the Anšanite branch of the Achaemenid dynasty, then he may have claimed a limited part of the Kur River Basin around the early 6th century BC. The chronology of this Cyrus the Anšanite can be supported by the Cyrus cylinder (Schaudig 2001, 550556), in which Cyrus II the Great (c. 559-530 BC) describes his ancestral line. Cyrus II the Great is the son of Cambyses I, grandson of Cyrus I and great-grandson of Teispes, who were all entitled ‘great king, king of Anšan’ LUGÀL GAL LUGÀL URUan-ša-an (l. 21, Berger 1975, 197; Waters 2004, 94; Potts 2005, 7). A brick from Ur (Schaudig 2001, 549; Waters 2004, 94: dišku-ra-áš LUGÀL ŠÁR LUGÀL kuraš-ša-an diškam-bu-zi-ya LUGÀL kur aš-ša-an) confirms that Cyrus II the Great and his father Cambyses I were ‘king of Anšan’. Furthermore, the Nabonidus Chronicle (Grayson 1975, 106 ii 1: dišku-raš LUGÀL an-ša-an) and the Nabonidus cylinder from Sippar refer to Cyrus the Great as the king of Anšan (Beaulieu 1989, 108; Schaudig 2001, 409-440: dišku-ra-áš LUGÀL kuran-ša-an), who captures the Median king Astyages. As Potts (2011, 36) correctly notices, the toponym Anšan is written with different determinatives. The brick from Ur and the Nabonidus cylinder denote Anšan as a country (KUR), which was probably seen as such from a Mesopotamian point of view. The Cyrus cylinder, a document supposedly commissioned by Cyrus the Great, indicates Anšan as a city name (URU), which correspond to the majority of Elamite sources. Only four Persepolis Fortification texts use the determinate BE, referring to a tribal entity rather than a city. However, by the reign of Darius the Great the Anšanite kingdom had already submerged into the Achaemenid empire that had its power base in Persepolis. The ‘Anšanite’ population group had not the same background as the Persians, which justified the determinative BE. Having reviewed all evidence, the absence of a Neo-Elamite occupation level at the Malyan site does not mean that there was no Anšanite settlement during the Neo-Elamite period, because the site is only partially excavated (Potts 2005, 7-28; 2011, 35-41). Sumner (1994, 102-105) assigned several sites in the Kur River Basin to the Neo-Elamite period. The Persepolis Fortification texts still name several Elamite toponyms in the Kur River Basin by the end of the 6th century BC, which shows that there was a reduced but continuous occupation in the Kur River Basin in the first half of the 1st millennium BC. The Elamite economic texts from the Susa Acropole archive and the Persepolis Fortification corpus specifically indicate a settlement in Anšan. However, the possible existence of a 1st millennium BC settlement in Anšan does not necessarily imply that the Middle Elamite capital had a prominent role in Neo-Elamite politics. Assyrian sources indicate that at least from an Assyrian perspective Anšan did not belong to the geopolitical setting of the Neo-Elamite kingdom. Yet, the Elamite character of the additions on the Naqš-e Rostam relief and stele emphasizes the strong cultural connection with the Neo-Elamite society. At least from the 7th century BC onwards, a new Anšanite dynasty, called the Teispids, with an Elamite-Persian identity arose in the highlands. Since Cyrus or ku-ráš, the Anšanite ruler mentioned in the Cyrus cylinder and on the Persepolis Fortification sealing (PFS 93), was an Elamite name (Tavernier 2011b, 212), the Elamite-Iranian onomastics of the local dynasty shows that the acculturation process in the Kur River Basin was far advanced and one can already speak from a mixed highland population. One can eventually wonder whether the political connection between Elam and the Anšanite highlands, to which the Neo-Elamite monarchs boldly refer in their royal inscriptions, really existed. In the previous section, I already pointed out that the most southern frontier region of the Neo-Elamite kingdom was the Hidalu 188

Agreeing with the arguments of Potts (2005, 13), king Kuraš the Anšanite cannot be confused with king Kuraš of Parsumaš that paid tribute to the Assyrian king Assurbanipal after the sack of Susa.

THE NEO-ELAMITE HIGHLANDS

169

fortress in the Mamasani valley. The Elders of Elam addressed a letter to the Assyrian king Assurbanipal (ABL 961: 11, 13) with a request to send Tammaritu to Hidalu and Kudurru to Iahdik in order to resolve the disorder and the sheep-rustling by the Persians (Waters 2000, 59 n. 19; PNA 3/II, 1306), which may indicate that the contact with the Kur River Basin did not always run smoothly around the middle of 7th century BC. On the other hand, the alliance with the Elamites in the battle of Halule may imply that the Elamites had some sort of authority over the Anšanites, perhaps comparable to the political influence they had in the succession war at Ellipi. The political influence may have been valid in the early 7th century BC, indicated in Šutruk-Nahhhunte II’s titulary, but once the power of the Anšanite dynasty grew, the Elamite titulary became merely symbolic. Throughout the course of the 1st millennium BC, the Neo-Elamite kings lost their political and later cultural influence on the Kur River Basin, where the Teispid dynasty consolidated its power and laid the foundation of the Achaemenid empire.

PART III ON THE FORMATION OF A LATE NEO-ELAMITE STATE

1. ELAMITE INTERNAL POLITICS AND ORGANIZATION 1.1. Government System of the Neo-Elamite Kingdom Research on the state formation and the government system of the Neo-Elamite kingdom is very limited. Most scholars have considered the separation of the king of Elam and the king of Hidalu, together with the growing amount of source material referring to local kings within the Neo-Elamite boundaries, as a sign of fragmentation of the Neo-Elamite realm after the destruction of Susa (Cameron 1936, 167-168; Steve, Vallat & Gasche 2002/03, 477). The idea that Elam never recovered from the Assyrian destructive power remained for a long time the generally accepted theory.

1.1.1. Traditional view of Elam as a Fragmentated Kingdom Some scholars mark the Elamite defeat at the battle of Til-Tuba in 653 BC as the end of an unitary Elamite state (Quintana 1996; Waters 2000, 107). From at least the reign of king Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I (664-653 BC), the kingdom of Elam was ruled by two kings. One king ruled the highland region with its capital Hidalu, whereas the second king was governing the Susiana lowlands. Depending on the ruling lowland king, the capital of the kingdom shifted between Susa and Madaktu. Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I shared the Elamite kingdom with Šutruk-Nahhunte, king of Hidalu, who possibly had to protect the Elamite highland against Iranian nomadic tribes. After the battle of Til-Tuba, the Assyrian king Assurbanipal installed two brothers, respectively Huban-nikaš II in Susa and Tammaritu in Hidalu. Both were the nephews of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I. Assurbanipal, who controlled at that point the Elamite royal succession, maintained this double kingship until the sack of Susa in 646 BC. After the destruction of Susa, several other Elamite kingdoms appear in the Elamite textual sources. In the Susa Acropole texts, reference is made to Appalaya, king of the people of Zari (S. 71). The Nineveh letters were written by Bahuri, king of Zamin of Elam (cf. I.6.1.). Bahuri in his turn wrote to the palace managers of Ayapir and Katmurti (Nin 5). Some of the objects of the Kalmarkarra cave bear Elamite inscriptions mentioning the name of several kings of Samati (cf. I.6.4.). In the Arjan tomb, the funerary gifts refer to KitinHutran, son of Kurluš (cf. II.1.2.3.3.). Even though Kitin-Hutran does not have the title king, the wealth and the resemblance with the Neo-Assyrian tombs suggest that he must have been a local ruler (Alizadeh 1985). The division of power between the king of Elam and the king of Hidalu, and the appearance of several local rulers is generally seen as proof for the decentralization and fragmentation of the Elamite kingdom after the fall of Susa (Stolper 1984; Vallat 2002b; Henkelman 2003a, 254). Fuchs (2003, 129) even suggested that after the battle of Til-Tuba, the kingdom of Elam declined into a state of ‘warlords’, whose activities were directed mainly inland, with the struggle against Elamite rivals as their priority. Fuch’s proposal could be partly true with regard to the period of Assyrian interference (653-646 BC), but cannot be verified for the post-Assyrian period. Fuchs based his proposal on the Assyrian documentation, mainly the Annals of Assurbanipal, which give the impression of local warlords of small Elamite states, trying to overthrow the king of Elam. Some of these rebel kings like Indabibi, Pa’e and Huban-habua even succeeded in shortly occupying the Elamite throne. Gerardi (1987, 221 n. 82), however, rightfully points out that the Assyrian empire was built upon a highly centralized government system. Relying on this common Near Eastern model, scholars in Elamite studies reconstructed the political history of the Neo-Elamite kingdom hereupon. This more widespread Ancient Near Eastern pyramidal centralized system was constructed on an autocratic king ruling an empire that is modeled to carry out the orders of a single ruler (Mattila 2000, 3). That ruler had received kingship from the gods and made all decisions on recommendation of the divine pantheon; at least that is what royal inscription tell us. Then there was a large apparatus of subjects in a hierarchic order that were responsible for the execution of the orders. On top of this administrative apparatus was a small group of the court officials or magnates surrounding the king. These court officials transmitted the messages of the king to the provincial government, i.e.

174

ON THE FORMATION OF A LATE NEO-ELAMITE STATE

the governor and his administration. The provincial government on its turn spread the decision amongst local city rulers and administrations. In this way, a highly centralized government system was created to carry out a single decision over the entire empire. The Assyrian administration probably fitted the reporting on Elam into their own structure, which appears to us as if the Elamite kingdom was a centralized power as well. The Neo-Assyrian kings did not adopt the Elamite titulary ‘king of Anšan and Susa’ in their inscriptions, but referred to their eastern colleagues with LUGAL KUR.NIM.MA.KI ‘king of Elam’ (litt. king of ‘the high land’), creating the idea of an unitary neighboring state. Yet, the geographical setting of the Elamite kingdom consisted of several valleys connected by mountain passes and gorges. These valleys, spread over a distance of more than 500 kilometers, had various altitudes going from sea level to over 2000 meters (http://www.archatlas.org/Petrie/RoutesandPlains.php#susiana). Accordingly, another approach was needed to govern a territory with such variety in landscapes, often with challenging accessibility. Most scholars, who based their research on the Assyrian documents, have therefore come to the conclusion that the paramount ruler of Elam, ‘the king of Anšan and Susa’, gradually lost power over the once large kingdom of Susa and Anšan. During the 650s BC, the Elamite kings lost the important highland region to the king of Hidalu. In the period between 646 and 520 BC, the Elamite kingdom fell apart to the benefit of local kings, such as the kings of Zari, the kings of Samati, or the king of Zamin. The actual Elamite kingdom was then reduced to approximately the Susiana plain, which was eventually taken over by the Achaemenids who made the Elamite capital Susa their administrative center. However, the Elamite source material does not support a reconstruction of a pyramidal state formation.

1.1.2. Elam as a Unified Kingdom More recently, Henkelman (2008, 12-17) has argued that all sources suggesting such a fragmentation of the kingdom could support the idea of one unified Elamite kingdom as well. According to Henkelman (2003a, 255-256), the title of king of Hidalu must have been the second highest rank within the Elamite political system. Hidalu was such a strategic important location within the Elamite highlands that a member of the royal family189 was bestowed with the title of king, becoming co-regent of the king of Elam. The king of Hidalu was therefore a governor (Henkelman 2003a, 255-256; Fuchs 2003, 135) under the authority of the paramount ruler of Elam in the lowlands. Henkelman (2003a, 256) compares the Elamite political structure to the Babylonian kingship of Cambyses during the reign of his father Cyrus, king of the Persian empire. The widespread titulary of SUNKI during the period of the Assyrian interference and in post-Assyrian Elam is associated with rulers from different geographic regions. Even though Henkelman (2003a, 258; 2003b, 184) admits that the territorial extent of the late Neo-Elamite state is difficult to determine, there is no reason for him to argue the complete political fragmentation of Khuzestan. Henkelman (2003a, 258) interprets the presence of various local rulers, especially the Samati, as the ‘proliferation of the Elamite culture outside this state’. Further, he points out that the title SUNKI does not necessarily refer to an official with an independent status (Henkelman 2008, 12). Despite Henkelman’s strong persuasion of a single Elamite kingdom, his focus is especially directed on cultural arguments. Indeed, Elamite culture (art, glyptic, language and religion) still lived on from the Kur River 189 Henkelman (2008, 12-13) compares the kingship of Hidalu with the command of the Bit-Imbi fortress, where Imbappi, the son-in-law of the king Huban-haltaš III, received the command over the strategic important Bit-Imbi fortress at the western Elamite-Babylonian border. However, this political situation is far from comparable to the position of the king of Hidalu. First, Imbappi was not the son-in-law of the Elamite king Huban-haltaš III, but the father-in-law who probably delivered military support for his son-in-law Huban-haltaš III. Imbappi was already in office before Huban-haltaš III came into power. Huban-haltaš III did, however, sent his brother to Bit-Imbi as a commander of the Archers. He was probably second in command after Imbappi. Secondly, Imbappi was never called ‘king’, but he received the title ‘Commander of the Archers’, which is a military function instead of a political one. Division of power in order to monitor vulnerable regions by a secondary king is a different constellation than appointing a commander-in-chief for safeguarding the border region.

ELAMITE INTERNAL POLITICS AND ORGANIZATION

175

Basin in Fars to central Lurestan (cf. II.1.1.3. and II.2.2.3.), but cultural identity does not necessarily mean that these were politically subordinated regions belonging to the Elamite kingdom. As he indicated himself, the Samati territory was probably beyond the Elamite geopolitical setting and the other regions are difficult to pinpoint on a geographical map. Assuming that they were cultural Elamite entities outside the Neo-Elamite state, the Elamites did lose territory to these border region states, such as Zari. Whether this process is called political fragmentation or cultural proliferation, the result of an Elamite reduced territory remains the same. Since I demonstrated in the previous part of the late Neo-Elamite border regions (cf. II.1.1.) that there was a modest enlargement of Elamite territory at the western border in the post-Assyrian era, a complete fragmentation of the Neo-Elamite kingdom is hard to defend. The optimistic view of Henkelman on a unified kingdom cannot be proven either.

1.1.3. Elam as a Federal State190 Since the Assyrians probably transposed their own pyramidal Assyrian system on Elam in their historical records, it is perhaps useful to investigate the state formation of the neighboring people of Elam. In the 1st millennium BC, numerous Indo-Iranian tribes settled in the area of western Iran (Lurestan, Khuzestan, Fars), living a semi-sedentary or semi-pastoralist existence. In ancient as well as modern literature, several tribal entities were often united under a single name, like for instance the Medes or the Urarteans. Although living in separate small clan entities, they could form a joint army under the command of one of the tribal leaders against an approaching common enemy. Since they often joined forces against such an enemy (e.g. the Assyrians), these Zagros tribes are in general represented as a single group in reports of their opponents. In modern terms, the Medes can be considered as a confederation. Although the Elamites were not an Indo-Iranian people and Elam was not influenced by the Indo-Iranian Zagros tribes during its earliest state formation, the survival of the Elamite kingdom into the 1st millennium BC may have had a lot to do with the flexibility to adapt and integrate to a certain extent its government model to a degree of co-existence with neighboring people. As Radner (2003; 2013, 449) has demonstrated in several papers, the Medes were organized in tribal groups often united in strongholds, like the fortresses in Kišessim, Tepe Giyan, Godin Tepe and Tepe Nush-i Jan. These tribal groups lived an autonomous existence without having a paramount authority uniting the several groups. In the 9th and 8th century BC, the Assyrians occupied the Median territory along the Great Khorasan road and to the north of the road in order to get a grip on the horse trade. However, the Iranian provinces of the Assyrian empire had an entirely different structure as the other subdued territories of Assyria. Radner (2013, 449) states that ‘In all Iranian provinces, the Assyrian strategy was to maintain and strengthen the local dynasts and thereby ensure their cooperation. Rather than replacing them with Assyrian officials, a dual system was installed that established an Assyrian administration alongside the local power structures, which were actively supported provided that the leaders swore allegiance to the empire’. So basically, the local Median chiefs were subdued to Assyrian vassalage. In return for a reasonable amount of self-governance, the Medes paid tribute in horses to the Assyrian governor, who collected the payment himself (Fuchs & Parpola 2001, xxviii-xxix). Towards the end of the Neo-Elamite period, a large amount of Elamite texts provide evidence for the existence of numerous small chiefdoms, often of mixed Elamite-Iranian or Elamite-Babylonian identity. Based on the evidence, one has to question the relation of these small Elamite kingdoms or chiefdoms to the Susacentered Elamite state. Since all local rulers address themselves with the title EŠŠANA/LUGÀL/SUNKI ‘king’, the pattern resembles quite well the Assyrian-Median relation. In this case, the Elamite state would be the dominant partner in a constellation of small tribal (semi-)independent units. Potts (2010a, 123), who also grasped the two-fold interpretation of the source material, suggested two possible Elamite political structures in the postAssyrian period. Firstly, to consider Elam as a culturally unified, but political divided landscape, which resulted in a multitude of city-states. These city-states had emerged in the absence of a large-scale dominating power, 190

The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2000, 464) defines a federal government as ‘a system of government in which the individual states of a country have control over their own affairs, but are controlled by a central goverment for national decisions’.

176

ON THE FORMATION OF A LATE NEO-ELAMITE STATE

meaning that the actual political power of the last Neo-Elamite kings was limited to the Elamite heartland Susiana. Secondly, the late Neo-Elamite kingdom could be built upon regional dynasties with varying degrees of autonomy acknowledging a paramount ruler, who was the Elamite king of Anšan and Susa. The second proposal is — what we would call in modern terms — a federal government system and seems to provide the closest resemblance with the extant source material. 1.1.3.1. Elam’s Regional Government The Elamite royal title of ‘king of Anšan and Susa’, that was used until the reign of Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak (mid-6th century BC), already implies the federal governmental structure. Two geographical regions, Anšan and Susa, respectively corresponding to the highlands and lowlands, were united under a single king. Since the geographical nature of these two regions was entirely different, the regional government probably needed systems corresponding to their resources and possibilities. At this point of research, no source material is available to investigate this matter profoundly. However, the Elamite sources do provide a glimpse into the diversity and flexibility of the Elamite political government system. Currently five of these Elamite kingdoms ruled by a SUNKI are known: Hidalu, Samati, Zari, Hara(n) and Zamin. As already pointed out in the previous part (cf. II.1.1.3.; II.2.2.3.), all these areas were situated along the Elamite border regions: Hidalu in the southeast (Mamasani), Samati in the northwest (Southern Lurestan), Zari, Hara(n) and Zamin in the southwestern Trans-Tigridian corridor. Taking into account the geographical spread of the chiefdoms, all but Hidalu were situated along the Assyrian/Babylonian border, meaning that the Mesopotamian neighbors influenced their political relation with Elam. During the period of Assyrian interference, a large number of chiefdoms connected to the Elamite crown were incorporated into the Assyrian empire or simply destroyed during one of Assurbanipal’s raids. After the sack of Susa (646 BC) and the Assyrian occupation of the West, several chiefdoms that depended on the Elamite crown before the Assyrian incorporation were able to recover. In my point of view, Elam restored its authority over the border region and included the western border regions again within its geopolitical space. This re-erection of power can be witnessed from the building activities of the late Neo-Elamite kings. Hallutuš-Inšušinak II (EKI 77) commemorated in his inscriptions the restoration of the sanctuaries on the Acropole of Susa. Moreover, Hallutuš-Inšušinak II’s reign of at least 15 years made it possible to bring the patchwork of (semi-)autonomous chiefdoms under a federal government of the Elamite state.

The political status of Zamin A nice example supporting this theory is demonstrated in the diplomatic correspondence of Bahuri, king of Zamin. He stated in one of his letters that he refounded the kingdom of Zamin of Elam (Nin 5). Zamin or Samūnu in the Mesopotamian sources was first besieged and abandoned under Sargon II (SAA 17, 152). In the battle of Halule (691 BC), Samūnu was one of the confederate states joining Elam against the Assyrian king Sennacherib. In the Annals of Sennacherib (RINAP 3, 22 v 43b - v 52a), the reference to Samūnu is followed by ‘(who was of) a son of Merodach-baladan II’. Returning to Bahuri’s claim of refounding Zamin of Elam, he may have been a descendent of the Bit-Yakin clan. This clan was interwoven with the Neo-Elamite royal dynasty. Merodach-baladan II probably had married an Elamite princess, the mother of a Huban-nikaš, whose brother Na’id-Marduk was appointed as governor of Sealand during the reign of Esarhaddon (Waters 2002b). And the sister of king Tammaritu was married to a member of the Gaḫal family. Huban-haltaš II had created an Elamite satellite state in the western border region for Nabu-ušallim, Merodach-baladan II’s son, when he was not accepted as Sealand ruler. Since the early Neo-Elamite period, rulers bestowed land to persons and specific groups of society. In the stele of Šutruru such a donation is described (EKI 74). Šutruru, a high priest, received land and donated it to state managers during the reign of the Neo-Elamite king Šutruk-Nahhunte II. When a descendent of Merodach-baladan II reestablished the chiefdom of Zamin in the late Assyrian era, this was probably under the auspices of the Elamite king.

ELAMITE INTERNAL POLITICS AND ORGANIZATION

177

The political status of Hidalu The kingdom of Hidalu had played a prominent role in the history of Elam during the era of the Assyrian wars (653-646 BC).191 In the past, the political status of Hidalu has been a much-debated subject among Elamite scholars. Since we do not have any Elamite sources on the king of Hidalu, we can only guess the internal political relation between the two rulers. With the current source material in mind, there are three possibilities for the position of Hidalu within the Elamite kingdom. 1) The kingdom of Hidalu had an independent political status. It was the most important highland kingdom of the mid-1st millennium BC (Fars) and the heir of the 2nd millennium BC highland region Anšan. The ceramic assemblage of the Fahliyan region had an Elamite identity (McCall 2013), although it developed its own glyptic traditions (Garrison 2006). A fragment in the Annals of Assurbanipal stating ‘I conquered 20 cities in the district (nagê) of Huhnur at the border with Hidalu (miṣri ša uruḫi-da-li)’ suggests that Hidalu was a clearly defined entity at the border of the Elamite highland district of Huhnur around 646 BC (BIWA F iv 57-8). 2) The kingdom of Hidalu had a semi-independent status within a co-regency model. The kingdom of Elam and Hidalu were united in the Assyrian governmental structure of king and viceroy. There are some indications that the king of Hidalu was not the equal of the king of Elam. For instance, the king of Elam could retreat to Hidalu when he felt it was necessary to the escape the approaching Assyrian army. Moreover, in the case of Huban-nikaš II and Tammaritu, the king of Hidalu was the younger brother of the king of Elam. The installation of the brother second in line on the throne of Hidalu can also be seen in the light of the Neo-Assyrian succession tradition, in which the second son was supposed to rule Babylonia. The Assyrian king Esarhaddon even held that much to this tradition that by the premature death of his first-born son Sin-iddina-apla (672 BC), the crown prince of Assyria, he promoted his third son Assurbanipal to crown prince of Assyria. The second son Šamaš-šum-ukin remained the heir of Babylonia even after the death of his older brother. Although both Assyrian brothers used ‘king’ in their titulary and Babylon appeared to have a relatively independent status, Šamaš-šum-ukin did recognize the overlordship of Assurbanipal (Frame 1992, 109). The Assyrian installation of the two brothers is basically the only time when we have a clear connection between the king of Elam and the king of Hidalu. The king of Elam was the paramount ruler of the lowlands with Susa and Madaktu as royal cities and the king of Hidalu governed the highlands. Both rulers had their own government, but the king of Hidalu held a subordinate position to the king of Elam. 3) The kingdom of Hidalu belonged to the kingdom of Elam, but had a semi-autonomous status, like the Median rulers in the Assyrian Zagros provinces or the princes of Sealand. During the late Neo-Elamite kingdom, the documents of the Susa Acropole archive (MDP 9) reveal a continuous flow of commodities from Hidalu to Susa. In these documents, the political status of Hidalu seems similar to that of the other chiefdoms Zari and Samati. Moreover, its position was not different from that of other Elamite provinces/ districts, such as Huhnur and Ayapir. In the Neo-Babylonian document that was drafted in Hidalu, the date formula refers to Tammaritu the king of Elam. In part I (cf. I.3.3.2.), I argued that the Elamite king Tammaritu I must have seized Hidalu from the highland ruler Tammaritu, brother of Huban-nikaš II. Although this may have been the case, the information reveals perhaps a much more profound insight into the political status of Hidalu. The fact that the date formula of a Neo-Babylonian tablet, written in Hidalu, counts in the regnal years of the Elamite king instead of the Hidalu king may prove the limited authority of the king of Hidalu. Eventually, the district of Hidalu survived the administrative transition between the Neo-Elamite and Achaemenid rulers. In the Persepolis Fortification texts (509 to 457 BC), Hidalu occurs as one of the administrative 191 The reason why the kingdom of Hidalu receives a prominent place in Assyrian literature is because it triggered the imagination of the Assyrians. Assurbanipal was able to install a ruler, Tammaritu, in Hidalu only because the people of Elam were certain that the former king of Hidalu Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte was killed in the battle of Til-Tuba. Because Tammaritu was the brother of the newly installed Elamite king Huban-nikaš II, the installation of Tammaritu was achieved without noteworthy problems. However, Assurbanipal had never marched with his army to Hidalu in order to place Tammaritu personally on the throne, like he had done for his brother Huban-nikaš II. In fact, in the fragment on the raid on Elam to capture Huban-haltaš III, it becomes clear that Assurbanipal had never been able to intrude the territory of Hidalu.

178

ON THE FORMATION OF A LATE NEO-ELAMITE STATE

districts. Possibly, Hidalu had a similar status in the Susa Acropole texts, when the highland was still under Elamite rule. Also Gisat, an Elamite highland city, had undergone this administrative switch at some point during the 6th century BC, meaning that the Elamites were able to keep the highland for quite some time after the emergence of the Persian empire. In my opinion, the political status of Hidalu did not remain the same throughout the Neo-Elamite period and had been subjected to political changes. When Assurbanipal crowned the Elamite sibling kings Hubannikaš II and Tammaritu as respectively king of Elam and viceroy of Hidalu, he (re-)modeled the Elamite political landscape to an Assyrian succession model of co-regency. In his Annals, Assurbanipal claimed to have ‘created the model by his own hands’. According to Henkelman (2012b, 432), Assurbanipal’s installation of two kings was based on an already existing Elamite model, demonstrated by the former royal duo TeptiHuban-Inšušinak I and Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte. This hypothesis formed the basis of Waters’ suggestion (2000, 38) that Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte must have been related to the royal family in Susa. More specifically, Šutruk/ Šutur-Nahhunte must have been a sibling of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I. However, the fact that Šutruk/ŠuturNahhunte was mentioned as a confederate of the Neo-Elamite king in the battle of Til-Tuba suggests that they were allies. Allied forces do not necessarily require a family connection. Comparing the confederate forces of Til-Tuba with the ones of Halule, where the Anšanites and the Ellipians were certainly not connected the royal family or to the geopolitical setting of the Elamite kingdom, the king of Hidalu had probably no family connection with the Hubanid clan. Besides, the other Neo-Elamite local SUNKIs had no demonstrateable family connection with the royal dynasty either. The archaeological material of the Mamasani plain on the other hand provides us with a majority of Susa inspired ceramic, illustrating that the Mamasani settlements belonged to the Elamite economic space and consequently also the Elamite geopolitical setting. Although Assurbanipal may have initiated some structural changes in the position of Hidalu during the early Assyrian interference period, the Elamite king Tammaritu (652-651 BC) probably seized a year later the semi-independent kingdom of Hidalu. After Assurbanipal’s interference, Hidalu’s political status probably returned to a semi-autonomous border province of the Elamite state. Since the Akkadian word for border (nagû) described by Assurbanipal in the hunt for Huban-haltaš III (646 BC) can be translated either ways, Hidalu may not have been a country border but a provincial boundary. One can therefore assume that Hidalu fitted within the federal government structure of the Neo-Elamite kingdom and was the most significant Elamite outpost in the highlands. Presumably Hidalu was for the Neo-Elamite kings the same as Anšan was for the Middle-Elamite king: a refuge city inaccessible for possible enemies. 1.1.3.2. The meaning of a local king Disagreeing with Henkelman’s suggestion (2008, 12), I propose that the title ‘king’ indeed means ‘king’, i.e. a ruler of a certain territory with power within that area. Since the Elamite vocabulary was more limited than the Akkadian one, the Elamite language had fewer words to denote the gradations in power of such a king. An Assyrian letter, however, describes the position of the Elamite border rulers more precisely as the sheikhs of the king of Elam LÚ na-sa-ki-ti ša LUGAL KUR.NIM.MA.KI (SAA 17, 154). For the rulers within the western Elamite border regions as well as the king of Hidalu, this may be the exact definition of the extent of their power. On the other hand there were rulers in Elam, called kutur, a lexeme that seems to have had the same level of authority as the Elamite sheikhs. Hanne, kutur of Ayapir, expressed loyalty to his overlord Šutur-Nahhunte, king of Elam, in the Kul-e Farah I relief (EKI 75:5). The Elamite Nineveh letters inform us on the palace of Ayapir (Nin 5), a fact that is confirmed by the identification of a ragipal ‘palace manager’ among Hanne’s staff on the Kul-e Farah I relief. If we rely in the 19th century description of Layard (1846, 74-75), the palace must have been located in the Izeh valley: ‘Towards its eastern extremity are the ruins of a very ancient city. They consist of a large tappeh rising upon the summit of a vast irregular mound… There is a tradition that this was the site of a most ancient and extensive city, which occupied the whole plain, and was the residence of the monarch of the mountains.’ Since Hanne possessed a palace, an army and servants, he had the profile

ELAMITE INTERNAL POLITICS AND ORGANIZATION

179

of a provincial governor/satrap. Assurbanipal described in his Annals that he conquered 14 fortified cities in 12 lowland districts (BIWA F iv 47-53). Next to Susa and Madaktu, several other cities, such as Ayapir, Katmurti,192 Huhnur and Bupila, are known as district capitals. Reviewing the approximate location of these cities, not a single one is marked as a ‘border region’. If Ayapir was ruled by a kutur, then the other districts had probably the same regional structure with a kutur as principle magistrate. In this case, kutur can be translated as ‘governor’. The difference between the SUNKI’s and the kutur’s is that the former ruled the endangered border region and the latter were regular provinces/districts. The power of the kutur could be compared to that of the provincial governor in Assyria and the satrap in the Achaemenid empire. In sum, one may assume that these small kingdoms had a semi-autonomous status, recognizing the authority of the king of Elam in Susa. These chiefdoms were remarkable well integrated into the Elamite political and economic system. The large economical archive of the Susa Acropole texts highlights this status of Susa as economic and political center of the country. A constant flow of commodities was recorded in this archive to be brought to Susa from a number of small chiefdoms maintaining economic relations with the Susian court.193 The economic relations may also be seen as a form of tribute to the Elamite court in return for military protection. Not only messengers of these people are attested, also ambassadors living at the Susa court to represent their tribal interest are well documented (cf. III.1.3.1.).

1.1.4. Elam’s Political State Formation in a broader Chronological Context When studying the late Neo-Elamite government system, another question can be raised: To what extent was this a new system? In other words, was Elam ever a centralized kingdom as the Mesopotamian sources suggest? Although Elamite historical records reveal only fragmentary information on the political organization of the kingdom, some sources may suggest a decentralized kingdom. 1) In the sukkalmaḫ period (c. 1900-1600 BC), there was a tripartite division of power. The paramount ruler of Elam was called the sukkalmaḫ. He was assisted by two sukkals (ministers). The sukkal of Elam was the second ruler in rank, while the sukkal of Susa held a third position. Upon the death of one of the rulers, the others were promoted to a higher office. A new sukkal of Susa was chosen among the male members of the royal family (Vallat 1992a; Potts 1999, 162-163). Although we are not aware of their precise jobcontent, the sukkal-office may have been connected to a specific territory within the limits of the Elamite kingdom. Logically, the division of power between a paramount ruler and two subordinate kings does not imply a centralized government system. 2) In the Middle Elamite kingdom, the royal titulary ‘king of Anšan and Susa’ suggests that the Elamites themselves considered their country as two different entities brought together in a personal union of the king. Several texts of the Kidinuid dynasty refer to ‘the princess of Huhnur’ DUMU.MUNUS EŠŠANA šà ḫu-uḫnu-ri (Herrero & Glassner 1990, 17:9; Vallat 1993, 102). One of the inscriptions of Šilhak-Inšušinak (EKI 51), king of the Šutrukid dynasty, mentions the offspring of the king of Karintaš pu-hu ru-hu su-gìr ka4-ri-intaš-ir-ra-me. Since these regions were located within the geopolitical power of the Kidinuid and Šutrukid dynasties, these references also provide proof for local chiefdoms within the boundaries of the Middle Elamite kingdom. Although the late Elamite federal government may have undergone several modifications throughout the centuries in order to survive into the 1st millennium BC, the basis of Neo-Elamite state formation was laid in the Middle Elamite kingdom and perhaps even during the sukkalmaḫ era.

192

The palace manager of Katmurti is mentioned in the Elamite Nineveh letters together with the palace manager of Ayapir. Katmurti’s location is not yet known. Although purely speculative, both Ram Hormuz or Behbahan may be good candidates for the location of Katmurtu, because each of these regions have revealed tombs of high-ranked magnates. 193 Vallat (2002b) recorded references to the people of Samati, the Zarians (17×); Ayapir (11×), and to several Persian tribal entities (14×).

180

ON THE FORMATION OF A LATE NEO-ELAMITE STATE

1.2. The Elders of Elam In the Assyrian correspondence it becomes clear that the Elamite king did not have exclusive control over the Elamite state. At the highest level of the federal government, there was an institution called the ‘Elders of Elam’, which may have been an advisory board to the Elamite king. Although the Elders of Elam are mentioned only once (BM 132980; Waters 2002a), their position as a government body becomes more prominent when the royal power and authority of the Elamite client kings and rebels declines in the early 640s BC. Due to the internal political instability, the Elders of Elam might have been the only stable governing institution left. Consequently, the power of the Elders of Elam may have increased by the weakness of the Elamite kings. At a certain point, the Elders of Elam communicate secretly to the Assyrian king Assurbanipal through Ummanšibar (PNA 1385-1386) and present themselves as the governing body in Susa, instead of the spokesman of the Elamite king. In the letter to the Assyrian king, the Elders ask for what reason they deserve such a treatment by Assyria? This question clearly offended Assurbanipal, because he replied the Elders in a straightforward manner. Assurbanipal had demanded the extradition of Nabu-bel-šumati, which the Elamites had refused even though he did not impose tribute on them or seize their country in the years preceding the Nabu-belšumati incident (BM 132980; Waters 2002a, 82). The letter of the Assyrian king to the Elders of Elam written in XI-647 BC is a response to a letter that Ummanšibar secretly had sent via Bel-ibni to Assurbanipal asking what crime the Elamites had committed (ABL 792; De Vaan 1995, 284-287). Bel-ibni reported to Assurbanipal that Bel-uppahhir had to bring the message that the Elamites were willing the hand over their refugee Nabu-bel-šumati to the Assyrians. Although Ummanšibar is not mentioned in the letter to the Elders of Elam, he might have presented himself as the spokesman of the Elders of Elam (Waters 2002a; PNA 1385-1386). Except for the Assyrian references, very little is known about the Elders of Elam (Waters 2002a, 83; Barjamovic 2004, 87-88). Perhaps an Elamite attestation to the Elders is made in an inscription of the late Middle Elamite king Šilhak-Inšušinak (EKI 54:18): that our wishes, of me and Nahhunte-Utu, may be realized by the gods of Elam, the gods of Anšan, the gods of Susa and that our wishes my be realized by the Elders, šekpip, the princes of Elam, the citizen of Susa and by the offering-giver in the land of Hupšan.

Henkelman (2008, 256 n. 563) proposed to translate the word urip-, which occurs in the combination sunkip uripupi ‘kings the old’ or ‘preceding kings’ (contra ElW 1246: u-ri-pu-pi ‘Glaubige, Fromme’), as ‘Elders’. The Elders of Elam was probably a council of prominent nobility (Potts 2010a, 120-121), advising the Elamite king on secular matters. From the stela of Šutruru (EKI 74) and the relief of Hanne (EKI 75), we know of the existence of a clergy as well, which makes it rather unlikely that the Elders of Elam would be consulted on religious aspects. During the era of the rebel kings, it is perhaps even possible that the Elders of Elam had their hand in the rebellions of several local rulers, contesting the kingship of Elam. A letter from Bel-ibni to Assurbanipal (ABL 521) reports that Ummanšibar and other nobles have instigated a widespread revolt in Elam. Even though their main goal was to establish some sort of truce with Assurbanipal, not much later they were on the run southwards for the Assyrian forces because they failed to deliver Nabu-bel-šumati (ABL 281:10-17). In the Ancient Near East, several references to Elders and City-Elders are recorded (Potts 2010a, 120-121). In the Annals of Sargon II (Ann. Sar. Pl. 36 n. 77:178), the Elders of Assyria belong to the closest magnates of the king: I sat down in my palace and I celebrated a feast with the rulers of every country, the governors from my own realm the overseers, the commanders, the grandees, the officers and the elders of Assyria (šībī māt Aššur).

However, the council that probably corresponds the most to the Elders of Elam is the Elders of Sealand (LÚ.ši-bu-tu šá KUR tam-tim). When there was instability in the kingdom, they had the authority to communicate with the Assyrian court. In a series of Assyrian letters from the Elders of Sealand,194 the succession conflict 194

ABL 268, ABL 328 (= SAA 18, 202), ABL 576, ABL 831, ABL 839, ABL 917, ABL 1114, ABL 1131.

ELAMITE INTERNAL POLITICS AND ORGANIZATION

181

between the offspring of Merodach-baladan II is described (Waters 1999a; 2000, 38-40). The Elders of Sealand reported to the Assyrian king Esarhaddon that the Elamite king tried to weaken the Assyrian dominance in the south by installing the pro-Elamite Nabu-ušallim, the son of Merodach-baladan II. Therefore, Elamite royal envoys Teumman, the brother of the Elamite king (ŠEŠ-šú šá LUGAL KUR.NIM.MA.KI), and Zinêni195 were sent to Sealand to insist on the acceptance of Nabu-ušallim as their overlord (ABL 576). The Elders of Sealand refused the messengers to enter their territory and to accept the offer of the Elamite king Huban-haltaš II (Waters 1999b, 474). They also threatened to take Nabu-ušallim in custody, if he entered Sealand without a mandate of the Assyrian king Esarhaddon.

1.3. Officials in service of the Neo-Elamite kings A high number of Elamite officials are named in the Assyrian royal inscriptions and correspondence. Since these texts are written in Akkadian, the Elamite officials are indicated with an Assyrian professional name that most likely corresponded to the content and responsibilities of the Elamite official. The Assyrian inscriptions therefore contribute at a large scale to our knowledge of Elamite functionaries, but they do not offer any help with linking these Elamite professionals to the Elamite official titles. In some cases, we can connect an Assyrian title to an Elamite occupation or make a well-founded suggestion, but mostly we grope in the dark. 1.3.1. State Officials Among the state officials two highly ranked positions are known for the Neo-Elamite period: the kutur and the herald of the king. A third profession in this section is the gatekeeper, who was responsible for guarding the city and palace gates. The title of kutur has been subject to different interpretations, meaning ‘prince’, ‘chief’ or ‘commander/warlord’. Henkelman (2008, 20) translates kutur as ‘caretaker, protector’. Stolper (1988, 277; also König 1965, 157) identified kutur as ‘leader’, ‘chief’ or ‘ruler’ of a ‘local, sub-regional authority’. Hinz & Koch (ElW 550) have suggested ‘bearer’ or ‘Fürst’. The example of the kutur Hanne, ruler of Ayapir, gives us a glimpse into the Elamite state hierarchy. The local ruler Hanne commissioned in Izeh several rock reliefs and inscriptions, in which he called himself kutur of Ayapir (EKI 75:11). In these rock inscriptions, he commemorated his military campaigns and the devotion of his family and himself to the gods. In his Kul-e Farah I inscription (EKI 75:13), Hanne claimed to have captured 20 kutup on his campaign in the Šilhite mountains, probably in service of his overlord king (EŠŠANA) Šutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada, who must have been the king of Elam (cf. I.5.1.). Hanne also possessed a number of servants, which are depicted on the reliefs. The captions on the Izeh reliefs identify his servant among whom the palace manager Šutruru (EKI 75B: ragipal) and a priest Kutur (EKI 75K: šatin). This information suggests that the kutur was one of the king’s magnates, who could possess a territory with a small army and a palace,196 but who had to obey the paramount ruler of Elam. Henkelman (2008, 20) argues that since Hanne recognized his overlordship so clearly, he did not possess much autonomy. I think that, on the contrary, the kutur had as a magnate of the king quite a lot of autonomy, because he could order monumental inscriptions, command an army and had a palace household. The position of kutur can be described as the ‘a regional authority’, corresponding to a governor.

195

Zinêni might have been the same person as the palace manager (ša pān ekalli) of Ištarnandi/Šutruk-Nahhunte (BIWA 299; Russell 1999, 158). Russell (1999, 158) transcribes the logogram KUR in the professional expression LÚ šá IGI KUR with ša pān māti, while KUR can be transcribed with ekallu as well (Borger 2004, n. 578; Labat 1988, n. 366). LÚ ša pān ekalli is a regular Assyrian official ‘overseer of the palace’, attested in Neo-Assyrian sources (CAD E, 62). 196 The possible locations for the palace site of Izeh are explained in II.2.1.

182

ON THE FORMATION OF A LATE NEO-ELAMITE STATE

Also the Elamite Nineveh letters refer to this position (Nin 1:18-19; Nin 10:15). Nin 10:7 identifies three kutup: Halakuk, Azzimama and Tallak-Kutur. Bahuri, the local king of Zamin, addresses a letter (Nin 14) directly to Halakuk, indicating that they all belonged to a network of Elamite magnates. Also the stele of Attahamiti-Inšušinak (EKI 86), refers to a kutur of a region that is broken off. In total, Neo-Elamite sources provide 25 references to kutur, a number that is comparable to the local kings/sheikhs mentioned in the Susa Acropole texts (c. 20 references), the Samati kings and the Nineveh letters. Since there were about the same number of kuturs as there were SUNKIs, it is save to assume that the kutur had similar social rank in the Neo-Elamite political hierarchy. As mentioned above (III.1.1.3.), the difference between the SUNKIs and the kuturs is that the former probably ruled the endangered border regions and the latter were controlling regular provinces/districts. The second state official discussed in this section is the position of the royal messenger or ambassador. Mesopotamian as well as Elamite sources describe this magnate, even though the Elamite name of the profession hutlak is difficult to match with the Assyrian equivalent. In 784 BC, Adad-nirari III received a diplomatic visit of an Elamite ambassador (LÚ MAḪ KUR.NIM.MA-a-a) at the court of Nimrud (Zadok 1994, 47). During the preparation for the battle of Der (720 BC), a messenger of the Elamite king LÚ A.KIN was sent to negotiate the participation of Parsumaš in the battle (SAA 5, 129). This messenger may have been Huban-immena, the brother-in-law (LÚ ḫa-tan LUGAL) of the Elamite king Huban-nikaš I (SAA 5, 32). Esarhaddon noted that the kings were afraid of him and that Elamite and Gutian messengers came to Nineveh with offerings of friendship and peace (Waters 2000, 42). Since the passage is dated to 673 BC, Urtak must have been the Elamite king that requested friendship with Esarhaddon. It is known that members of the Elamite royal family were bestowed with important diplomatic positions, such as the one of herald. Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak negotiated, as herald of the king during the reign of his older brother Huban-haltaš II, unsuccessfully the installation of the Chaldean Nabu-ušallim with the Elders of Sealand (SAA 18, 86). Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak had in the position of herald his own messengers at his disposal ‘the messengers of Teumman, the brother of the king, the herald and Zinêni’ (LÚ A.KIN.MEŠ šá dištú-um-man ŠEŠ-šú LUGAL KUR.NIM.MA.KI LÚ NIGÍR ù dišzi-né-e-ni). Several other references to messengers of the Elamite king during the conflict with Sealand can be found in the Assyrian correspondence: LÚ A.KIN šá LUGAL KUR.NIM. MA.KI (SAA 18, 85; SAA 18, 87). After the Assyrian victory over the Elamite forces in the battle of Til-Tuba (653 BC), the nagīru official Umbakidinni (Huban-kitin) of Ištarnandi, the king of Hidalu, had to carry the two heads of Tepti-HubanInšušinak I and his co-regent Ištarnandi (Šutur-Nahhunte), which were tied together (BIWA B vi 49-51: Umbakidinni LÚ NIGÍR ša KUR Hidali ša SAG.DU ša Ištarnandi LUGAL ša KUR Hidali našûni). In an Assyrian letter to Indabibi (ABL 622; de Vaan 1995, 274-277), a clear difference is made between the messenger of Indabibi and his palace herald. The messenger (LÚ A.KIN) of Indabibi was intercepted by the troops of Bel-ibni when he wanted to deliver a letter to the palace herald (LÚ.na-gi-ru) of Indabibi. In context to the flight of king Tammaritu and his family, a fragmentary text (CT 54, 520) mentions twice LÚ NIGÍR, translated by de Vaan (1995, 325-323) as herald. In a report on Elam (ABL 1311; de Vaan 1995, 313-315), Bel-ibni describes the activities of the messengers of king Tammaritu (LÚ A.KIN.MEŠ). If LÚ NIGÍR or nāgiru was the royal envoy or the herald sent by the king to resolve diplomatic matters in his name (CAD N/1, 117-118) and the LÚ A.KIN was a messenger delivering letters, then one of these positions has to correspond with the Elamite officials perir and hutlak. According to Hinz & Koch (ElW 186) the Elamite perir can be translated with herald. During the NeoElamite period this position is attested in the Kul-e Farah I inscription as herald of the gods (be-ri-ir na-appír-ra). In the Ururu Bronze plaque the word possibly occurs in an unclear context. The hutlak official occurs regularly in the Neo-Elamite sources and is translated by Hallock (1969, 699a) as messenger (ElW 1987, 726). In the Elamite Nineveh letters (Nin 13), the hutlak of the king of Hara(n) appears in connection to Bahuri, king of Zamin. In the Susa Acropole texts, these officials appeared as envoys of neighboring peoples. In the Susa Acropole text the personal envoy of the Appalaya (hutlak ap-pa-la-a-a-na S. 19; S. 82:6; S. 108:’4; S. 158:2; S. 162:2), the personal envoy of Napiriša-ahpi (hutlak DINGIR.GAL-a-ah-pi-ri S. 281), the hutlak of the king of the Zari people (EŠŠANA ašza-ri-pé-ra: S. 19:7-8; 29:14; 71:1) and a hutlak of

ELAMITE INTERNAL POLITICS AND ORGANIZATION

183

the man of Apalaya’s entourage (hutlak ap-pa-la-a-a-ir-ra-pa, S. 82) are recorded as well as the hutlak of the Ayanakeans (S. 93:10). Based on the examples of the Neo-Elamite period, the hutlak official was in most cases directly connected with a king/sheikh an acted as middleman in the personal correspondence between two kings. These officials (S. 53 hu-ut-lak-pe; S. 162 hu-ut-la-ak-pi-pe) were part of the royal chancellery or even the royal household. Therefore, it seems rather doubtful that they were ordinary messengers. In my opinion, these messengers were heralds of the kings, corresponding with the Akkadian nagīru. These heralds of the Elamite sheikhs were probably residing in the Susa palace and had a diplomatic mission to maintain close connection with the Elamite court. If the hutlak officials were heralds, then perir was the Elamite word for a messenger, which fits the context of ‘messenger of the gods’.197 The Neo-Elamite profession elmape, literally ‘they of the door’, can be translated as ‘gatekeepers’ (contra ElW 403: ‘Hoflinge’). In the Persepolis Fortification archive (Hallock 1969, 252-253; ElW 391; PF 874:3/4; PF 875:4; Fort. 6479:3/4), the word defining gatekeeper is e-el.nu-iš-ki-ip/ra. From the Neo-Elamite texts (EKI 74:39; EKI 85:7), it is not clear whether these officials were guarding the city gates of Susa, the palace gates or the temple gates. Several old Elamite legal documents refer to the city gates: ‘nobody will make any demands upon his (city) gate’ mimma mamman ana babišu ul išassi (MDP 28, 398:13; MDP 23, 282:15; CAD A/2, 23). In the Babylonian Chronicle (ABC 1 ii 32-35), the Neo-Elamite king Šutruk-Nahhunte II was seized by his brother Hallutuš-Inšušinak, who sealed the (city) gate/door for him (PN šar Elamti PN aḫušu iṣbassuma KÁ ina panīšu uphi: CT 34, 47 ii 32; 48 iii 7). In this fragment, the gate is generally interpreted as the city gate (CAD A/2, 16).

1.3.2. Palace Household That the Elamite king had a wide network of people depending on him can be seen from the Assyrian texts reporting on the 60 rubê šá māt elamma (nobles or magnates) fleeing with crown prince Huban-nikaš II, son of Urtak, to the Assyrian court out of fear for the political regime of his uncle king Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I (Borger 1996, 111, 230). Prominent members within this fleeing group must have been the menir/p/k ‘leaders, lords’ and the halmenik ‘landlords’ (Reiner 1960, 100; Steve 1967, 45; Grillot 1984, 186-187). Next to the important magnates, also domestic staff can be counted among the members of the palace household. The official title of palace manager is frequently attested in Neo-Elamite literature (EKI 75b:1; S. 9:4, 93:14; Yusifov 1963, n. 15, 65, 108, 141, 177, 189; Ururu: last line). Since the name for palace manager was borrowed from the Akkadian rab ekalli, the Elamite scribes had found various terms to express this management position. The Elamite word ragipal (ElW 1024; Henkelman 2003c, 127) is attested in the Izeh inscriptions of Hanne, governor of Ayapir (EKI 75B; EKI 76:12, 22, 33). On the rock relief of Kul-e Farah I (Izeh), a caption identified Šutruru, ragipal of Hanne. The figure accompanying the caption is a smaller image on the left side of the kutur Hanne, depicted with a bow (EKI 75B). In the Acropole administration of Susa, the word for palace manager was written with the sumerogram GAL.E.GAL.MEŠ (S. 22:1, S. 39:8, S. 93:14, S. 145:8, S. 181:’6, S. 232:3), in which the sign É is replaced by E. Three palace managers were in service of the Elamite king: Huban-haltaš (S. 9:2, S. 93:14), Huban-duniš (S. 39:7) and Harina (S. 145:8). One of the palace managers of the royal court at Susa, beHarina (S. 145), had an Iranian name (Tavernier 2011b, 196). This ragipal receives in several Acropole texts commodities (S. 61), like kuktu-garments (S. 63), a pair of shoes (S. 71), a bag of linen (S. 83), two recipients made of tin (S. 145) and a bar of iron (S. 175). The Susa administration thus provides the essential clothing and raw materials, perhaps for making weaponry, to the ragipal. A certain beHarina, son of Marduniš, appears in a witness list of 197

A third official connected to perir and hutlak is the araš hutlak. Because his position had a clear administrative character, it will be discussed in section III.1.3.3.

184

ON THE FORMATION OF A LATE NEO-ELAMITE STATE

the Apadana legal texts (S. 306), where he is listed among the three witnesses of the palace after Šati-Huban, son of Umbadudu and Napi-sunkir, son of Mandudu. Since beHarina was a palace official, there is a good chance that he can be identified with beHarina, the ragipal. In the legal text, he possessed the lowest rank amongst the palace officials. The first witnesses named Šati-Huban was probably the most important figure in the agreement as his personal cylinder seal was used to conclude the transaction. The Susa Acropole tablets in connection to the palace were not recorded by the araš hutlak, but by palace managers (S. 52), meaning that araš hutlak had probably no authority within the palace itself. Therefore, one can assume that one of the principal tasks of the ragipal was making orders for the royal household and managing the income of commodities for the palace. That the ragipal himself possessed his own staff is proven by the fact that Huban-haltaš was one of the staff members of the palace manager behu-ban-hal-taš GAL.E.GAL.MEŠ-pé-na (S. 9:3, S. 163:4-5). The duties of the ragipal, described in the Acropole texts, correspond quite well to his Babylonian counterpart, who was responsible for the grain supply of the palace and the management of the royal assets (Jursa 2010, 84). The position of palace manager is also attested on a regional level. In the Elamite Nineveh letters, the palace manager occurs twice. Once the logogram GAL.E.GALmeš (Nin 3:9) was written in the typical Elamite way with the sign E instead of É. The author of the second text (Nin 5:4) spells the word for palace manager by a combination of a logogram and an Akkadian loanword GAL.MEŠ aše-kal2-li aša-a-pír-ra a-ak aškat-mur-ti-na ‘palace managers of Ayapir and Kutmurti’. Apparently they played a crucial role in the palace household of provincial governors as well. In the Ururu bronze plaque, the inscription ends with diš dNappa-ahpi, the GAL.E.GALMeš, who is very likely the editor of the text. According to Henkelman (2003c, 127), the ragipal must have functioned as some chamberlain, a position that was called in the Achaemenid household lipte kutip, literally ‘garment bearer’ (Henkelman 2008, 231-232). Potts (2010a, 114-116) stressed that this comparison cannot be proven. What we do know from the Neo-Elamite attestations is that the ragipal was the head of the royal household and held the most prominent position within the palace walls. Although the Elamite Nineveh letters (Nin 1:19; Nin 10:15) give the only Neo-Elamite references to the brother of the king or SUNKI igiri, an Acropole text (S. 168) does mention the brother of Appalaya, who was the sheikh/king of Zari. Nevertheless, the brothers of the Neo-Elamite king are quite well represented in NeoElamite history through the Assyrian documents. On the one hand they were responsible for most of the palace intrigues, but on the other hand they had prominent positions in the Elamite government system. Hubanimmena, the brother-in-law of Huban-nikaš I, and Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak, brother of Huban-haltaš II, held both the position of herald. Next to the high-ranked positions, several professions of craftsmen are known. Those craftsmen were all in some way connected to the palace. The be-la-ti-ra (S. 302:9) or be-[lat]-ra (S. 307:15) was a carpenter. This translation was proposed by Scheil (MDP 9, 95; ElW 1184) based on the reading bela ‘attacher, clouer’. The UDU.NÍTA.MEŠ ba-ak-ka4-ri (S. 307:1-2) means literally ‘keeper of the sheep’ or ‘shepherd’ (ElW 1200). This profession is also attested under the form UDU.NÍTA ba-te-ip (ElW 105-106, 120-121, 128, 166-169). In an Acropole tablet (S. 3:3), Šati-hupiti is called the AN.BAR.MEŠ kazzira or ironsmith. According to König (EKI 85), kasumu GUD.É.MEŠ meant ‘cattle herder’ of the temple. However, É.MEŠ does not necessarily have to be interpreted as temple (ElW 389). Since the late Neo-Elamite inscriptions (EKI 71, 73, 77, 80-84, 86), scribes use the syllabic value si-ia-an to describe a sanctuary. In the significance of temple building the logogram É.MEŠ is usually accompanied with the reference to the god. Instead, one could argue that É.MEŠ is the abbreviated version of E.GAL.MEŠ, meaning ‘palace’. Kasumu GUD.É.MEŠ would become the responsible of the palace cattle. In the religious journal of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II, two groups of kasumu are mentioned. The second group may have worked for the sanctuary, restoring the inscription kasumu GUD [si-ia-an] ‘the responsible of the temple cattle’. In Elamite religion, oxen took an important place in the sacrificial ritual. Bulls were depicted on votive scenes on rock reliefs (Kul-e Farah I), the Arjan bowl (Álvarez-Mon 2004) and cylinder seals. In his description of the Elamite sanctuaries (BIWA 55, vi 58-63), the Assyrian king Assurbanipal even observed the figures of the fierce wild bulls adorning the doorways (rīmē nadrūti simat KÁ.MEŠ-ni ešrēti Elamti). Presumably the temple staff bred its own cattle for ritual offerings and to provide partially in their own maintenance. The rock relief of Hanne (EKI 75) depicts such a religious ceremony.

ELAMITE INTERNAL POLITICS AND ORGANIZATION

185

König (1965, 172) translates É-pe as ‘templers’, despite the usage of the logographic value si-ia-an for sanctuary in the late Neo-Elamite period (EKI 77; EKI 80-84). Since É is not succeeded by the name of a god, it is probably more appropriate to translate É-pe as ‘people of the palace’ or ‘royal entourage’. A similar conclusion can be made for the kasumu GUD É.MEŠ or the ‘responsible of the palace cattle’, which also occurs in the religious journal of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II (EKI 85).

1.3.3. Administrative Officials One of the most debated administrative officials is the araš hutlak, who registered the commodities of the Susa Acropole archive (S. 25:9; S. 159:6). The principal araš hutlak and protagonist of the Acropole archive is Kuddakaka (S. 285:7; Potts 2010a, 116). Since Kuddakaka was the main araš hutlak, we can assume that most tablets were written at Susa during his office in the chancellery.198 It is difficult to determine Kuddakaka’s authority, since there were numerous officials with the same title (S. 25:9; S. 46:’5; S. 81:4/5; S. 119:9; S. 159:6; S. 164:9; S. 165:9/10; S. 191:8/9; S. 295:’4,’10).199 Perhaps, as Waters suggests (2000, 94), there were numerous individuals within the Susa economic system holding the same office at other geographical locations (Huhnur, Bupila, Gisat, …). However, it seems that the araš hutlak had no power within the palace walls, where his function was taken over by the ragipal (S. 52). The interpretation of this title araš hutlak, especially the first element araš, is rather difficult. Since the Neo-Elamite period, araš is a term that is attested in numerous professions: araš šahšikra, araš-šá-ip, araš. gi-nu-ip, a-ráš.nu-iš-gi-ir-ra, a-ráš.ša-h-ši-ik-ra. Hinz (1952, 243; ElW 780) has translated the Achaemenid form ir-ša-na ‘groß’, ir-ša-ra ‘der Große’, ir-ša-ir ‘der Große, Größte’, ir-ša-ir-ra ‘der Größe, Größkönig’ as forms derived from araš. He (1952, 238-243) suggested provisionally ‘Besitz, Spreicher, Hofwirtschaftsverwaltung’ or simply ‘Hof’. In his later dictionary (ElW 82), the title became ‘court representative, administrator, accountant, trustee’. Hallock (1969, 670) proposed the meaning ‘granary’ for araš in the Persepolis Fortification texts. Extending Hallock’s hypothesis, the word araš came to mean ‘storehouse’ in the early Achaemenid period (Henkelman 2008, 400-401). Then if one translates literally araš ‘storehouse’ in combination with hutlak ‘herald’, it would become a ‘storehouse messenger/herald’. Since the title only appears in singular, one can suspect that this person is a high official (Henkelman 2003b, 212) and that his position cannot be the messenger in service of the storehouse. In Susa, the araš hutlak was more likely the senior storehouse manager (ElW 82: ‘Beauftrager der Hofkammer’, ‘Intendantur-Kommissar’). Even though the translation of araš as ‘storehouse’ could have had some meaning in combination with hutlak, it can hardly be linked to every profession preceded by araš. Since the second element hutlak probably meant ‘herald’ or ‘royal envoy’, the araš hutlak must have been the ‘principal envoy’ or ‘manager of the heralds’. Therefore, I prefer in combination with professions the hypothesis of Hinz. The araš-šá-ip are perhaps ‘foremen’ (S. 130, S. 153, S. 162, S. 210, S. 281, S. 304, PFT 670, n. 742-744, 804, 936, 1053; ElW 82). Hinz & Koch (ElW 82) propose ‘Vorgesetzte’ and Hallock (1969, 705b) ‘great persons, chiefs’. The araš.gi-nu-ip are attested in the Neo-Elamite legal archive from Susa. In MDP 11, 302:10, 303:12-13 and 306:12 the three witnesses (two artisans and one priest) are called araš-ginip ‘araš-witnesses’. Hinz (1952, 241; also ElW 82, 477, 479) proposes a translation ‘court witness, royal witness’. In any case, the witnesses in this archive are not always called araš-ginip, in MDP 11 301, 305 and 307 they are simply called ginip. It is interesting to see that the araš-ginip are always with three, whereas the other witnesses operate in groups of three or five. 198 According to Steve (1986, 13), the kurmín was a functionary in service of the ragipal. The manager of the Susa Acropole texts, Kuddakaka, belonged to the group of the kurmín. However, kurmín actually means ‘supplied by’ and is no profession at all. 199 At least 10 individuals are called araš-hutlak in the texts. The most frequent one is undoubtedly Kuddakaka, but he was not alone (Tavernier 2011b, 209 n. 45). Other araš-hutlak are bead-da-bar-ru (S. 159), beba-ki-iš (S. 191), beba-nu-mi (S. 119), bebar-ri-man (S. 6, 281, 295), beha-ra-ak (S. 9 46), behu-ban-am-nu (S. 25), bešu-pi-pi (S. 281), betal-lak-ki-tin (S. 64; 74) and beun-ban?-me?-iš (S. 81). It seems likely that most of the araš-hutlak officials were working at local storage depots, were communicating with Kuddakaka (e.g. Barriman, Huban-amnu and Tallak-kitin) and were in office during the career of Kuddakaka.

186

ON THE FORMATION OF A LATE NEO-ELAMITE STATE

In one of the Susa Acrople texts (S. 8:2), Kutup, the araš-nišgirra, is mentioned. Again Hinz (1952, 241; ElW 82) links araš with the royal court and translates ‘Hofkammerwart, Intendanturwart, Hüter der Hofniederlagen’ (something like ‘court guard, court custodian’). Henkelman (2008, 26) translates ‘keeper of the (royal) stores’. Unfortunately, the tablet is not complete and the role of Kutup is impossible to assess. The a-ráš.ša-h-ši-ik-ra occurs twice in the Susa Acropole archive (S. 105 rev. 1-2, S. 134:8). In both texts the functionary is called Kutup and he receives various garments. As the verb šahši- most likely means ‘to cut’ (Bork 1941, 4), šahšikra must mean ‘cutter’. Hinz (1952, 241) proposes ‘Hofschneider’ (‘royal court cutter’) or in connection to the garments ‘tailor of the court’. The teppir can be retraced in several stages of the official Elamite state hierarchy. They appeared in inscriptions of the royal court (EKI 77:3; 80:3; 82:2), in service of the sacerdotal class and working for the provincial government (EKI 76:18, 23). The Elamite title teppir (te-ip-pír) from the Akkadian ṭuppu ‘tablet’ (Scheil 1917, 53; 1925, 149; followed by Hallock 1969, 764; Zadok 1995, 244) may have had a slightly different meaning than in Mesopotamia (Tavernier 2007c, 57). König (1965, 172) described the teppir as judge, whereas Hinz (1967b, 76 n. 33; AHW 1437; MDP 23, 183) made him the superior judge. Based on this interpretation, the meaning of ‘chancellor’ or ‘secretary’ was proposed (Potts 2010a, 115; also Henkelman 2008a, 447; ElW 312: Lambert 1977, 224). Tavernier (2007c, 59) explains that since the Old Elamite period, the teppir was a highranked official frequently attested in connection to a judge. In one of the legal texts a man and a woman gathered at the gate of the teppir (CAD A/2, 21; MDP 23, 327:’3 ina bāb teppir il[liku]). Whether this was the city gate, the palace gate or the temple gate, is not clear from the context. More important, the teppir is often related to the management of estates. In the Neo-Elamite period, Šutruru gave a teppir fifteen estates to administer (EKI 74:’27). The chancellery of the late Elamite king Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak kept a religious journal (EKI 85), recording the offerings of the state and religious officials to the Elamite gods in Susa, including Huban and Pinigir. In this journal, a teppir is mentioned twice, contributing each time one ox and six pieces of cattle. His position in the text can give some indication on the social status of the teppir. In the first attestation, a teppir is listed in the upper echelons (EKI 85:5). The four functionaries mentioned above this teppir have become illegible. Likely the king and other high ranked court officials took those positions in the tablet. After the teppir, offerings from various tribes belonging to the Elamite kingdom are enumerated, to conclude with the sacerdotal class. Among the clergy, another teppir (EKI 85:15) is mentioned, which can confirm that several office holders were employed in the state apparatus on the one hand and in the temple organization on the other hand. Whether their job description was identical in state and temple administration is another matter. An inscription on a relief at the Malamir gorge indicates that a teppir was in service of Hanne, the local ruler of Ayapir (EKI 76:8, 23). Even though the teppir worked in service of the king, he was appointed to recite the inscriptions on a statue. Hanne had ordered the statue for the goddess Mašti to be place at the Ayapir sanctuary. The ruler of Ayapir organized a daily procession or cultic moment in which he and his servant prayed to the gods. In this religious ceremony, the teppir had an important role as reciter of the prayers (EKI 76: ’29-’30), which were written down on the inscription of the statue. He read the text out loud and was repeated by Hanne and his dignitaries. After the prayers, the hatanrašiš continued the ceremony by chanting hymns. For his contribution to the cultic service, the teppir received a piece of the offering meat (TIMEŠ). On a regional level, the teppir probably combined the administrative and cultic responsibilities. An Assyrian letter of the general Bel-ibni gives a modest insight into the Elamite economic system. In this letter (ABL 281:12; de Vaan 1995, 246-248), one can read that the grain was collected centrally and redistributed by officials of the royal administration. The šarnuppu functionaries received a portion of the crop, likely as payment for their services (‘they lived on it’). When Nabu-bel-šumati convinced Umhuluma, the chief collector of the retribution system, to give him the share of the šarnuppu officials, this action caused in several regions of the Elamite kingdom uprising to the extent that these population groups suffered from famine. These šarnuppu officials went to the king to explain their griefs.

ELAMITE INTERNAL POLITICS AND ORGANIZATION

187

Stolper (1978, 261) assumes that the Akkadian name šarnuppu derives from the Elamite form šarnup, from a verbal root šara- ‘apportion’, which should be translated as ‘intended recipients of rations apportioned’. When the grain tax was collected from all over Elam and gathered in the royal granary, the grain stock was entrusted to the šarnuppu. They received a ration to live on it. Umhuluma, an Elamite official, gave the grain portions that belonged to the šarnuppu of Tallah as far as Rade and the Šallukeans to Nabu-bel-šumati (de Vaan 1995, 246, 261-265; ABL 281, ABL 462:’3). Henkelman (2008, 18 n. 31) describes this official as the chief collector of the entire revenue-crop of Elam and the director of a centralized redistribution system, a function comparable to that of parnakku in the Persepolis Fortification texts. In the Persepolis Fortification archive, one tablet (PF 292:7) described the transport of wine: ‘In total 3 baraš were completed between two officials.’ Hallock (1969, 675; also ElW 145, Fort. 3190:9 ‘Lieferung, Sendung’) suggested that these baraš200 were shipments. The barašpe ‘those of the shipment’ had probably an occupation comparable to a logistic manager. In Susa (EKI 85:12) as well as in Persepolis, these administrators were most likely responsible for arranging the transportation of palace goods; livestock, crops and crafts. Another option for barašpe may be the profession of traders connected to the palace. The profession dušumra (S. 301:6) or dušumirra (S. 302:7) literally means ‘measurer’ (he who measured) or ‘land surveyor’. This profession derives from the word du-ši-um, which is a weight in metal. In the Susa Acropole tablets (S. 85, S. 96, S. 125), this kind of objects is transported. Scheil (MDP 9, 73-74, 85, 112) suggests that the word might have a Semitic root dušu, the name of a stone. Hinz (ElW 377-378) connects du-ši-um to the Middle Elamite word du-šu-um, meaning knife. Its nomen agens would be translated into ‘cutler’. Most recently, Tavernier (2011b, 210 and 235) expanded Scheil’s suggestion and identified the du-ši-um-ra official as the person that ‘dyed leather and tanned the color of a dušu-stone’.

1.3.4. Military Officials In the Annals of Assurbanipal (BIWA F v 55-71, A vi 77-106), the Assyrian king described all Elamite magnates that he captured during the sack of Susa (646 BC) and deported to Assyria. After Assurbanipal had imprisoned the cultic personnel, he turned his attention towards the remaining family of the Elamite king, the city officials, military staff and craftsmen. Despite the raid on the royal palace, it is remarkable that Assurbanipal does not mention the capture of the palace staff. Perhaps the Elamite king took all his palace officials with him on his escape into the mountains. The large number of military officials that were imprisoned in Susa can be explained by the fact that they were left behind to defend the capital, the sanctuaries and its population. LÚ GAL gišBANMEŠ (rab qašti), LÚ GAR-nuMEŠ (šaknūti), LÚ mukīl KUŠPAMEŠ (mukīl appāti), LÚ 3-U5MEŠ ša BAD-ḫalliMEŠ, LÚ ERÍNMEŠ GIŠBAN (ṣābī qašti), LÚ SAGMEŠ (šut rēši), LÚ kitkittu, gimir LÚ ummâni.

(tašlīšāni),

LÚ

The commander of the Archers, the commander of the troops, charioteers, third-men-on-the-chariots, cavalrymen, archers, soldiers, engineers and all of the craftsmen. BIWA F v 55-71

Within this limited study of Elamite professions, seven officials were identified in the Neo-Elamite sources who may have had military functions: gišBANMEŠtáh-hi-r(a), BAN-p(a), EN-pi EN.ki-man/EN.ku-meMEŠ, gi-lì-ir/ gi-li-i(p), mu-uk-tu4/GAM.MUMEŠ, táh-hi-r(i). Thanks to Assurbanipal, modern scholars have a vague notion on the composition and the structure of the Elamite army. Even though the Elamite military officials were described in the Annals with Assyrian expressions, the job specification of the Assyrian military functions corresponds probably to the Elamite counterpart. However, the connection of the seven Elamite military officials to the Assyrian ones remains highly hypothetical.

200

The word baraš would derive from the Old Persian *bāra- (ElW 145).

188

ON THE FORMATION OF A LATE NEO-ELAMITE STATE

The ‘commander of the Archers’ or rab qašti (LÚ GAL gišBANMEŠ: CAD Q, 155) is mentioned first in the Assurbanipal prism and was most likely the commander in chief of the Elamite army. This official took a prominent place in the defense of border fortresses and was one of the magnates accompanying the Elamite king on the battlefield. Four Elamite commanders of the Archers are known. Massirâ, the rab qašti of Teptihuban-Inšušinak I served as a guard of Danunu and lived in the Gambulu fortress Šapibel (BIWA A vi 39-41, Frame 1992, 121-125). Urtak, a name that cannot be confused with the Elamite king, was linked as the commander of the Archers to a specific geographic area whose name is not preserved (Weidner 1932/3, 198: 24). Attametu or Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak, presumably the father of king Huban-haltaš III, headed the Archers in the battle of Mangisu (552/1 BC) under the supreme command of the Elamite king Huban-nikaš II (BIWA B vii 15-6/C viii 4-5). Imbappi, father-in-law of king Huban-haltaš III, was the commander of the Archers stationed in the Bit-Imbi fortress (BIWA A v 1-2). His primary duty was to protect the Elamite-Babylonian border region from Assyrian raids. The commander of the Archers unmistakably controlled the numerous contingents of Elamite bowmen (LÚ ERÍNMEŠ GIŠBANMEŠ/ṣābī qašti, CAD Q, 151). The skills and equipment of the Elamite archers were known in the entire Ancient Near East. Assyrians used the Elamite bow as military weapon, implying trade in bows. On the other hand, Mesopotamian allied kings, like Nabu-bel-šumati, gathered a contingent of Elamite archers (GIŠBAN KUR.NIM.MA.KI) to reinforce their own army (SAA 4, 280). In the religious journal of Tepti-HubanInšušinak II (EKI 85), the officials BAN-p(a) meaning literally ‘they of the bow’, could be identified as archers. In the Susa Acropole texts, Unukaka (S. 37), Menana (S. 38; S. 104) and Huban-haltaš (S. 130) held the position of EN-pi ERÍNMEŠ. Stolper (1984, 73) suggested translating the logogram EN into the Elamite word tepti ‘lord’. Literally EN-pi ERÍNMEŠ would mean ‘lord of the troops’ or more freely ‘commander of the infantry’ (ElW 398). In the Akkadian language, one has several names for officials commanding the ground troops. In the fragment on the deportation of the Elamite officials after the sack of Susa, LÚ GAR-nuMEŠ was probably šaknū ‘commanders of the troops’. In the Assyrian report on the Elamite commanding officers during the battle of Mangisu (BIWA B vii 15-6/C viii 4-5), Nešu is called ālik pani ummānāti ša Elamti ‘the supreme commander of the Elamite troops’ (CAD A/1, 345-346). At present, however, it is impossible to verify which Assyrian ground troop commander would correspond the most to the Elamite official EN-pi ERÍNMEŠ. Perhaps gi-lì-ir/ gi-li-i(p) (EKI 71; EKI 76), interpreted by Hinz & Koch (ElW 474-475) as ‘general’, fits in the groups of infantry officials as well. The šut reši (LÚ SAGMEŠ) were the lowest rank of military officials in the Assyrian texts. Although this profession had a wide range of possible interpretations (CAD R, 292-293: attendant, soldier, officer, official, eunuch), the meaning ‘soldier’ seems to be most appropriate in this particular context. Still, the Assyrian šut reši would have had a higher rank than the Elamite táh-hi-r(i), who is tentatively identified as ‘helper, auxiliary’ (ElW 266). However, in the context of the Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak stele (EKI 86-89), táh-hi-r(i) may have been a personal name as well. The Akkadian LÚ kitkittû/kiškattû can mean ‘craftsman’, ‘smith’, ‘armorer’ or ‘engineer’. The Assyrian Dictionary (CAD K, 454) prefers the translation ‘engineer’ in Assurbanipal’s list of military professions, while Borger translates LÚ kitkittû/kiškattû with ‘smith’. The Elamite profession EN.ki-man or EN.ku-meMEŠ is identified by Hinz & Koch (ElW 1021) as the ‘chief of the armory’. At present two individuals, Ummandada and Hubannikaš, are known to have held this position at the Elamite court (S. 98, S. 115, S. 192 perhaps also S. 202, S. 225). The chief of the armory probably possessed the skills of an engineer and probably those of a smith as well. The gišBANMEŠ.táh-hi-r(a) (S. 126) or bow makers (ElW 136) were certainly included among the craftsmen (LÚ ummâni) that Assurbanipal deported to Assyria. In the Annals, three Assyrian military positions involving horses are described. The charioteers or mukīl appāti (CAD A/2, 182) had the command over a chariot. The third-man-on-the-chariot or tašlīšu was an attendant or shield bearer (CAD T, 291-293). In the later period, the tašlīšu had a lower military rank. Next to his presence on a chariot, they also transported messages. The most important event in Neo-Elamite history involving a chariot was the death of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I in the battle of Til-Tuba. Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I was

ELAMITE INTERNAL POLITICS AND ORGANIZATION

189

severely wounded by the frame of the chariot that had fell on him (Gerardi 1988, 30; Russell 1999, 170). Although the cavalrymen or LÚ ša pethalli MEŠ (CAD P, 336-337) were one of the most important military groups in the Assyrian army, horses in Elamite iconography or textual sources are extremely limited, suggesting that the cavalry in the Elamite army had a less prominent role. Therefore, no Elamite alternative can be given for the three Assyrian military positions involving horses. A last military official is the Elamite muktu occurring at least fifteen times in the Elamite Nineveh Letters (Nin 1; Nin 5; Nin 8+9; Nin 10; Nin 11; Nin 15; Nin 23). Muktu is translated in various ways: ‘general’, ‘military official’, or ‘provost’ seems to be the closest translation (ElW 962-963).201 The muktu was particularly engaged in sending and receiving reports in a diplomatic context. In the Susa Acropole texts, three references are made to a muktu (S. 88, S. 302, S. 273). However, S. 88 was probably a letter belonging to the Elamite Nineveh letters that ended up for some reason in the economic archive of the Acropole (Vallat 1998a). In the Apadana texts, a mu-uk-tu4 (S. 302) named Huban-ahpi occurs as witness in a silver loan. However, the precise job description of a muktu is difficult to determine. Since the attestations of muktu officials are specifically well attested for the Elamite-Babylonian border region (Elamite Nineveh letters) but scarce in the Susa Acropole archive, one is tempted to think in the direction of a military official that had to report on the events at the Elamite frontiers. In this case, the Elamite title muktu may correspond to the Assyrian title LÚ GAL gišBANMEŠ, the commander of the Archers.

1.3.5. Religious Officials Since the Acropole of Susa was the religious center of the Neo-Elamite kingdom, one can expect a wide variety of sanctuary employment initiated by the sacerdotal class. There must have been several kinds of priests connected to the various temples. These priests probably had cultic and administrative staff at their disposal, as well as subjects belonging to those officials, such as clerks and assistant scribes. The members of the sacerdotal class were in general named lap (lar in singular), deriving from a substantivized verb la- ‘devote a cult to’ (Vallat 2003, 539; Henkelman 2008, 274). A stele of the late Neo-Elamite king Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II recounts a total of 31 cows and 186 sheep as ration to be divided amongst the members of the clergy (EKI 85:23). Although not much is known about the position of religious officials in the Neo-Elamite kingdom, the various titles describing the members of the priesthood indicate their importance in public life and Elamite society. In a Middle Elamite text of Tepti-Ahar (Reiner 1973b, 95-96; IRS 20), several positions are described in hierarchic order from the most important position to the lower ranked status: hašša – kiparu – bašišu GAL (high priest) – temple guards – pašišu (priest). Hašša and kiparu, two corrupted Elamite words, can be found in Old Akkadian texts from Susa (MDP 23, 288; 321-322). These titles were first interpreted as civil functionaries rather than religious ones (Vallat 1998a). Hinz & Koch (ElW 581) translated hašša as ‘Stadtvogt’. Kiparu has been interpreted as ‘chief of police’, ‘provost’ (ElW 479) or ‘high juridical official’ (CAD K, 396). However, the group of officials among whom the hašša and the kiparu were listed in the Tepti-Ahar brick (Reiner 1973b, 95-96; IRS 20) suggests that these were the highest ranked religious offices. Their high-ranked social status is confirmed by a legal document (MDP 23, 321-322), in which they appear as first witnesses. Vallat (1998a) was able to establish the clerical cursus honorum of the hašša official Atkalšu, who is attested in a donation document from Susa (MDP 23, 288). Herein, Atkalšu the hašša and Nenne the kiparu made a gift to an ištaritu priestess, which would denote a more religious sphere. Atkalšu was at the earliest stage of his career a puhuteppi ‘a student scribe’ (MDP 22, 101), then he took up the office of šatin-priest (MDP 22, 126; MDP 23, 287) to conclude his priesthood with the most important religious position of a hašša-priest. Most likely, there were several other stages between šatin and hašša, but information is lacking. For the Neo-Elamite period the position of hašša nor the one of kiparu is attested, although one cannot exclude that religious officials with different names had similar functions. 201

According to Hinz & Koch (ElW 946), GAM.MU.MEŠ should be a logogram for muktu (RA 14, Omen: 1, 2).

190

ON THE FORMATION OF A LATE NEO-ELAMITE STATE

Vallat (1998a) refutes the meaning ‘provost’ for kiparu based on a text in which a kiparu is leaving the ‘high village’ (MDP 23, 192). The Acropole was considered as the highest hill of Susa. It was also the religious quarter of the capital with numerous sanctuaries surrounded by a wall. Since the Acropole was a sacral area, it fell under the jurisdiction of the sacerdotal class, which would a priori mean to Vallat (1998a) that all officials mentioned in context to the Acropole had a religious position, including the kiparu. Since the Acropole was a sacral area and the Neo-Elamite royal palace was most probably located on the nearby Apadana hill, one may question if the famous Neo-Elamite archive of the Susa Acropole texts was the bookkeeping of the Elamite sacerdotal elite rather than the palace administration. The tablets were found on a floor made of (stone) tiles above the temple complex of Inšušinak that was constructed by Šutruk-Nahhunte II and below the foundation of a wall that was built against the bottom part of the Achaemenid rampart constructed by Darius the Great (MDP 8, 34-36 fig. 66). Following the Ancient Near Eastern tradition, the civil Susa Acropole archive should have been stored on the palatial hill of the Apadana, instead of on the sacral Acropole hill. For example, the Library of Assurbanipal was housed in one of the rooms of the royal palace at Nineveh, where all correspondence and administration of the empire was collected. Either these documents belong to the temple administration or the Elamite bureaucracy had a much closer collaboration with the sacerdotal class than in other Ancient Near Eastern societies. In the latter case, official state documents could be stored under protection of the gods at a building in the temple area. A similar tradition can be found in the Roman empire, where the main state archive, the ‘aerarium’ or ‘treasury’, was kept in the temple of Saturn on the Capitol Hill. The Roman senate was in charge of the archive that was managed by urban quaestors, with subordinated staff of scribes (Thomas 1996, 149-150). As already stipulated in the section on the Susa Acropole kings (cf. I.5.2.), it is possible that the Susa Acropole Archive was not a palace archive at all, but the district administration of Susa in which occasional contacts with the Susa palace occurred. If this was the case, the Roman model could have been valid in Susa. The two other religious positions, pašišu GAL and pašišu, in the hierarchic order of Tepti-Ahar, are attested in the Neo-Elamite period. The word bašišu GAL is an Akkadian loanword (CAD P, 253), with a voiced labial /b/ in Elamite instead of a voiceless consonant /p/. The occurrence of the word pašiš in the Neo-Elamite Nineveh letter (Nin 11), with p- instead of b-, can be explained by the fact that the kingdom of Zamin was a mixed Elamite-Akkadian area. The position refers to the chief official of the pašišu priests (EKI 74; EKI 85; Nin 11). Šutruru, the bašišu GAL, who acted under authority of king Šutruk-Nahhunte, recorded the delivery of livestock from various districts in this stele (EKI 74; Reiner 1969, 61-62). According to Henkelman (2008, 27, 264-265), this stele described a land grant from the king to Šutruru, a leading cultic official. The text ends with the total of livestock and flour and a date formula ‘on the 25th day of the month Lalube at Hupšan’ (EKI 74:43-46). In the stele of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II, a high-priest is connected to the temple of kam-ru-um (EKI 85:22). The priest at the bottom of the pyramid in the Middle Elamite Tepti-Ahar brick is the pašišu-priest. The position of pašišu-priest an sich is not attested in the Neo-Elamite period, but another position of šatin ‘priest or cultic expert’ (S. 302:8; EKI 85:16-17) is a quite well represented office during the Old Elamite and NeoElamite era (ElW 1142). Perhaps the šatin-priest was the Neo-Elamite equivalent for the Middle Elamite pašišu. In the Old Elamite period, several priests are mentioned in the witness lists of Old Akkadian legal texts (MDP 23:286), in which the office of šatin is also connected to female names. The numerous attestations of the word šatin in the Neo-Elamite period (cf. Table 4) lead to the assumption that they were not high-ranked within the sacerdotal class. There are two šatin receiving livestock (S. 95) in the Susa Acropole texts. In the religious journal of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II (EKI 85:16-17), the šatin of dNapir and the šatin of dSudanu? are attested. In the Persepolis Fortification tablets, the office of šatin priest is 17 times attested (Hallock 1969, 755). The ente.GAL (entu rabitu > Akk.) É.DA.MEŠ202 is high-priestess of the side-temple of Huban (EKI 85:14). Even though the name of the office is Akkadian, the cult, to which the high-priestess was devoted, was that of a domestic Elamite god. In Mesopotamia, the office of ente.GAL was reserved for the daughters of the elite, often The logogram É.DA means actually ‘container’ (ePSD). The inverse form the combination DA.É is not attested. 202

DA.É

could refer to a side temple in Sumerian language, but

ELAMITE INTERNAL POLITICS AND ORGANIZATION

191

the daughter of the king. It was the highest religious office that a Babylonian and possibly an Elamite woman could hold. After the Middle Babylonian period, the title is not attested anymore, but during the reign of Nabonidus, it revives in the city of Ur. The high-priestess was supposed to live in chastity, although many cases of indecent behavior are known in Babylonia (CAD E, 172-173). Two other female priestess šabbametu (MDP 23, 288) and muhtipe (S. 121, S. 123) are known. In the Susa Acropole texts, the muhtipe received an equal share of commodities as their male colleagues, the šatin priests (S. 89; S. 107; S. 168). Also Elamite glyptic gives a glimpse into female officials. Elamite cylinder seals show female characters with a caption ‘servant of DN’ (Amiet 1972, n. 1793, 1805, 1867). Various interpretations for the office of dšikšibbe/šeksippi, attested in the Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II stele (EKI 85:10) and the Susa Acropole texts (S. 117; S. 247?), have been offered. König (1972; 1977) translated šikšippe as ‘goat herder’, while Hinz & Koch (ElW 1156) interpreted the profession of šikšippe as an ‘artist’. According to Vallat (2003, 540) and Henkelman (2008, n. 563, n. 1038), the profession yields the element -šip meaning ‘sacral feast’ or ‘religion’. Therefore the šikšippe can be classified among the clergy. However, the šikšippe is a plural form (-ippe) of šikši-, a word that does not contain the element -šip in its root, which makes the suggestion of Vallat and Henkelman questionable. In his narration on the Sack of Susa, Assurbanipal mentioned two types of temple staff, the šangê and the puhlalê (BIWA A VI 46/F V 33). The šangê (LÚšá-an-ge-e) is an Akkadian term for chief administrator temple household or temple manager (CAD Š/1, 380; ePSD). A parallel passage can be found in the Mari texts (CAD Š/1) šangû u DUMU.MEŠ pašīšim ‘the administrators and the members of the pašišu class’. The puhlalê is an Akkadianized Elamite word constructed with two Elamite components (*puhu-la.r). The first element puhu has a wide variety of significations203 from the more literal meaning ‘child, boy’ to the more general connotations of ‘apprentice, servant, page, subordinate, citizen’ (ElW 230), a member of an ethnical or professional group (cf. the Akkadian maru: Henkelman 2008, 273). In the Šekaft-e Salman inscription (EKI 76:4,7), Hanne literally refers to puhumi ‘his own children’ depicted on the rock relief, while Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak I refers in his royal stele to the puhu šušunra, his Susian citizens or subjects (EKI 87:5-9). The puhu samatip (S. 94) are not necessarily the Samatian children, but are used in the sense of the Samatian subjects. Vallat (2001) suggested that the second component of the word puhlalê derived from the root la-, meaning to sacrifice. The suffix -lê consisted of a -r- that had shifted into an -l- (Tavernier 2007c). The final -ê is the Akkadian accusative suffix in plural. By consequence, Vallat translated puhlalê with ‘enfant(s) clergé’ or ‘séminariste’ (Vallat 2000a; 2001; 2003, 539-540). Henkelman (2008, 270) prefers the translation ‘member of the class of officiants’, considering the puhlalê as a collective for cultic personnel involved in the daily performance of cultic rites of the Elamite and Susian sanctuaries. In this case, Assurbanipal would have counted the šangē and puhlalê, both administrative and cultic personnel of the temple household, to his war booty. The earliest reference to the office of the lar is made in texts of Šilhak-Inšušinak I. One inscription cites haal-e la-ar-e hu-te-pi lu-mu-uh ‘I burnt down his land, his officiant, his officers’ (Vallat 2000a, 1070-1072). In a second inscription (EKI 54:VIII-17-IX.2), a curse formula states ha-al-li la-ar-e hi-it-e ma-an a-ni a-ha-an hu-ra-an ‘that no decision may be favorable to his country, his clergy, his army’. In the Neo-Elamite period, two more attestations can be found on an object of the Kalmakarra hoard and another one of the Ram Hormuz burial. The bowl that belongs to the Kalmakarra hoard is inscribed with Annišilhak, king of Samati […] dla-ar dDIL.BAT-na ‘officiant of the goddess DIL.BAT’ (Mahboubian 1995, 31; Vallat 2000b, 1069-1070). The gold ceremonial object found in Ram Hormuz reads la-ar-na ‘of/belonging to the officiant’ (Henkelman 2008, 271). The plural form lap occurs in the inscription of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II (EKI 85:23) PAP 31 GUDmeš PAP 186 UDU.NITÁmeš la-ap-ma hu-sameš-ik si-na a-hi la-ha-na ‘a total of 31 cows and a total of 186 sheep for the officiants, which has to be brought to the grove to be slaughtered there’ (Vallat 2000a, 1070; Henkelman 2008, 272). 203

For the different meanings of the word puhu: Glassner 1994, 222; Hallock 1969, 39; ElW 230; Briant 1996, 95; Tavernier 2007b; Henkelman 2003c, 129-137; 2008, 273.

192

ON THE FORMATION OF A LATE NEO-ELAMITE STATE

Perhaps another uncertain attestation bela-pá is recorded in the Persepolis Bronze Plaque (rev. 27). Nevertheless, this reading is questionable (Henkelman 2008, 272 n. 619). According to Henkelman (2008, 274) lar is a general term for officiant, while lap in plural is the term par excellence to describe the sacerdotal class of the Elamite society. Although the lap could be seen as a profession, it does not necessarily needs to be a fulltime priesthood. In Elamite literature, several other professional titles are preceded by puhu, like puhu teppi ‘studentscribe’. However, alternative uses of puhu may apply here. Puhu may simply denote a lower social rank, being the ‘scribal clerk’ or ‘assistant priest’. The Persepolis Bronze Plaque mentions puhu ziyanup ‘temple servants or personnel’ (l. 15). In the Šutruru stele, groups of these temple servants pu-hu-ur-(ri) (EKI 74:’5, ’8, ’9) were specified in pu-hu-ri si-ia-an dIn-šu-ši-na-ak-mi-ra ‘servant in the Inšušinak temple’ (EKI 74) and pu-hu-ur pu-hu-ur-ri ‘children of the servants?’ (EKI 74: 35-36). This social status can be translated as oblates of Inšušinak and children/servants/slaves of these oblates (EKI 74:36-37). The title puhu is first attested in an inscription of Šilhak-Inšušinak (EKI 45:VII 6-8), where puhu si-ia-an-ni-ir appears between the king and the regent (sugir puhu siyannir ak zukkir). Based on this order, Henkelman (2008, 273; contra König 1965, 100; Grillot 1977, 21, 44-45) suggests that this position must have been held by a member(s) of higher social class rather than temple servants. The words sir-man, šiltu, karubala (EKI 85) cannot be linked clearly to specific profession yet, although their position in the religious journal of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II defines them as Elamite officials. Two officials, nisikkir (lu or IÀ sikkir, EKI 75C) and muhhudu ullira (EKI 75G), are identified in the Kul-e Farah I relief. Their function is still unclear. Since the relief depicts an offering scene, they probably had religious positions. König (1965, 149) suggests ‘oil-anointer’ for IÀ sikkir and ‘hunter’ for muhhudu ullira. Elamite profession

Text reference

Translation

ba-ra-áš-pe

EKI 85:12

logistic managers

ba-šiš

Nin 11:9

priest

ba-ši-šu GAL pa-ši-šum ra-buMEŠ

EKI 74:1, 5, 10, 16, 26; EKI 85:22; Ururu: '10

high-priest

Ururu: '9

high priestess

S. 126: '7-'8

bow maker ?

BAN-pa

EKI 85:18

archers ?

É-pe

EKI 85:11

royal entourage

pa-ši-šum ra-buMEŠ GIŠ

MEŠ

BAN

MUNUSMEŠ-na

.táh-hi-ra

be-ri-ir

EKI75:4, 21; Ururu

messenger

e-ul-ma-pe / el-ma-pe

EKI 74: '39; EKI 85:7

gatekeepers

EKI 74:29, 30, 31, 32; EKI 86:9; EKI 88:8

chiefs?

S. 37:5; S. 104:11; S. 130:'1

chief/lords

S. 98:6; S. 115:7; S. 192:5 (S. 22:5; S. 225:3)

chief of the armory

EN.TE.GAL

EKI 85:14

high priestess

gi-lì/li-ir-ra / gi-li-ip

EKI 71:2; EKI 76:12, 22, 25

commander

ha-al-li-ip-pi

EKI 86:11

landlords

EN-ni

(< Akk: rabû) MEŠ

EN-pi ERÍN

EN.ki-man EN.ku-meMEŠ

204

hal.me-ni-ik

EKI 86:2

landlord: titulary

har-iš-šá.el-pe

EKI 85:21

?

ha-tan-ráš-iš

EKI 76:22, 30

chaor?

hu-ut-lak

Nin 10; Nin 13; S. 19:7-8; S. 29:14; S. 53:9; S. 71:1; S. 82:6; S. 93:10; S. 108:4; S. 158:2; S. 162:2, 10-1

herald

ÌA-si-ik-ki-ir

EKI 75C

oil-anointer204

According to König (1965b, 160 n. 16) this might be the Elamite variant of the Akkadianized office of the ba-ši-šu GAL.

193

ELAMITE INTERNAL POLITICS AND ORGANIZATION Elamite profession

Text reference

Translation

ka4-at-ri/u

EKI 72:2; EKI 73:2; EKI 86:2

heir to the throne: titulary

ka4-rášMEŠ (< Akk: karašu)

EKI 86:12, 15

infantry, field troops

ka4-ru-ba-la

EKI 85:13

?

ka4-su-mu

EKI 85:9

responsible

ku-iš-ih

EKI 75I:2

butcher/officiant

ku-pa-ra-taš

EKI 75:11, 13; EKI 85:20; Nin 1: 18-19; Nin 10:7

?

ku-tur

EKI 75:5; EKI 75A:3; EKI 76:1, 2, 20; EKI 86:9; Nin 1:18-19; Nin 10:7, 15

governor

li-ba-ak

EKI 72:3; EKI 77:2; EKI 87 (caption)

servant: titulary

LÚ.GAL gišBAN

BIWA 53

commander of the Archers

mu-uh-hu du-ul-li-ra

EKI 75G:3

hunter?

mu-uk-tu4 GAM.mu.MEŠ

Nin 1:4, 9, 14; Nin 5:28-30, 33, 35; Nin 8+9:3-4, 7; Nin 10:10, 13, 16-17; Nin 11:6; Nin 15:2, 12; Nin 23:2; S. 88:4; S. 273; S. 302:2

commander of the Archers?

pu-hu-mi

EKI 76:4, 7

(my) children

pu-hu-ur pu-hu-ur-ri

EKI 74:35, '13, '14; EKI 89:12

children of the sacerdotal class, the servants of the subjects….

EKI 74:37, '5, '8, '9, '16, '17; EKI 87:7, 9

people, subjects (litt. children)

pu-hu zi-ia-an-up

Ururu:'15

temple servants

ra-gi-pal/GAL.E.GAL (< Akk: rab ekalli)

EKI 75B:3, EKI 76:12, 22, 33; S. 9:4, S. 22:1; S. 39:8; S. 93:14, S. 145:8; S. 163:4-5; S. 181:'6; S. 232: 3 Yusifov 1963, n. 15, 65, 108, 141, 177, 189; Ururu; Nin 3:9, Nin 5:4

palace manager

ri-šá-ak-ka4

EKI 71:2; EKI 72:2; EKI 73:2; EKI 86:1

enlarger

ru-tú šu-tú

EKI 76:3, 7

wife

SAL.am-ma-ṣi-ráš

EKI 76:21

female cultic singers ?

šá-te-ma-pe

EKI 74:'38

priest ?

šá-tin(-pe)

EKI 74:20, '15, '43, '44; EKI 75K:2; EKI 76:23; EKI 85:16-17; Ururu; S. 29; S. 89; S. 107; S. 302; S. 303; S. 339; S. 352

priest

ši-ik-ši-ip-pe

EKI 85:10

cultic personnel

šil-tu4

EKI 85:8

?

sir-man

EKI 85:6

?

su-gìr

EKI 72:4-6; EKI 74:'2, '12; EKI 86: 3, 6, 10; EKI 87(caption)

king

su-un-ki (ip)

EKI 71:1; EKI 73:1, 6; EKI 75:1; EKI 86:1; EKI 88:10; EKI 89:10

king

Nin 1:19; Nin 10:15

brother of the king

SUNKI/LUGÀL/EŠŠANA

EKI 75:7, 10; EKI 78:1

king

táh-hi-ri

EKI 86:15

helper, auxilary

te-ip-pír

EKI 74:'27; EKI 76:18, 23, 29; EKI 77:3; EKI 85:5, 15; S. 6:'2; S. 17:5, S. 21:6, S. 35:7, S. 38:1; S. 100:5; S. 301:9; S. 302:11; S. 306:7, 13; BM 136846:'16

scribe

te-ip-ti

EKI 75:1; EKI 86:7

lord

za-na

EKI 75:14; EKI 76:4; EKI 78:3

Lady: religious epithet

pu-hu-ur-(ri)

SUNKI

i-gi-ri

Table 14: List of Neo-Elamite officials

CONCLUSION

Within the field of Elamite studies, the history of the Neo-Elamite kingdom is the most difficult period to grasp, leaving only breadcrumbs of evidence for modern scholars. Consequently, the aim of this study was to improve our understanding on three themes (Elamite rulers, territory and state formation) in order to provide essential pieces of the puzzle that will contribute to a comprehensive study on the history of the Neo-Elamite kingdom. The first part of this research has focused on the chronological sequence and the genealogy of the Neo-Elamite kings. A reassessment of all source material has allowed me to group the presently known Neo-Elamite kings into two royal dynasties (pre-645 BC) and to make a chronological sequence of the late Neo-Elamite kings (post-645 BC). The second part of this study was intended to establish the geopolitical power of the Neo-Elamite kings. Although any reconstruction on the extent of the Neo-Elamite kingdom remains very tentative, the Elamite regions were divided into the Elamite heartland and border regions. A special focus has been given to the Elamite border regions, since the Elamite territorial boundaries shifted often through military confrontations between Elam and its neighboring states. The third part gives a preliminary reconstruction of the Neo-Elamite state formation, its governmental structure and its magnates.

1. ON THE KINGS OF NIM.MA.KI AND ON THOSE OF AŠSUSAN AND AŠANŠAN For the beginning of the 1st millennium BC, the so-called Elamite Dark Ages (c. 1100-760 BC), Elamite as well as Mesopotamian sources fail to provide information on Elamite royalty, although the Mesopotamian sources reveal some traces of the existence of a Neo-Elamite kingdom. It is not until the mid-8th century BC that one can retrace in the Babylonian Chronicle the first reference to a Neo-Elamite king Huban-nikaš I (743717 BC), who is called the son of Huban-tahra in the Annals of Assurbanipal. However, the first Neo-Elamite dynasty (c. 760-689 BC) did not start with the reign of Huban-nikaš I or with his father Huban-tahra. After the occupation gap of the 10th century BC, the archaeological data from the Elamite capital Susa yield a continued settlement from around the middle of the 9th century BC onwards. By the end of the 9th century BC, an Elamite garrison delivered military support to the Babylonian king Mardukbalassu-iqbi in the battle of Dur-Papsukkal (814 BC). Fifty years after this battle, the Babylonian king Nabušuma-iškun (760-748 BC) presented diplomatic gifts to an unnamed Elamite king, who may have been Huban-tahra. After the battle of Der (720 BC), in which Huban-nikaš I and Merodach-baladan II had concluded an alliance against the Assyrian king, Elam repositioned itself as one of the states that would play an important role in Ancient Near Eastern international politics during the second quarter of the 1st millennium BC. The legacy of Huban-nikaš I was inherited by his nephew or mar ahātišu Šutruk-Nahhunte II. In a Neo-Elamite foundation stone, Šutruk-Nahhunte II described his full patrilineal ancestry, which is highly exceptional in royal Elamite texts. An Elamite king usually limits his genealogy to the patronymic in the first two lines of the inscription, where Šutruk-Nahhunte identifies himself as the son of Huban-immena. After his name, patronymic and titulary, he retakes his patrilineal descent in which he relates himself to the late Middle Elamite kings Hutelutuš-Inšušinak, Šilhana-hamru-Lagamar and Huban-immena. There is no evidence to assume that Huban-immena, father of Šutruk-Nahhunte, has been a king of Elam. Huban-immena, father of Šutruk-Nahhunte II, seems to be an Elamite nobleman who had married the sister of king Huban-nikaš I and who was perhaps even a distant relative of the Middle Elamite Šutrukid family, as indicated on an Elamite foundation stone. He can therefore be excluded from the Elamite king list. Since Šutruk-Nahhunte II was the nephew of the previous Neo-Elamite monarch, he was not the biological successor of Huban-nikaš. Perhaps Šutruk-Nahhunte retraced his paternal ancestry to the late Middle Elamite kings to emphasize his legitimacy on the Elamite throne. Not only the names of the Šutrukid king refer to the late Middle Elamite period, also the royal titulary of Šutruk-Nahhunte II and the description of the family are connecting the inscriptions of Šutruk-Nahhunte II to the late Middle Elamite Kingdom. Within this tradition, this

198

CONCLUSION

Neo-Elamite king used the late Middle Elamite royal name Šutruk-Nahhunte, while his actual name was ŠuturNahhunte. This would explain the use of Šutur-Nahhunte on non-monumental inscriptions (e.g. EKI 71). According to the Babylonian Chronicle, Šutruk-Nahhunte II was, after 18 years on the Elamite throne, succeeded by his younger brother Hallutuš-Inšušinak I, or Hallušu in Akkadian. The genealogical information provided in the Babylonian Chronicle does not correspond to the information on fifteen Elamite bricks (EKI 77), in which king Hallutuš-Inšušinak is called the son of Huban-tahra. Moreover, a Neo-Babylonian legal text, found in Nippur, was drafted in the 15th regnal year of Hallutuš-Inšušinak, whereas the Babylonian Chronicle attributes a reign of only six years to Hallutuš-Inšušinak. Palaeographic and orthographic features in the Hallutuš-Inšušinak text have provided a Neo-Elamite III dating for the Elamite bricks, which makes the Elamite inscriptions of Hallutuš-Inšušinak, son of Huban-tahra, nearly a century younger than the Hallušu of the Mesopotamian sources. This would mean that there were actually two Neo-Elamite kings by the name HallutušInšušinak. The legal text of Nippur can therefore be attributed to the reign of Hallutuš-Inšušinak II in the early 6th century BC, who ruled Elam for more than 15 years. In the Annals of Sennacherib, the Elamite throne is assigned successively to the sons of Hallutuš-Inšušinak I, Kutur-Nahhunte and Huban-menanu. The second Neo-Elamite dynasty of the Hubanids ruled Elam for nearly 40 years (688-650 BC). Although his connection to the first Neo-Elamite dynasty is difficult to determine, Huban-haltaš I was the founder of the Hubanid dynasty. Huban-haltaš I was the father of three sons Huban-haltaš II, Urtak and TeptiHuban-Inšušinak, who successively ruled Elam and were involved in a war of succession for the Elamite throne. In this period the rulers of Hidalu, Šutruk/Šutur-Nahhunte and Tammaritu receive a prominent role in the historical records. Although scholars on Elamite history have tried to link them to the Hubanid dynasty, the genealogical connection of the Hidalu kings with the Hubanids remains a highly hypothetical reconstruction at present. After the death of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I, in the battle of Til-Tuba, Huban-nikaš II, the son of Urtak, managed to occupy the Elamite throne with help of the Assyrian army. This Assyrian client king was soon to be replaced by Tammaritu, a member of the royal family belonging to the anti-Assyrian political fraction. The Elamite successor Tammaritu was most likely the grandson of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I. During the five years (650-645 BC) following the reign of Tammaritu, the last king of the Hubanid dynasty, Elamite internal politics escalated in a struggle for power between pro-and anti-Assyrian political and military fractions. The Elamite rebel kings, consequently representing the opposing ideologies, failed to bring stability in the Elamite political landscape. Indabibi, a servant of Tammaritu I, came into power after a coup d’état. Two years later, Huban-haltaš III took over the kingship of Elam. Although he was not a member of the Elamite royal family, he may have had a close connection to the Hubanid dynasty. The father of Huban-haltaš III, Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak, had been the Commander of the Archers under the reign of Hubanhaltaš II. By consequence, Huban-haltaš III descended from one of the highest ranked military families connected to the Hubanids. Huban-haltaš III remained in office until 645 BC. However, the internal political unrest instigated by the Assyrians forced him several time to retreat into the mountains, which gave other rebel kings such as Pa’e and Huban-habua the opportunity to claim the throne of Elam. The former Elamite king Tammaritu tried once more the secure the Elamite throne with the help of the Assyrian army, but this attempt was short-lived. After the sack of Susa (646 BC) and the Assyrian capture of Huban-haltaš III (645 BC), the Mesopotamian sources become scarce and one can only establish a relative sequence of late Neo-Elamite kings based on chronological markers in late Neo-Elamite textual sources. Keeping in mind that the source material is rather limited, it is highly possible that in the current chronological representation several late Neo-Elamite kings, of whom we have no source material at present, are missing. The first king to rule after the sack of Susa was probably Šutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada, based on the iconographical and philological aspects of the inscribed rock reliefs in the Izeh gorge, in which he is mentioned as the overlord of Hanne, kutur of Ayapir. Hallutuš-Inšušinak II ruled Elam during the early 6th century BC, which can be confirmed by the archaeological context of a Neo-Babylonian tablet found in Nippur that was dated the Hallutuš-Inšušinak II’s 15th regnal year, by the connection to the Neo-Babylonian Iqiša archive and his descent on the Elamite bricks.

THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY

199

Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak reigned Elam in the second quarter of the 6th century BC and conducted military campaigns in the Elamite highlands (Gisat, Huhnur, Pessitme). These campaigns must have taken place before the Teispid territorial expansion. The language in the inscriptions of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II (mid-6th century BC) is very similar to the Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak stele, so their reign must have been closely related in time. Taking the genealogy of the Teispid dynasty into account, Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II ruled contemporary with Cyrus the Great. Since his attention was directed toward southern Lurestan, Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II probably lost the highland region to Cyrus and may have been a vassal of the latter. Three Elamite rebel kings are described in the Bisitun inscription of Darius the Great (c. 522-520 BC). It is however difficult to determine whether these kings were Persians intending to undermine Darius claim to the Achaemenid throne or whether they were Elamites striving for Elamite independence. Numerous local kings/sheikhs who reigned during the late 7th century BC, are mentioned in the Susa Acropole archive. One of these local rulers was the king of Zari, whose kingdom was situated in the ElamiteBabylonian frontier region. According to Vallat (1996a), the Susa Acropole archive was drafted during the reign of the Elamite king Ummanunu. However, the Acropole texts do not provide any indication for naming Ummanunu the king of Elam, which let me suspect that he was a local king similar as to the other royal references in the Acropole texts. The king Šilhak-Inšušinak, who left his signature on a door socket in Susa, is often identified as the son of Ummanunu and father of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II, which is rather doubtful. Firstly, the inscriptions of Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II are much younger (mid-6th century BC). Secondly, if Ummanunu was indeed the father of Šilhak-Inšušinak, then the latter was a local ruler as well. The use of the delocutive case and the reference to DIL.BAT enhance the idea of a local monarch. Contemporary to Šilhak-Inšušinak, king Bahuri ruled over the Elamite chiefdom Zamin in the ElamiteBabylonian border region. He made contact in the Nineveh letters with the king of Assyria and the king of Hara(n), another Elamite chiefdom in the vicinity of Der. The position of Huban-Šuturuk, the king whose sealing is used on the Persepolis Bronze Plaque, is questionable. Based on the resemblance of the HubanŠuturuk sealing with the Susa Acropole glyptic, one may argue that Huban-Šuturuk might have been the king of Susa and accordingly the king of Elam instead of a local king of Gisat. His reign must be situated between the kingship of Šutur-Nahhunte and that of Hallutuš-Inšušinak in the early 6th century BC. Although the Susa Acropole texts confirm that Samatian kings were dwelling in southern Lurestan by the end of the 7th century BC, the inscribed objects of the Kalmakarra hoard can be dated to the 6th century BC.

2. THE GEOPOLITICAL POWER OF THE NEO-ELAMITE MONARCHY In determining the geopolitical setting of the Neo-Elamite kingdom, five regions were assigned within the limits of the Neo-Elamite kingdom, of which the Susiana plain with the Elamite capital Susa, the Ram Hormuz, and the Behbabhan region belonged geographically to the lowlands, while Izeh and Mamasani were part of the Elamite highlands. The border regions of the Elamite kingdom — southern Lurestan, the Trans-Tigridian corridor, the Bakthiari mountains and the Kur River Basin — were under Elamite cultural influence during the 1st millennium BC and alternating under Elamite geopolitical power. Thanks to the Mesopotamian textual sources, Elam’s western border region could be examined in detail. During the First Neo-Elamite dynasty, Elam’s northwestern lands bordered to Ellipi. When the Assyrians incorporated the Ellipian kingdom into their empire, the most northern region of Elam was probably the Raši area in southern Lurestan, where the tribes of the Lallari, Balahute and Samati dwelled. The southwestern Elamite border with Babylonia, the Trans-Tigridian corridor, from Der to the Persian Gulf served as a buffer against the Assyrian raids. Since the 8th century BC, the Trans-Tigridian corridor was the subject of territorial expansion for Elam, Babylonia and Assyria. Remarkably, the most bespoken chiefdoms in the Elamite sources, Zari, Zamin and Hara(n), were located in this border zone. Deeper to the southwest, the Persian Gulf formed a natural border for Elam.

200

CONCLUSION

In Susa, de Miroschedji (1981a; 1981b) established a stratigraphy of the Neo-Elamite layers in Ville Royale II and the Apadana. The Neo-Elamite period was divided into two phases, Neo-Elamite I (c. 1000-725 BC) and Neo-Elamite II (c. 725-520 BC), each of them composed of two stratigraphic levels. The level 9 and 8 were identified as Neo-Elamite I occupation layers, while levels 7 and 6 belonged to the Neo-Elamite II phase. The Acropole hill was the religious quarter, while the Apadana possibly housed the royal residence. Ville Royale II has yielded a graveyard and residential quarters. In the late Neo-Elamite period, an (Indo-)Iranian settlement (Village perse-achemenide) was constructed at the Ville des artisans hill. In the surrounding Susiana plain, de Miroschedji (1981c) identified more than 20 mounds of the NeoElamite I period, only one less than for the final Middle Elamite phase, with a high degree of continuity in surface sizes. A major decline occurred during the Neo-Elamite II phase (c. 725-520 BC), probably in response to major disruptions caused by the Assyrian armies. Susa and Chogha Zanbil were occupied along with at least 6 other small sites and one new site (KS-369) in the Dizful region. Smaller regions in Susiana with Middle to Neo-Elamite sequences show similar settlement patterns. In the Patak region, northwest of Susa and leading into the Deh Luran, a decline in population started in the Neo-Elamite I phase leaving only three sites (Tepe Patak, Tepe Ain Khoš and Tepe Biropijah) by the NeoElamite II period. All three mounds remained settled in the following Achaemenid period. Nevertheless, the pottery of the Patak mounds did not reveal close parallels with the Neo-Elamite ceramic assemblage of Susa, but was rather related to the Lurestan pottery. The Mainab survey results provide conclusive evidence for a continuously settlement pattern during the 2nd and 1st millennium BC. During the Neo-Elamite period, the population growth came to a stop, but the population itself did not decrease like in most Elamite valleys. The villages in the valley apparently survived the political instability of the late Neo-Elamite period. In the Ram Hormuz plain, continuous Neo-Elamite presence was identified at the two main sites Tepe Bormi and Tall-i Ghazir. The burials uncovered in Tall-i Ghazir are highly similar to the Susa tombs of level 7b on the architectural as well as on the ceramic level. The Neo-Elamite settlement in the Ram Hormuz reflects the importance of the highland fringe areas during the 1st millennium BC. The Ram Hormuz would have provided shelter for the Elamite population forced out of central Khuzestan as well as a passage to the highlands. Most recently, two royal tombs were uncovered in the Ram Hormuz region with inscribed objects of king Šutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada. This vaulted burial chamber contained two bathtub-shaped coffins with two female bodies and a large amount of funerary goods comparable to the Arjan tomb. The eastern corridor leading from the Ram Hormuz to Behbahan, yields a similar settlement pattern as the Ram Hormuz. In the Behbahan region, the Neo-Elamite Arjan tomb was accidently uncovered during the construction of the Marun dam. The objects with mixed Assyrian, Elamite, Achaemenid stylistic elements found in the burial chamber delivered abundant evidence for a Neo-Elamite occupation in the Behbahan region. The four inscribed objects of Kitin-Hutran, son of Kurluš, even suggest the presence of highly placed Neo-Elamite dignitaries in the region. The lowland Behbahan region near the foothills of the Elamite highlands and in the proximity of the Persian Gulf is situated at the crossroads of Elamite highland and lowland culture. Behbahan may have served as a center of international trade between Elam and Mesopotamia as well. In the Izeh plain no Neo-Elamite settlements were found, but at the time of the survey, the typology of the Neo-Elamite ceramic was not yet fully established. Rock reliefs of Kul-i Farah and Šekaft-i Salman in Izeh are cited as evidence of a Neo-Elamite presence, as well as the references to Ayapir in Neo-Elamite textual sources, such as the Susa Acropole Archive and the Elamite Nineveh letters. Despite the limited knowledge on the eastern frontier of the Elamite kingdom, we can assume that Izeh was the most eastern settlement firmly within the Elamite geopolitical power and that the territorial limits of the Neo-Elamite kingdom did not extend much further than Izeh. In the 1st millennium BC, Medians dwelled in the Bakhtiari mountains, east of Izeh. The southeastern limit of the Neo-Elamite highlands can be set at present in the Mamasani plain. The recent surveys of the Mamasani plain provided the first conclusive evidence for highland settlements under Neo-Elamite power. Many of the Mamasani sites contain ceramic material comparable to Neo-Elamite I and II ceramic types from Khuzestan. Tol-e Spid (phase 13) provided Neo-Elamite I material corresponding to the Susa ceramic, while the site of Tol-e Nurabad (trench B) yielded ceramic finds of a Neo-Elamite II settlement

ON THE FORMATION OF A LATE NEO-ELAMITE STATE

201

(levels B7 to B6). There was probably a scattered Elamite population in the Mamasani valleys prior to the start of the Achaemenid period. This population was centered at four sites: MS1 and MS3 in the northern part and MS22 and MS23 in the central part of the valley. Important highland cities such as Hidalu, Huhnur and Gisat are most likely to be situated in the Mamasani plain. It is widely suggested that the Kur River Basin, a large plateau that housed the Middle Elamite capital Anšan, was abandoned during the early Neo-Elamite period, because there is no clear evidence of any continuing Neo-Elamite occupation. The EDD burial 47 of Anšan might reflect the last architectural remains of an early Neo-Elamite occupation. Sumner (1994b) proposed that the Shogha–Teimuran ceramics, which were produced until c. 900 BC in the highland region, indicated an early 1st millennium BC population. Although the limited research in the Kur River Basin restricts us to preliminary conclusions, the Kur River Basin must be excluded from the Neo-Elamite political setting, due to the lack of Elamite material traces. However, the several attestations of Anšanite contingents in the Elamite army reinforces the impression that there was interregional contact. There is no settlement data from the Fasa and Darab valleys later than the Kaftari period, which also excludes the Neo-Elamite presence in this region.

3. ON THE FORMATION OF A LATE NEO-ELAMITE STATE The Elamite kingdom was not an unitary state nor a fragmentary state. The ethnic diversity and the geographical landscape created a multitude of small entities with local rulers in the border regions and districts governors in the Elamite heartland. They had various degrees of autonomy, but all of them were united under the paramount ruler of Elam. In modern terms, Elam can be best described as a decentralized government with a federal state formation. Next to the king of Anšan and Susa, there was a group of ‘Elders of Elam’ that may have served as an advisory institute for the Elamite king. On a regional level, numerous sheikhs and local kings held contact with the central government in Susa, where a bureaucratic apparatus of administrative and state officials contributed to the daily functioning of the government system. A group of military officials protected the borders of the Elamite kingdom, while the sacerdotal class stationed in Susa contributed to well-being of the Elamite state by pleasing the gods.

ABBREVIATIONS SIGLA 1N… ABC ABL AHW AO BE BIWA BM Bu CAD CM CT CT 54 CTN DB DBb DBe DBp DSaa DSz EKI ElW Fort. GAG IRS K Kal. KF MDP MLC MS ND NRV O PBP PF PF-NN

MCCOWN, D.E. & R.C. HAINES (1967) Nippur. Part I: Temple of Enlil, Scribal Quarter, and Soundings (OIP 78), Chicago. GRAYSON, A.K. (1975) Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Locust Valley. HARPER, R.F. (1892-1914) Assyrian and Babylonian Letters belonging to the K(ouyunjik) Collection(s) of the British Museum, 14 vol., London. SODEN, W. VON (1959-1981) Akkadisches Handwörterbuch, Wiesbaden. Antiquités orientales, tablets and objects in the collection of Musée du Louvre. Tablets of the Babylonian Expedition of the Univerisity of Pennsylvania. BORGER, R. (1996) Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals. Die Prismenklassen A, B, C K, D, E, F, G, H, J und T sowie andere Inschriften, Wiesbaden. Objects and tablets of the British Museum collection. Objects and tablets of the Budge excavations at the British Museum. ROTH M.T. (ed.) (1956-2010) The Assyrian Dictionary of the University of Chicago, Chicago – Glückstadt. GLASSNER, J.J. (1993) Chroniques mésopotamiennes, Paris. Cuneiform texts of the Babylonian tablet collection at the British Museum. DIETRICH, M. (1979) Neo-Babylonian Letters from the Kuyunjik Collection, London. Cuneiform Tablets from Nimrud, London. Darius, Bisitun, main inscription. Babylonian version of the Bisitun inscription. Elamite version of the Bisitun inscription. Old Persian version of the Bisitun inscription. Akkadian inscription from Susa (Darius). Elamite inscription from Susa (Darius). KÖNIG, F.W. (1965) Die elamischen Königsinschriften (AfO Beiheft 16), Graz. HINZ, W. & H. KOCH (1987) Elamisches Wörterbuch (AMI 17), 2 vol., Berlin. Unpublished Persepolis Fortification tablets in the National Museum of Iran, edited by C.C. Cameron. SODEN, W. VON (1952) Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik, Roma. MALBRAN-LABAT, F. (1995) Les inscriptions royales de Suse: Briques de l’époque paléo-élamite à l’empire néo-élamite, Paris. Tablets of the Kuyunjik collection of the British Museum. Neo-Elamite captions on the Kalmakarra objects, numbers following W. HENKELMAN (2003b). Rock reliefs of Kul-e Farah. Texts and objects of the publications in the Mémoires de la délégation française en Perse series. Morgan Library Collection of the Yale Babylonian Collection, New Haven. Objects of the Schøyen collection, Oslo & London. Field numbers of the tablets excavated at Nimrud. SAN NICOLÒ, M. & A. UNGNAD (1925-1937) Neubabylonische Rechts- und Verwaltungsurkunden, vol. I-VI, Leipzig. Objects and tablets from the Antiquités orientales of the Musée du cinquantenaire (RMAH), Brussels. Persepolis Bronze Plaque (E.F. SCHMIDT 1957, 64-65). Persepolis Fortification tablets published by R.T. HALLOCK (1969). Unpublished Persepolis Fortification tablets, edited by R.T. Hallock.

204 PFS PNA PTS RIMA RINAP S. S. Add. SAA Sb ŠS TCS TTM TuM 2/3 VS VAT YOS

ABBREVIATIONS

Persepolis Fortification Seals, numbers following M.B. GARRISON & M. ROOT (2001). RADNER, K. & H.D. BAKER (1998-2011) Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, vol. 1-3, Helsinki. Tablet collection of the Princeton Theological Seminary. The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Period, Toronto. The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period, Toronto. Susa Acropole texts (MDP 9, 1-298) and Apadana texts (MDP 11, 298-307). PAPER, H.H. (1954) Note préliminaire sur la date de trois tablettes élamites de Suse, in: Village perse-achéménide (MDAI 36), Paris, 79-82. State Archives of Assyria, Helsinki. Objects from the Susiana collection of the Musée du Louvre, Paris. Rock reliefs of Šekaft-e Salman. Texts from Cuneiform Sources (1966- ), New York. STOLPER, M.W. (1984) Texts from Tall-i Malyan I. Elamite Administrative Texts (1972-1974), Philadelphia. KRÜCKMAN, O. (1935) Neubabylonische Rechts- und Verwaltungstexte (Texte Materialien der Frau Professor Hilprecht Collection Jena 2/3), Leipzig. UNGNAD, A. (1908) Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Königlichen Museen zu Berlin, Leipzig. Vorderasiatisches Museum, Vorderasiatische Abteilung, Tontafeln, Berlin. Texts in Yale Oriental Series, New Haven.

JOURNALS & SERIES AAASH AchHist AfO AJA AJAH AMI(NF) AMIT AnOr AnSt AOAT AÖAW ArAs ArOr ARTA BA BaF BAI BIFAO BiOr BMCR BNF CDAFI CM DATA EncIr Iran

Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Budapest. Achaemenid History (Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten), Leiden. Archiv für Orientforschung, Wien. American Journal of Archaeology, Princeton/Baltimore. American Journal of Ancient History, Cambridge (Mass.). Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran (Neue Folge), Berlin. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan, Berlin. Analecta Orientalia, Roma. Anatolian Studies, London. Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Neukirchen–Vluyn. Anzeiger den Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-Hist. Klasse, Wien. Arts Asiatiques, Paris. Archív Orientální, Prague. Achaemenid Research on Texts and Archaeology. Beiträge zur Assyriologie, Leipzig. Baghdader Forschungen, Mainz. Bulletin of the Asia Institute, Detroit. Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire, Le Caire. Bibliotheca Orientalis, Leiden. Bryn Mawr Classical Review. Beiträge zur Namenforschung, Heidelberg. Cahiers de la délégation archéologique française en Iran, Paris. Cuneiform Monographs, Groningen. Data, Achaemenid History Newsletter. YARSHATER, E. (1982- ), Encyclopaedia Iranica, London. Iran: Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies, London.

ABBREVIATIONS

IrAnt IrSt JA JAOS JCS JNES JRGS MDAI MDP MHEO MMAI N.A.B.U. NPEF OIP OLA OLZ PIOL RA RGTC RlA SAAB SAAS SBÖAW SEL StIr Susa and Elam

VAB VDI ZA ZDMG

205

Iranica Antiqua, Leuven. Iranian Studies, London. Journal Asiatique, Paris. Journal of the American Oriental Society. Journal of Cuneiform Studies, New Haven. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Chicago. Journal of the Royal Geographical Society, London. Mémoires de la délégation archéologique en Iran (vol. 14- ). Mémoire de la délégation en Perse (vol. 1-13, continued under MDAI). Mesopotamian History and Environment Occasional Publications, Gent. Mémoires de la mission archéologique en Iran, Paris. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires, Paris. Nāme-ye Pažuhešgāh-e Mirās-e Farhangi, Quarterly, Journal of Research Institute, I.C.H.T.O., Tehran. Oriental Institute Publications, Chicago. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, Leuven. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung, Leipzig. Publications de l’Institut orientaliste de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve. Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale, Paris. Répertoire géographique des textes cunéiformes, Wiesbaden. EBLING, E. & E.F. WEIDNER et al. (1928-2018) Reallexicon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie, 15 vol., Berlin. State Archives of Assyria Bulletin, Helsinki. State Archives of Assyria Studies, Helsinki. Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Phil.-hist. Klasse), Wien. Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico, Verona. Studia Iranica, Leuven. DE GRAEF, K. & J. TAVERNIER (2013) Susa and Elam. Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives. Proceedings of the International Congress Held at Ghent University, December 14-17, 2009, Leiden-Boston. Vorderasiatische Bibliothek, Leipzig. Vestnik drevnej istorii, Moscow. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie, Leipzig-Berlin. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Wiesbaden.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ABDI, K. 2001 Malyan 1999, Iran 39, 73-98. ABRAHAM, K. 2004 Business and Politics under the Persian Empire. The Financial Dealings of Marduk-nāṣir-apli of the House Egibi (521-487 B.C.E.), Bethesda. ADAMS, R. MC. 1962 Agriculture and urban life in early southwestern Iran, Science 136, 109-122. ALBENDA, P. 2001 Review of E. Bleibtreu (1999), JAOS 121, 145-146. ALDEN, J.R. & J.M. BALCER 1978 Excavations at Tal-i Malyan 1974, Iran 16, 79-92. 2005 Fars Archaeology Project 2004: Excavations at Tal-e Malyan, Iran 43, 39-47. ALIZADEH, A. 1985 A Tomb of the Neo-Elamite Period at Arjan, near Behbahan, AMI 18, 49-73. 1992 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns and Cultures in Susiana, Southwestern Iran: The Analysis of the F.G.L. Gremliza Survey Collection (University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology Technical Report 24), Ann Arbor. 1994 Administrative Technology and the Socio-Economical Complexity at the Prehistoric Site of Tall-e Bakun A, Iran, in: P. FERIOLI & P. FIANDRA (eds.), Archives before writing: Proceedings of the International Colloqium, Oriolo Romano, October 23-25, 1991, Torino, 23-55. 2003 Some Observations based on the Nomadic Character of Fars Prehistoric Cultural Development, in: N.F. MILLER & K. ABDI (eds.), Yedi Bud, Yeki Nabud: Essays on the Archaeology of Iran in Honor of William M. Sumner (Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Monograph 48), Los Angeles, 83-97. 2013 The Problem of Locating Ancient Huhnuri in the Ram Hormuz Region, N.A.B.U. 2013.37, 65. ALIZADEH, A., L. AHMADZADEH & M. OMIDFAR 2014 Ancient Settlement Patterns and Cultures in the Ram Hormuz Plain, Southwestern Iran: Excavations at Tall-e Geser and Regional Survey in the Ram Hormuz Area (OIP 140), Chicago. ÁLVAREZ-MON, J. 2004 Imago Mundi: Cosmological and Ideological Aspects of the Arjan Bowl, IrAnt 39, 203-237. 2008 ‘Give to drink cup-bearer!’ The Arjan Beaker in the context of Lion-Headed Drinking Vessels in the Ancient Near East, IrAnt 43, 127-152. 2009 Ashurbanipal’s Feast: A view from Elam, IrAnt 44, 131-180. 2010a The Arjan Tomb: at the Crossroads of the Elamite and the Persian Empires (Acta Iranica 49), Leuven. 2010b Platform bearers from Kul-e Farah III and VI, Iran 48, 27-41. 2010c Elamite Garments and Headdresses of the late Neo-Elamite Period (7th-6th century BC), AMIT 42, 207-248. 2011 The Golden Griffin from Arjan, in: J. ÁLVAREZ-MON & M.B. GARRISON (eds.), Elam and Persia, Winona Lake, 299-373. 2013a Elam in the Iron Age, in: D.T. POTTS (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, Oxford, 457477. 2013b Braids of Glory. Elamite Sculptural Reliefs from the Highlands: Kul-e Farah IV, in: K. DE GRAEF & J. TAVERNIER (eds.), Susa and Elam, Leiden-Boston, 207-248. 2014 Aesthetics of the Natural Environment in the Arts of the Ancient Near East: The Elamite Rock-Cut Sanctuary of Kurangun, in: B.A. BROWN & M.H. FELDMAN (eds.), Critical Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Art, New York, 741-770.

208

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ÁLVAREZ-MON, J. & M.B. GARRISON 2011 Elam and Persia, Winona Lake. AMIET, P. 1966 Elam, Auvers-sur-Oise. 1967 Éléments émaillés du décor architectural néo-élamite, Syria 44, 27-46. 1972 Glyptique susienne des origines à l’époque des Perses achéménides. Cachets, sceaux-cylindres et empreintes antiques découverts à Suse de 1913 à 1967 (MDP 43), vol. I-II, Paris. 1973 La glyptique de la fin de l’Elam, ArAs 28, 3-45. 1988 Suse, 6000 ans d’histoire, Paris. 1992 Sur l’histoire élamite, IrAnt 27, 75-94. AMIRLOO, E. 2004 Report on the study of the Arjan Bones, NPEF Quarterly 2.3 (serial n° 8), 53-62. (in Persian; English summary, p. 8). ANTHONIOZ, S. & F. MALBRAN-LABAT 2013 Approche historique et philologique de titre royal ‘likame/we rišakki’, in: K. DE GRAEF & J. TAVERNIER (eds.), Susa and Elam, Leiden-Boston, 417-428. ARFA’I, A. 1999 La grande route Persépolis-Suse. Une lecture des tablettes provenant des Fortifications de Persépolis, Topoi 9, 33-45. ATARASHI, K. & K. HORIUCHI 1963 Fahlian I: The Excavation at Tape Suruvan 1959 (Tokyo University Iraq-Iran Archaeological Expedition Reports), Tokyo. BAKER, H.D. & R. SCHMIDT 2000 Ḫumbarēš, in: H.D. BAKER (ed.), PNA 2.1, 478. BARJAMOVIC, G. 2004 Civic institutions and self-government in southern Mesopotamian in the mid-first millennium BC, in: J.G. DERCKSEN (ed.), Assyria and beyond: Studies presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen, Leiden, 47-98. BARNETT, R.D. 1976 Sculptures from the North Palace of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh (668-627 B.C.), London. BARNETT, R.D., E. BLEIBTREU & G. TURNER 1998 Sculptures from the Southwest Palace of Sennacherib at Nineveh, London. BASELLO, G.P. 2011 Elamite as Administrative Language: From Susa to Persepolis, in: J. ÁLVAREZ-MON & M.B. GARRISON (eds.), Elam and Persia, Winona Lake, 61-88. 2012 Doorknobs, Nails or Pegs? The Function(s) of the Elamite and Achaemenid Inscribed Knobs, in: G.P. BASELLO & A.V. ROSSI (eds.), Dariosh Studies II. Persepolis and its Settlements: Territorial System and Ideology in the Achaemenid State, Napoli, 1-66. 2013 From Susa to Persepolis: The Pseudo-Sealing of the Persepolis Bronze Plaque, in: K. DE GRAEF & J. TAVERNIER (eds.), Susa and Elam, Leiden-Boston, 249-264. BAŠŠĀŠ-KANZAQ, R. 1997 Explanation of four engraved inscriptions on the objects of the Kalma-Kare Cave, in: Memory Book of the Archaeology Conference – Shush, Tehrān, 13-22. 2000 Whispering of Treasury. Objects atrributed to the Kalma-Kare cave, Tehrān. BAYANI, M.I. 1976 The Elamite Periods on the Izeh Plain, in: H.T. WRIGHT (ed.), Archaeological Investigations in the Northeastern Xuzestan (University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology Technological Report 10), Ann Arbor, 99-105. BEAULIEU, P.A. 1989 The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556-539 B.C., New Haven.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

209

BENVENISTE, É. 1958 Note sur les tablettes élamites de Persépolis, JA 246, 49-65. BERGER, P.-R. 1975 Der Kyros-Zylinder mit dem Zusatzfragment BIN II Nr. 32 und die akkadischen Personennamen im Danielbuch, ZA 64, 192-234. 1973 Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften: Königsinschriften des ausgehenden babylonischen Reiches (626-539 a. Chr.) (AOAT 4/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn. BILLERBECK, A. 1893 Susa. Eine Studie zur Alten Geschichte Westasiens, Leipzig. BLEIBTREU, E. 1999 Ein vergoldeter Silberbecher der Zeit Assurbanipals im Miho Museum. Historische Darstellungen des 7. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (AfO Beiheft 28), Wien. 2000a Becher mit drei Widerköpfen, in: W. SEIPEL (ed.), 7000 Jahre persische Kunst. Meisterwerke aus dem Iranischen Nationalmuseum in Teheran (cat. Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien), Milano, 200-205. 2000b Henkeleimer mit Inschrift, in: W. SEIPEL (ed.), 7000 Jahre persische Kunst. Meisterwerke aus dem Iranischen Nationalmuseum in Teheran (cat. Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien), Milano, 205-206. 2000c Halsreif mit Löwenköpfen, in: W. SEIPEL (ed.), 7000 Jahre persische Kunst. Meisterwerke aus dem Iranischen Nationalmuseum in Teheran (cat. Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien), Milano, 207-212. BODE, C.A. DE 1843 Extracts from a Journal kept while travelling, in January 1841, through the country of Mamásení and Khógilú (Bakhtiyárí), situated between Kázerún and Behbehan, JRGS 13, 75-112. 1845 Travels in Lorestan and Arabistan, vol. I-II, London. BORGER, R. 1982 Die Chronologie des Darius-Denkmals am Behistun-Felsen, Göttingen. 1996 Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals. Die Prismenklassen A, B, C = K, D, E, F, G, H, J und T sowie andere Inschriften, Wiesbaden. 2004 Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon (AOAT 305), Münster. BORK, F. 1941 Die Zeughausurkunden von Susa, Altkaukasische Studien 3, 1-35. BÖRKER-KLÄHN, J. 1982 Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und vergleichbare Felsreliefs (BaF 4), vol. I-II, Mainz-am-Rhein. BOUCHARLAT, R. 1990 Suse et la Susiane à l’époque achéménide, in: H. SANCISI-WEERDENBURG & A. KUHRT (eds.), Centre and Periphery. Proceedings of the Groningen 1986 Achaemenid History workshop (AchHist IV), Leiden, 149-175. 1994 Continuités à Suse au 1er millénaire av. J.-C., in: H. SANCISI-WEERDENBURG (ed.), Continuity and Change: Proceedings of the last Achaemenid History Workshop, April 6-8, 1990 (AchHist VIII), Leiden, 217-228. 1998 L’Iran au Ier millénaire av. J.-C. Recherches iraniennes récentes, Isimu 1, 143-155. 2003 The Persepolis Area in the Achaemenid Period: Some Reconsiderations, in: N.F. MILLER & K. ABDI (eds.), Yedi Bud, Yeki Nabud: Essays on the Archaeology of Iran in Honor of William M. Sumner (Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Monograph 48), Los Angeles, 260-265. 2005 Iran, in: P. BRIANT & R. BOUCHARLAT (eds.), L’archéologie de l’empire achéménide: Nouvelles recherches. Actes du colloque organisé au Collège de France par le “Réseau international d’études et de recherches achéménides” (GDR 2538 CNRS), 21-22 novembre 2003, Paris, 221-292. BOUCHARLAT, R. & E. HAERINCK 1992 Ceramics xi. The Achaemenid Period, EncIr 5, 302-304. BOUQUILLON, A., A. CAUBET, A. KACZMARCZYK & V. MATOÏAN 2007 Faïences et matières vitreuses de l’Orient ancien, étude physico-chimique et catalogue des œuvres du départment des Antiquités orientales, Paris.

210 BRIANT, P. 1982 1984 1996 20062 BRINKMAN, 1984

BIBLIOGRAPHY

État et pasteurs au Moyen-Orient ancien, Cambridge. La Perse avant l’Empire (un état de question), IrAnt 19, 71-118. Histoire de l’empire perse de Cyrus à Alexandre (AchHist X), vol. I-II, Leiden. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, Winona Lake. J.A. Prelude to Empire: Babylonian Society and Politics, 727-626 B.C. (University Museum Monograph 7), Philadelphia. 1986 The Elamite-Babylonian Frontier in the Neo-Elamite Period, 750-625 B.C., in: L. DE MEYER, H. GASCHE & F. VALLAT (eds.), Fragmenta Historiae Elamicae. Mélanges offerts à M.-J. Steve, Paris, 199-207. 1990 The Babylonian Chronicle Revisited, in: T. ABUSCH, J. HUEHNERGARD & P. STEINKELLER (eds.), Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran, Atlanta, 73-104. 1991 Babylonia in the shadow of Assyria (747-626 B.C.), in: J. BOARDMAN, I.E.S. EDWARDS, N.G.L. HAMMOND, E. SOLLBERGER & C.B.F. WALKER (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History III.2: The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and Other States of the Near East from the Eight to the Sixth Century B.C., Cambridge, 1-70. BRINKMAN, J.A. & D.A. KENNEDY 1983 Documentary Evidence for Economic Base of Early Neo-Babylonian Society: A Survey of Dated Babylonian Economic Texts, 721-626 BC, JCS 35, 1-90. CALMEYER, P. 1973 Zur Genese altiranischer Motive, AMI 6, 135-152, pls. 30-40. 1980 Zur Genese altiranischer Motive. VII. Achnägel in Form von Betenden, AMI NF 13, 99-111. 1988a Mālamīr. A. Lage and Forschungsgeschichte, RlA 7, 275-276. 1988b Mālamīr. C. Archäologisch, RlA 7, 281-287. CAMERON, G.G. 1936 The History of Early Iran, Chicago. 1957 An Elamite Bronze Plaque, in: E.F. SCHMIDT (ed.), Persepolis II: Contents of the Treasury and other Discoveries (OIP 69), Chicago, 64-65. 1958 Persepolis Treasury Tablets old and new, JNES 17, 161-176. CARTER, E. 1971 Elam in the Second Millennium B.C.: The Archaeological Evidence, Ph.D. diss., Chicago. 1981 Elamite Ceramics, in: H.T. WRIGHT (ed.), An Early Town on the Deh Luran Plain: Excavations at Tepe Farukhabad (Memoires of the Museum of Anthropology University of Michigan 13), Ann Arbor, 196-223. 1984 Part II: Archaeology, in: E. CARTER & M.W. STOLPER, Elam. Surveys of Political History and Archaeology (Near Eastern Studies 25), Berkeley, 101-230. 1992a A History of Excavations at Susa: Personalities and Archaeological Methodologies, in: P.O. HARPER (ed.), The Royal City of Susa. Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York), New York. 1992b Čoğa Zanbīl, EncIr 6, 9-13. Bridging the Gap between the Elamites and the Persians in southeastern Khuzistan, in: W. HENKEL1994 MAN & A. KUHRT (eds.), A Persian Perspective. Essays in Memory of Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg (AchHist VIII), Leiden, 55-95. 1996 Excavation at Anšan (Tal-e Malyan): The Middle Elamite Period (Malyan Excavation Reports University Museum Monographs 82), Philadelphia. 1998 Elam ii: Archaeology of Elam, EncIr 8, 313-325. 1999 Neuelamische Kunstperiode, RlA 9, 283-290. 2003 Archaeological Survey on the Western Ram Hormuz plain, in: N.F. MILLER & K. ABDI (eds.), Yedi Bud, Yeki Nabud: Essays on the Archaeology of Iran in Honor of William M. Sumner (Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Monograph 48), Los Angeles, 61-82.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

211

CARTER, E. & M.W. STOLPER 1984 Elam. Surveys of Political History and Archaeology (Near Eastern Studies 25), Berkeley. CAUBET, A. 1995 Gobelet, Revue du Louvre 45, 81. CHEVALIER, N. 1997 Une mission en Perse 1897-1912: exposition-dossier du department des Antiquités orientales, Paris. CHAMAZA, G.W.V. 1994 Der VIII. Feldzug Sargons II. Eine Untersuchung zu Politik und historischer Geographie des späten 8. Jhs. v. Chr. (Teil 1), AMI 27, 91-118. COLE, S.W. 1994 The Crimes and Sacrileges of Nabû-šuma-iškun, ZA 84, 220-252. 1996 The Early Neo-Babylonian Governor’s Archive of Nippur (OIP 114), Chicago. CONTI, M. 2008 1-2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Old Testament V), Illinois. CURTIS, J. 1983 Late Assyrian Bronze Coffins, AnSt, 85-93. 1995 Later Mesopotamia and Iran: Tribes and Empires 1600-639 B.C., London. 2000 Animal-headed Drinking Cups in the Late Assyrian Period, in: P. CALMEYER & R. DITTMANN (eds.), Variatio Delectat, Iran und der Westen, Gedenkschrift für Peter Calmeyer (AOAT 272), Münster, 193-213. DALLEY, S. 1993 Nineveh after 612 BC, Altorientalische Forschungen 20, 134-147. DALLEY, S. & N. POSTGATE 1984 Tablets from Fort Shalmaneser, London. DASSOW, E. VON 1999 On Writing the History of Southern Mesopotamia, ZA 89, 227-246. DE GRAEF, K. & J. TAVERNIER 2013 Susa and Elam. Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives. Proceedings of the International Congress Held at Ghent University, December 14-17, 2009 (MDP 58), LeidenBoston. DEMANGE, F. 1996 Une coupe d’argenterie pré-achéménide, Revue du Louvre 46.3, 13-14. DE VAAN, J.M.C.T. 1995 “Ich bin eine Schwertklinge des Königs”. Die Sprache des Bel-ibni (AOAT 242), NeukirchenVluyn. DE WAELE, E. 1972 Šutruk-Nahunte II et les reliefs rupestres dits néo-élamites d’Iseh/Malamir, Revue des archéologues et historiens d’art de Louvain 5, 17-32. 1973 Une page d’art Iranien: les reliefs rupestres d’Īzeh/Mālāmir, Archeologia 60, 31-46. 1976a Remarques sur les inscriptions élamites Šekaf-e Salman et Kul-e Farah près d’Izeh, I: leur corrélation avec les bas-reliefs, Le Muséon 89, 441-450. 1976b Les reliefs rupestres élamites de à Šekaf-e Salman et Kul-e Farah près d’Izeh (Malamir), unpublished PhD Diss., Université catholique de Louvain. 1979 Les processions avec statues divines sur les reliefs rupestres élamites, Kūl-e Farah III et Kūl-e Farah IV (Īzeh), in: D. REIMER (ed.), Akten de VII. Internationalen Kongresses für Iranische Kunst und Archäologie, München 7.–10. September 1976 (AMI Erg.-Bd. 6), Berlin, 93-101. 1981 Travaux archéologiques à Šekaf-e Salman et Kul-e Farah près d’Izeh (Malamir), IrAnt 16, 45-61. 1989 Musicians and Musical Instruments on the Rock Reliefs in the Elamite Sanctuary of Kul-e Farah (Izeh), Iran 27, 29-38.

212

BIBLIOGRAPHY

DIETRICH, M. 1970 Die Aramäer Südbabyloniens in der Sargonidenzeit (700-648) (AOAT 7), Neukirchen-Vluyn. 1979 Neo-Babylonian Letters from the Kuyunjik Collection (CT 54), London. DIEULAFOY, J. 1887a The Excavations at Susa, Harper’s New Monthly Magazine 75.445, 3-23. 1887b La Perse, la Chaldée, et la Susiane, Paris. 1888 À Suse: Journal des fouilles, 1884-1886, Paris. DIEULAFOY, M.-A. 1893 L’acropole de Suse d’après les fouilles exécutées en 1884, 1885, 1886, Paris. 1913 Les antiquités de Suse: Découvertes et rapportées par la Mission Dieulafoy (1884-1886), Paris. DIJK, J. VAN 1986 Die dynastischen Heiraten zwischen Kassiten und Elamern: eine verhängnisvolle Politik, Orientalia 55, 159-170. DITTMANN, R. 1984 Eine Randebene des Zagros in der Frühzeit: Ergebnisse des Behbehan-Zureh Surveys (Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient Band 3), Berlin. DONBAZ, V. 1996 A Median (?) votive Inscription on a silver vessel, N.A.B.U. 1996.43, 37-39. DOSSIN, G. 1938 Un rituel du culte d’Ištar provenant de Mari, RA 35, 1-13. 1962 Bronzes inscrits du Luristan de la collection Foroughi, IrAnt 2, 149-164. DRIEL, G. VAN 1998 Care of Elderly: the Neo-Babylonian Period, in: M. STOL & S.P. VLEEMING (eds.), The Care of the Elderly in the Ancient Near East, Leiden, 161-197. DUBOVSKY, P. 2006 Hezekiah and the Assyrian spies: Reconstruction of the Neo-Assyrian intelligence services and its significance for 2 Kings 18-19 (Biblica et Orientalia 49), Roma. 2013 Dynamics of the Fall: Ashurbanipal’s Conquest of Elam, in: K. DE GRAEF & J. TAVERNIER (eds.), Susa and Elam, Leiden-Boston, 451-470. DUCHÊNE, J. 1986 La localization de Huhnur, in: L. DE MEYER, H. GASCHE & F. VALLAT (eds.), Fragmenta Historiae Elamicae. Mélanges offerts à M.-J. Steve, Paris, 65-74. DYSON, R.H. 1973 The Archaeological Evidence of the Second Millennium B.C. on the Persian Plateaus, in: I.E.S. EDWARDS, C.J. GADD, N.G.L. HAMMOND & E. SOLLBERGER (eds.), Cambridge Ancient History II.1: History of the Middle East and the Aegean Region c. 1800-1380 BC, Cambridge, 686715. EDZARD, D.O. & G. FARBER 1974 Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der Zeit der 3. Dynastie von Ur (RGTC 2), Wiesbaden. EQBAL, H. 1979 The Seleucid, Parthian, and Sasanian Periods on the Izeh plain, in: H.T. WRIGHT (ed.), Archaeological Investigations in Northeastern Xuzestan, 1976 (Museum of Anthropology Technical Reports 10), Ann Arbor, 114-123. FALES, F.M. & J.N. POSTGATE 1992 Imperial Administrative Records, Part I: Palace and Temple Administration (SAA 7), Helsinki. FARBER, W. 1974 Ein elamische Inschrift aus der 1. Hälfte des 2. Jahrtausends, ZA 64, 74-86. FINKELSTEIN, J.J. 1962 Mesopotamia, JNES 21, 73-92. FRAHM, E. 1997 Einleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften (AfO Beihefte 26), Wien.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

213

FRAME, G. 1992 [20072] Babylonia 689-627 B.C. A Political History, Istanbul. FUCHS, A. 1994 Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad, Göttingen. 2003 Review of M. Waters (2000), ZA 93, 128-137. FUCHS, A. & S. PARPOLA 2001 The Correspondence of Sargon II. Part III: Letters from Babylonia and the Eastern Provinces (SAA 15), Helsinki. FUCHS, A. & R. SCHMITT 2001 Nibê, in: H.D. BAKER (ed.), PNA 2.2 (L-N), Helsinki, 959. GARRISON, M.B. 2006 [2002] The “Late Neo-Elamite” Glyptic Style: A Perspective from Fars, BAI 16, 65-102. 2011 The Seal of “Kuraš the Anzanite, Son of Šešpes” (Teispes), PFS 93*: Susa-Anšan-Persepolis, in: J. ÁLVAREZ-MON & M.B. GARRISON, Elam and Persia (eds.), Winona Lake, 375-406. GARRISON, M.B. & M.C. ROOT 2001 Seals on the Persepolis Fortification Tablets I. Images of Heroic Encounter (OIP 117), Chicago. GASCHE, H. 1973 La poterie élamite du deuxième millenaire av. J.-C. Ville royale de Suse 1 (MDAI 47), Paris. GASCHE, H. & B. HROUDA 1996 Collectanea Orientalia. Histoire, arts de l’espace et industrie de la terre. Études offertes en hommage à Agnès Spycket (Civilisations du Proche-Orient 1, Archéologie et Environnement 3), Neuchâtel/Paris. GASCHE, H., M. TANRET, C. JANSSEN & A. DEGRAEVE 1994 Cinquante-deux reflexions sur le Proche-Orient ancient offertes en hommages à Leon de Meyer, Gand. GAUBE, H. 1973 Die südpersische Provinz Arragān/Kūh-Gīlūyeh von der arabischen Eroberung bis zur Safawidenzeit (AÖAW 107), Vienna. GERARDI, P. 1986 Declaring War in Mesopotamia, AfO 33, 30-38. 1987 Assurbanipal’s Elamite Campaigns: A Literary and Political Study, PhD. diss., University Pennsylvania. (https://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI8714039). 1988 Epigraphs and Assyrian Palace Reliefs: The Development of the Epigraphic Text, JCS 40, 1-35. GHIRSHMAN, R. 1944/45 La tour de Nourabad: Étude sur les temples iraniens anciens, Syria 24, 172-193. 1954 Village perse-achéménide (MDAI 36), Paris. 1966 Tchoga-Zanbil, vol. I: La Ziggurat (MDAI 39), Paris. GLASSNER, J.J. 1993 Chroniques mésopotamiennes, Paris. 1994 Ruhušak - Mār Ahatim: la transmission du pouvoir en Elam, JA 282, 219-236. Mesopotamian Chronicles (Society of Biblical Literature. Writings from the Ancient World 19), 20042 Atlanta. GOFF, C. 1968 Luristan in the First half of the First Millennium B.C., Iran 6, 105-134. GOLDBERG, J. 2004 The Berlin Letter, Middle Elamite Chronology and Šutruk-Nahhunte I’s Genealogy, IrAnt 39, 33-42. GORRIS, E. 2013 Remarques sur la Lettre ninivite quatorze (BM 83-1-18, 307) en langue élamite, Le Muséon 126, 8-16, pl. 5. 2018 Crossing the Elamite Borderlands: A Study of Interregional Contacts between Elam and the ‘Kingdom’ of Hara(n), in: J. TAVERNIER, E. GORRIS, K. ABRAHAM & V. BOSCHLOOS (eds.), Topography and Toponymy in the Ancient Near East. Prospects and Perspectives (PIOL 71), Leuven, 313-344.

214

BIBLIOGRAPHY

GRAYSON, A.K. 1963 The Walters Art Gallery Sennacherib Inscription, AfO 20, 83-96. 1975 Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (TCS 5), Locust Valley. 1975a Babylonian Historical-Literary Texts, Toronto. 1991 Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium B.C. Part I (1114-705 BC) (RIMA 2), Toronto. GRAYSON, A.K. & J. NOVOTNY 2012 The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704-681 BC), Part 1 (RINAP 3), Winona Lake. GRILLOT, F. 1971 À propos de la notion de subordination dans la syntaxe élamite, JA 258, 213-236. 1977 Une inscription élamite de Šilhak-Inšušinak gravée sur le monument en bronze Sb 175 du Musée du Louvre, s.l. (unpublished thesis). 1984 Trinôme de la royauté en Élam, StIr 13, 185-191. GRILLOT-SUSINI, F., C. HERRENSCHMIDT & F. MALBRAN-LABAT 1993 La version élamite de la trilingue de Behistun: nouvelle lecture, JA 281, 19-59. GROPP, G. & S. NADJMABADI 1970 Bericht über eine Reise in West- und Südiran, AMI 3, 173-230, pls. 78-109. GUÉPIN, J.P. 1965/66 A Contribution to the Location of Ta Azara: the Chief sanctuary of Elymais, Persica 2, 19-26. GUNTER, A.C. & M.C. ROOT 1998 Replicating, inscribing, giving: Ernst Herzfeld and Artaxerxes’ silver phiale in the Freer Gallery of Art, Ars Orientalis 27, 2-38. HAERINCK, E. & B. OVERLAET 2004 The Iron Age III Graveyard at War Kubud Pusht-i Kuh, Luristan (Luristan Excavation Documents 5 = Acta Iranica 42), Leuven. HALLOCK, R.T. 1969 Persepolis Fortification Tablets (OIP 92), Chicago. 1977 The Use of Seals on the Persepolis Fortification Tablets, in: MC. GIBSON & R.D. BIGGS (eds.), Seals and Sealings in the Ancient Near East (Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 6), Malibu, 127-133. 1978 Selected Fortification Texts, CDAFI 8, 109-136. HAMEEUW, H. & G. WILLEMS 2011 New Visualization Techniques for Cuneiform Texts and Sealings, Akkadica 132, 163-178. HANSMAN, J. 1972 Elamites, Achaemenids and Anshan, Iran 10, 101-125. 1978 Seleucia and the three Dauraks, Iran 16, 154-161. HARPER, P., J. ARUZ & F. TALLON 1992 The Royal City of Susa. Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York), New York. HARPER, R.F. 1892-1914 Assyrian and Babylonian Letters belonging to the K(ouyunjik) Collection(s) of the British Museum, 14 vol., London. HENKELMAN, W.F.M. 2003a Review of Waters (2000): Defining Neo-Elamite History, Bibliotheca Orientalis 60, 252-263. 2003b Persians, Medes and Elamites: acculturation in the Neo-Elamite period, in: G. LANFRANCHI, M. ROAF & R. ROLLINGER (eds.), Continuity of Empire (?) Assyria, Media, Persia, Padua, 181231. 2003c An Elamite memorial: The šumar of Cambyses and Hystaspes, in: W. HENKELMAN & A. KUHRT (eds.), A Persian perspective: Essays in Memory of Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg (AchHist VIII), Leiden, 101-172. 2005a De goden van Iran, Phoenix 51.3, 130-169.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

215

Animal sacrifice and ‘external’ exchange in the Persepolis Fortification Tablets, in: H.D. BAKER & M. JURSA (eds.), Approaching the Babylonian Economy: Proceedings of the start Project Symposium Held in Vienna, 1-3 July 2004 (Studies in the Economic History of First Millennium Babylonia 2 = AOAT 330), Münster, 137-165. 2007 Ruhurater, RlA 11, 449. 2008 The Other Gods Who Are: Studies in Elamite-Iranian Acculturation Based on the Persepolis Fortification Tablets (AchHist XIV), Leiden. 2011 Parnakka’s Feast: šip in Pārsa and Elam, in: J. ÁLVAREZ-MON & M.B. GARRISON (eds.), Elam and Persia, Winona Lake, 89-166. 2012a Tammaritu, RlA 13.5/6, 432-433. 2012b The Achaemenid Heartland: An Archaeological-Historical Perspective, in: D.T. POTTS (ed.), A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East II, Chichester, 931-962. HERRERO, P. & J.J. GLASSNER 1990 Haft-tépé: choix de textes I, IrAnt 25, 1-45. HERZFELD, E.E. n.d. Ernst Herzfeld Papers: Notebook N-84, Freer Gallery of Art – Arthur M. Sackler Gallery Archives, Washington. (https://asia.si.edu/research/archives/herzfeld/). 1907 Eine Reise durch Luristan, Arabistan und Fars, Petermanns Mitteilungen 53, 49-90. 1926 Reisebericht, ZDMG 80, 225-284. 1928 Drei Inschriften aus persischem Gebiet, Mitteilungen der Altorientalischen Gesellschaft, 81-86. Die Magna Charta von Susa. I: Text und Commentar. II: Die Gatha des Dareios, AMI 3, 291931 124. 1968 The Persian Empire: studies in geography and ethnography of the Ancient Near East (edited from the posthumous papers by Gerold Walser), Wiesbaden. HEYVAERT, V.M.A., P. VERKINDEREN & J. WALSTRA 2013 Geoarchaeological Research in Lower Khuzestan: State of Art, in: K. DE GRAEF & J. TAVERNIER (eds.), Susa and Elam, Leiden-Boston, 493-534. HINZ, W. 1952 Zum elamischen Wortschatz, ZA 50, 239-242. 1961 Zu den Persepolis-Täfelchen, ZDMG 110, 236-251. 1962 Die elamischen Inschriften des Hanne, in: W.B. HENNING & E. YARSHATER (eds.), A Locust’s Leg: Studies in Honour of S.H. Taqizadeh, London, 105-116. 1963 Elamica, Orientalia 32, 1-20. 1964 Das Reich Elam (Urban-Bücher 82), Stuttgart. 1967a Elams Vertrag mit Narām-Sîn von Akkade, ZA 58, 66-96. 1967b Zu den Zeughaustäfelchen aus Susa, in: G. WIESSNER (ed.), Festschrift für Wilhelm Eilers, Wiesbaden, 85-98. 1971 Achämenische Hofverwaltung, ZA 61, 260-311. 1975a Hidali, RlA 4, 391. 1975b Huhnur, RlA 4, 488-500. 1976 Idaddu, RlA 5/1-2, 28. Zu den elamischen Briefen aus Niniveh, in: L. DE MEYER, H. GASCHE & F. VALLAT (eds.), Fragmenta 1986 Historiae Elamicae. Mélanges offerts à M.-J. Steve, Paris, 227-234. 1987 Elams Übergang ins Perserreich, in: P. GIGNOUX (ed.), Transition periods in Iranian history: Actes du Symposium de Fribourg-en-Brisgau (22–24 mai 1985) (Studia Iranica Cahier 5), Leuven, 125134. HINZ, W. & H. KOCH 1987 Elamisches Wörterbuch (AMI Ergänzungsband 17), 2 vol., Berlin. HOFTIJZER, J. & K. JONGELING 1995 Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions II, Leiden. 2005b

216

BIBLIOGRAPHY

HOLLOWAY, S. 2002 Aššur is King! Aššur is King! Religion in the Exercise of Power in the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 10), Leiden-Boston-Köln. HORNBY, A.S. 2000 Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, Oxford. HUFF, D. 1975 Nurabad: Dum-i Mil, AMI 8, 167-209. 1984 Das Felsrelief von Qir, AMI 17, 221-247. JACOBS, L.K. 1980 Darvazeh Tepe and the Iranian Highlands in the Second Millennium BC, Ph.D. Diss., Ann Arbor. [published on microfilm] 1994 Darvāza Tepe, EncIr 7, 71-72. JACOBS, B. & R. ROLLINGER 2010 Der Achämenidenhof – The Achaemenid Court, Akten des 2. Internationalen Kolloquiums zum Thema „Vorderasien im Spannungsfeld klassischer und altorientalischer Überlieferungen“ Landgut Castelen bei Basel, 23.-25. Mai 2007, Wiesbaden. JÉQUIER, G. 1901 Descriptions du site de Malamir, in: V. SCHEIL (ed.), Textes élamites-anzanites (MDP 3), 133-142. JOHNSON, G.A. 1973 Local Exchange and Early State Development in Southwestern Iran (Anthropology papers 51, Museum of Anthropology), Ann Arbor. JONES, C.E. & M.W. STOLPER 1986 Two Late Elamite Tablets at Yale, in: L. DE MEYER, H. GASCHE & F. VALLAT (eds.), Fragmenta Historiae Elamicae. Mélanges offerts à M.-J. Steve, Paris, 243-254. JURSA, M. 2010 Der neubabylonische Hof, in: B. JACOBS & R. ROLLINGER (eds.), Der Achämenidenhof, Wiesbaden, 67-106. KAHANE, P. 1965 Le Musée d’Israel, Jérusalem, cataloque n°6: Archéologie, Jerusalem. KHOSRAVI, L., S.M.M. KOUHPAR, J. NEYESTANI & A.H. NOBARI 2010 Unknown Rulers of Neo-Elamite in Luristan During 1st Millennium B.C., The International Journal of Humanities 17.2, 39-54. KINNEIR, J.M. 1813 A Geographical Memoir of the Persian Empire, London. KLEISS, W. 1972 Bericht über Erkundungsfarhrten in Iran im Jahre 1971, AMI 5, 135-242. 1993 Kurangun, die Burganlage am elamischen Felsrelief in Südwest Iran, in: M.J. MELLINK, E. PORADA & T. ÖZGÜÇ (eds.), Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and its Neighbors. Studies in Honor of Nimet Özgüç/Nimet Özgüç ‘e Armağan, Ankara, 357-360. 1995 Qal’eh Tall-e Kabud, eine eisenzeitliche Befestigung südlich von Shiraz, in: U. FINKBEINER, R. DITTMANN & H. HAUPTMANN (eds.), Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Vorasiens: Festschrift für Rainer Michael Boehmer, Mainz, 289-293. KOCH, H. 1986 Die achämenidische Poststraße von Persepolis nach Susa, AMI 19, 133-147. 1987 Götter und ihre Verehrung im achämenidischen Persien, ZA 77, 239-278. 1990 Verwaltung und Wirtschaft im persischen Kernland zur Zeit der Achämeniden (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des vorderen Orients, Reihe B 89), Wiesbaden. KÖNIG, F.W. 1931 Geschichte Elams, Der Alte Orient 29, 1-38. 1965 (=19772) Die elamischen Königsinschriften (AfO Beiheft 16), Graz.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

217

1971a Geschwisterehe in Elam, RlA 3, 224-231. 1971b Investiture des fonctionnaires en Élam, JA 259, 217-221. KOZUH, M. 2014 Elamite and Akkadian Inscribed bricks from Bard-e Karegar (Khuzestan, Iran), in: M. KOZUH, W.F.M. HENKELMAN, C.E. JONES & C. WOODS (eds.), Extradition and Control. Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 68), Chicago, 131-162. KUHRT, A. 2007 The Persian Empire. A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period, London. LABAT, R. 1975 [1963] Elam c. 1600-1200 B.C., in: I.E.S. EDWARDS, C.J. GADD, N.G.L. HAMMOND & E. SOLLBERGER (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History II.2: The Middle East and the Aegean Region c. 1380-1000 BC, Cambridge, 489-492. Manuel d’épigraphie akkadienne, Paris. 19886 LAMBERT, M. 1972 Hutelutuš-Inšušinak et le pays d’Anshan, RA 66, 61-76. 1967 Appendice: Šutruk-Nahunte et Šutur-Nahunte, Syria 44, 47-51. 1977 Deux textes élamites de la fin du septième siècle, JA 265, 221-225. LAMBERT, W.G. 1967 An Old Babylonian Letter and Two Amulets, Iraq 38, 57-64. LANFRANCHI, G.B. 1995 Assyrian Geography and Assyrian letters. The location of Hubuškia again, in: M. LIVERANI (ed.), Neo-Assyrian Geography (Quaderni di Geografica Storica 5), Roma, 127-137. LANFRANCHI, G.B., M. ROAF & R. ROLLINGER 2003 Continuity of the Empire (?): Assyria, Media, Persia (History of the Ancient Near East Monographs 5), Padova. LANGDON, S. 1905/06 Building Inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Part 1: Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar, Paris. 1912 Die Neubabylonischen Königinschriften, trans. R. Zehnpfund (VAB 4), Leipzig. LAYARD, A.H. 1846 A Description of the Province of Khuzistan, JRGS 16, 1-105. LAWERGREN, B. 2000 Incongruous musical instruments on an alleged Assyrian beaker, Source 20.1, 38-42. LE BRETON, L. 1947 Note sur la céramique peinte aux environs de Susa et à Suse, in: R. DE MECQUENEM, L. LE BRETON & M. RUTTEN (eds.), Archéologie susienne (MDAI 30), 120-219. 1957 The early periods at Susa, Mesopotamian relations, Iraq 19, 79-124. LEBRUN, CH. 2014 Présence et pouvoir hittites à Ougarit. Le cas de DUMU.LUGAL (PIOL 66), Leuven. LEICHTY, E. 1983 Bel-Epuš and Tammaritu, AnSt 33, 153-155, pl. 34. 2011 The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680-669 BC) (RINAP 4), Winona Lake. LECOQ, P. 1997 Les inscriptions de la Perse achéménide, Paris. LE STRANGE, G. 1912 Description of the province of Fars, in Persia, at the beginning of the twelfth century A.D. Translated from the MS. of Ibn al-Balkhi in the British Museum, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (vol. Jan./Apr./Oct.), 1-30, 311-339, 856-889. LEVINE, L. 1974 Geographical Studies in the Neo-Assyrian Zagros II, Iran 12, 99-124.

218 1982 1989

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Sennacherib’s southern front: 704-689 BC, JCS 34, 28-58. The Zamua Itinerary (SAAB 3), 75-92. LIVERANI, M. 1995 The Medes at Esarhaddon’s Court, JCS 47, 57-62. 2013 The Ancient Near East: History, Society, and Economy, London. LOFTUS, W.K. 1857 Travels and researches in Chaldea and Susiana with and account of excavations at Warka, the “Erech” of Nimrud and Shush “Shushan the Palace of Esther” in 1851-1852, London. LUCKENBILL, D.D. 1924 The Annals of Sennacherib (OIP 2), Chicago. LUUKKO, M. & G. VAN BUYLAERE 2002 The Political Correspondence of Esarhaddon (SAA 16), Helsinki. MACGINNIS, J. 2014 The toponym Hara in I Chronicles 5.26, N.A.B.U. 2014.99, 155-156. MAHBOUBIAN, H. 1995 Treasures of the Mountains. The Art of the Medes, London. MAJIDZADEH, Y. 1992 The Arjan Bowl, Iran 30, 131-144. MALBRAN-LABAT, F. 1975 Nabu-bêl-šumâte, Prince du Pays-de-la-Mer, JA 263, 7-37. 1994 La version akkadienne de l’inscription trilingue de Darius à Behistun (Documenta Asiana 1), Roma. 1995 Les inscriptions royales de Suse. Briques de l’époque paléo-élamite à l’empire néo-élamite, Paris. 2004 La fête en Élam dans le culte royal et les cérémonies populaires, in: M. MAZOYER, J. PÉREZ REY, F. MALBRAN-LABAT & R. LEBRUN (eds.), La fête: La rencontre des dieux et des hommes (Collection Kubaba, Série Actes 4), Paris, 39-48. 2012 Susa, RlA 13.3, 347-352. MATTILA, R. 1987 The Political Status of Elam after 653 B.C. according to ABL 839 (SAAB 1), 27-30. 2000 The King’s Magnates. A Study of the Highest Officials of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (SAAS 11), Helsinki. MAYRHOFER, M. 1973 Onomastica Persepolitana. Das altiranische Namengut der Persepolis-Täfelchen (SBÖAW 286), Wien. MCCALL, B. 2009 The Mamasani Archaeological Survey: Epipaleolithic to Elamite settlement patterns in the Mamasani district of Zagros Mountains, Fars province, Iran, unpublished Ph.D. diss., University of Sydney. 2013 Re-assessing Elamite highland boundaries: new evidence for the Middle and Neo-Elamite periods in the Mamasani valleys, south-western Iran, in: K. DE GRAEF & J. TAVERNIER (eds.), Susa and Elam, Leiden-Boston, 191-205. MCCOWN, D.E. & R.C. HAINES 1967 Nippur. Part 1: Temple of Enlil, Scribal Quarter and Soundings (OIP 78), Chicago. MECQUENEM, R. DE 1910 Compte-rendu sommaire des Fouilles de Suse de l’hiver 1909-1910, Bulletin de la Délégation en Perse 1, 44-47. Constructions Élamite du tell de Acropole de Chouchinak, in: M.-C. SOUTZO, G. PÉZARD, 1911 G. BONDOUX, R. DE MECQUENEM, M. PÉZARD, J.E. GAUTIER (eds.), Recherches archéologiques (MDP 12), Paris, 65-78. 1922 Fouilles de Suse: Campagnes des années 1914-1921-1922, RA 19, 109-140.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1924 1934 1943 1947 1949 1953 1980

219

Fouilles de Suse: Campagnes 1923-1924, RA 21, 105-118. Archéologie, métrologie et numismatique susiennes (MDP 25), Paris. Fouilles de Suse 1933-1939 (MMAI 29), 3-161. Archéologie susienne (MMAI 30), Paris. Archéologie susienne (MMAI 31), Paris. Les documents épigraphiques de Tchoga Zembil (MMAI 32), Paris. Les fouilleurs de Suse, IrAnt 15, 1-48. MEDVEDSKAYA, I.N. 1999 Media and its neighbours I: the localization of Ellipi, IrAnt 34, 53-70. MEYER, L. DE 2002 Elamite likame risakki: ‘l’agrandisseur du royaume’ ou ‘le grand du royaume’?, Akkadica 123, 107114. MEYER, L. DE & H. GASCHE 1990 Mésopotamie et Elam (Mesopotamian History and Environment Occasional Publications 1), Gand. MEYER, L. DE, H. GASCHE & F. VALLAT 1986 Fragmenta Historiae Elamicae: Mélanges offerts à M.-J. Steve, Paris. MEYER, L. DE & E. HAERINCK 1989 Iranica et Orientalia: Miscellanea in honorem Louis Vanden Berghe, Leuven. MILLARD, A. 1994 The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910-612 BC (SAAS 2), Helsinki. MILLER, N.F. & K. ABDI 2003 Yedi Bud, Yeki Nabud: Essays on the Archaeology of Iran in Honor of William M. Sumner (Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Monograph 48), Los Angeles. MIROSCHEDJI, P. DE 1978 Stratégraphie de la période néo-élamite à Suse (c. 1100-c. 540), Paléorient 4, 213-228. 1981a Fouilles du chantier Ville Royale II à Suse (1975-1977): Les niveaux élamites, CDAFI 12, 9-136. 1981b Observations dans les couches néo-élamites au nord-ouest du tell de Ville Royale à Suse, CDAFI 12, 143-167. 1981c Prospections archéologiques au Khuzestan en 1977, CDAFI 12, 169-192. 1982 Notes sur la glyptique de la fin de l’Élam, RA 76, 51-63. 1985 La fin du royaume d’Anšan et de Suse et la naissance de l’Empire perse, ZA 75, 265-306. 1986 La localisation de Madaktu et l’organisation politique de l’Élam à l’époque néo-élamite, in: L. DE MEYER, H. GASCHE & F. VALLAT (eds.), Fragmenta Historiae Elamicae: Mélanges offerts à M.-J. Steve, Paris, 209-227. Review of U. Seidl (1986): Die Elamische Felsreliefs von Kūrāngūn und Naqš-e Rustam, Syria 66, 1989 358-362. 1990 La fin de l’Élam: essai d’analyse et d’interprétation, IrAnt 25, 47-95. Susa and the Highlands: Major Trends in the History of the Elamite Civilization, in: N.F. MILLER & 2003 K. ABDI (eds.), Yedi Bud, Yeki Nabud: Essays on the Archaeology of Iran in Honor of William M. Sumner (Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Monograph 48), Los Angeles, 17-38. MOFIDI-NASRABADI, B. 2005 Eine Steininschrift des Amar-Suena aus Tape Bormi (Iran), ZA 95, 161-171. MOGHADDAM, A. & N. MIRI 2003 Archaeological Research in the Mainab Plain of Lowland Susiana, South-Western Iran, Iran 41, 99-137. 2007 Archaeological Surveys in the “Eastern Corridor”, South-Western Iran, Iran 45, 23-55. MORGAN, J. DE 1900 Recherches archéologiques: Fouilles à Suse en 1887-1889 (MDP 1), Paris. 1902 Recherches archéologiques (MDP 5), Paris. 1905 Recherches archéologiques (MDP 7), Paris.

220 1906

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Recherches archéologiques (MDP 8), Paris. MOTAGHED, S. 1990 Cloths discovered in the Bronze Coffin of Kitin-Hutran in Arjan, Behbahan, Athar 17, 62-147. MO’TAMEDĪ, N. 1371 [1992] Report on the archaeological excavation of the Kalmākarra Cave, Mīrās-e Far-hangī = Iranian Journal of Art 10-11, 3-15 [in Persian]. MUHLY, J.D. 2004 Review of G.B. Lanfranchi, M. Roaf & R. Rollinger (2003), Continuity of Empire (?): Assyria, Media, Persia (Padova), BMCR 11/XI/2004. [http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2004/2004-11-11.html]. MUSCARELLA, O.W. 1992 The Neo-Elamite Period, in: P.O. HARPER (ed.), The Royal City of Susa. Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York), New York. 2000 Excavated in the Bazar, Source 20, 29-37. MYERS, J.M. 1979 Ezra. Nehemiah (The Anchor Bible 14), New York. NEGAHBAN, E.O. 1983 Metal Vessels from Marlik (Prähistorische Bronzefunde Abt. II.3), München. NISSEN, H.J. 1976 The Behbehan Plain in the fifth millennium BC, in: M.Y. KIANI (ed.), The Memorial volume of VIth International Congress of Iranian Art and Archaeology: Oxford September 11-16th 1972, Tehran, 273-279. 1988 The Early History of the Ancient Near East 9000-2000 B.C., Chicago. NISSEN, H.J. & C.L. REDMAN 1971 Preliminary Notes on an Archaeological Surface Survey in the Plain of Behbahan and the Lower Zuhreh valley, Bastan Chenasi va Honar-e Iran, 48-50. OPPERT, J. 1882 Review of Delitzsch: Wo lag das Paradies?, Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 26/27, 801-831. OVERLAET, B. 1997 A Report on the 1952 and 1954/55 Soundings at Tall-i Taimuran (Fars), Iran. A File-Excavation at the Royal Museums of Art and History, Brussels, IrAnt 32, 1-51. 2003 The Early Iron Age in the Pusht-i Kuh, Luristan (Luristan Excavation Documents 4 = Acta Iranica 40), Leuven. 2012 Čāle Ğār (Kaša Area) and votives, favissae and cave deposits in pre-Islamic and Islamic traditions, AMIT 43, 113-140. PAPER, H.H. 1954 Note préliminaire sur la date de trois tablettes élamites de Suse, in: R. GHIRSHMAN (ed.), Village perse-achéménide (MDAI 36), Paris, 79-82. 1955 The Phonology and Morphology of Royal Achaemenid Elamite, Ann Arbor. PARPOLA, S. 1970 Neo-Assyrian Toponyms (AOAT 6), Tübingen. PARPOLA, S. & M. PORTER 2001 The Helsinki Atlas of the Near East in the Neo-Assyrian Period, Helsinki. PARPOLA, S. & K. WATANABE 1988 Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths (SAA 2), Helsinki. PAULUS, S. 2013 Beziehungen zweier Großmächte – Elam und Babylonien in der 2. Hälfte des 2. Jt. v. Chr. Ein Beitrag zur internen Chronologie, in: K. DE GRAEF & J. TAVERNIER (eds.), Susa and Elam, LeidenBoston, 429-449. PERROT, J. 2010 Le palais de Darius à Suse. Une résidence royale sur la route de Persépolis à Babylone, Paris.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

221

PETRIE, C.A. 2005 Exploring Routes and Plains in Southwest Iran from Space, ArchAtlas 4 (2010), available from: http://archatlas.org/Petrie/RoutesandPlains.php PETRIE, C.A. & M. SEYEDIN 2009 Chapter 4: Excavations at Tol-e Spid, in: D.T. POTTS et al. (eds.), The Mamasani Archaeological Project, Stage One. A Report on the first two seasons of the ICAR – University of Sydney expedition to the Mamasani District, Fars Province, Iran, Oxford, 89-134. PÉZARD, M. 1924 Reconstitution d’une stèle de Adda-hamiti-In-Sušnak, Babyloniaca 8, 1-26. PONS, N. 1994 Tchoga Zanbil après Untash-Napirisha, in: H. GASCHE, M. TANRET, C. JANSSEN & A. DEGRAEVE (eds.), Cinquante-deux reflexions sur le Proche-Orient ancient offertes en hommages à Leon de Meyer (MHEO 2), Gand, 43-51. PORADA, E. 1965 The Art of Ancient Iran: Pre-Islamic Cultures, New York. POTTS, D.T. 1999 The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State, Cambridge. 2005 Cyrus the Great and the Kingdom of Anshan, in: V. SARKHOŠ-CURTIS & S. STEWART (eds.), Birth of the Persian Empire. The Idea of Iran 1, London, 7-28. 2008 The Persepolis Fortification texts and the Royal Road: another look at the Fahliyan area, in: P. BRIANT, W.F.M. HENKELMAN & M.W. STOLPER (eds.), L’archive des fortifications de Persépolis. État des questions et de perspectives de recherches (Persika 12), Paris, 275-301. 2010a Monarchy, factionalism and warlordism: Reflections on the Neo-Elamite courts, in: B. JACOBS & R. ROLLINGER (eds.), Der Achämenidenhof, Wiesbaden, 107-138. 2010b Elamite Temple-Building, in: M.J. BODA & J. NOVOTNY (eds.), From the Foundations to the Crenellations. Essays on temple Building in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible (AOAT 366), 49-70, 479-509 (Appendix 2). 2011 A Note on the Limits of Anšan, in: J. ÁLVAREZ-MON & M.B. GARRISON (eds.), Elam and Persia, Winona Lake, 35-45. POTTS, D.T. & K. ROUSTAEI 2006 [1385 AP] The Mamasani Archaeological Project, Stage One. A Report on the first two seasons of the ICAR – University of Sydney expedition to the Mamasani District, Fars Province, Iran, Tehran. POTTS, D.T., K. ROUSTAEI, C.A. PETRIE & L.R. WEEKS 2009² [2006] The Mamasani Archaeological Project, Stage One. A Report on the first two seasons of the ICAR – University of Sydney expedition to the Mamasani District, Fars Province, Iran, Oxford. RADNER, K. 2003 An Assyrian view of the Medes, in: G.B. LANFRANCHI, M. ROAF & R. ROLLINGER (eds.), Continuity of Empire (?): Assyria, Media, Persia, Padova, 37-64. 2013 Assyria and the Medes, in: D.T. POTTS (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, Oxford, 443-456. QAZANFARĪ, H. 1371 [1992] Kalmākarra Cave, Āsār 21, 2-28. [in Persian] QUINTANA, E. 1996 Trilogía de poder en Elam en el primer milenio, N.A.B.U. 1996.109, 95-96. 2011 Elamitas Frente a Persas: el Reino Independiente de Anšan, in: J. ÁLVAREZ-MON & M.B. GARRISON (eds.), Elam and Persia, Winona Lake, 167-190. RADNER, K. 1998 The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire vol. 1.I, Helsinki. 1999 The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire vol. 1.II, Helsinki.

222

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Assyria and the Medes, in: K. RADNER (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, Oxford-New York, 442-456. RAWLINSON, H.C. 1839 Notes on a march from Zoháb, at the foot of Zagros along the mountains to Khúzistán (Susiana), and from thence through the province of Luristan to Kirmánshah in the Year 1836, JRGS 9, 26-116. RAZMJOU, SH. 2010 Persepolis: A Reinterpretation of Palaces and their Functions, in: J. CURTIS & S.J. SIMPSON (eds.), The World of Achaemenid Persia. History, Art and Society in Iran and the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of a conference at the British Museum 29th September – 1st October 2005, LondonNew York, 231-245. READE, J. 1976 Elam and Elamites in Assyrian sculpture, AMI 9, 97-106. Archaeology and the Kuyunjik Archives, in: K.R. VEENHOF, Cuneiform Archives and the Libraries. 1986 Papers read at the 30e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Leiden, 4-8 July 1983, Istanbul, 213-222. 1992 The Elamite Tablets from Nineveh, N.A.B.U. 1992.119, 87-88. 2000 Elam after the Sack of Susa in 647 BC, N.A.B.U. 2000.80, 89. REINER, E. Calques sur le vieux-perse en élamite achéménide, Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 55, 1960 222-227. 1969 The Elamite Language, in: J. FRIEDRICH (ed.), Handbuch der Orientalistik I: Altkleinasiatische Sprachen (Band II/1-2), 54-118. 1973a The location of Anšan, RA 67, 57-62. 1973b Inscription of a Royal Elamite Tomb, AfO 24, 87-102. RENETTE, S. 2013 The Trans-Tigridian Corridor in the Early Third Millennium BC, in: K. DE GRAEF & J. TAVERNIER (eds.), Susa and Elam, Leiden-Boston, 43-50. REYNOLDS, F. 2003 The Babylonian Correspondence of Esarhaddon and Letters to Assurbanipal and Sin-šarru-iškun from Northern and Central Babylonia (SAA 18), Helsinki. RÖLLIG, W. 1975 Ḫilmu/Ḫilimmu, RlA 4, 410. 1980 Irgidu, RlA 5, 162a. 1983 Lallar, RlA 6, 438. ROLLINGER, R. 1998 Der Stammbaum des achaimenidischen Königshauses oder die Frage der Legitimität der Herrschaft des Dareios, AMIT 30, 155-207. 1999 Zur Lokalisation von Parsu(m)a(š) in der Färs und zu einigen Fragen der frühen persischen Geschichte, ZA 89, 115-139. ROUSTAEI, K., A. ALAMDARI & C.A. PETRIE 2009 Chapter 2: Landscape and Environment in Mamasani, in: D.T. POTTS et al. (eds.), The Mamasani Archaeological Project, Stage One. A Report on the first two seasons of the ICAR – University of Sydney expedition to the Mamasani District, Fars Province, Iran, Oxford, 17-30. RUSSELL, J.M. 1999 The Writing on the Wall. Studies in the Architectural Context of Late Assyrian Palace Inscriptions, Winona Lake. SAGGS, H.W.F. 2001 The Nimrud Letters 1952 (CTN 5, British School of Archaeology in Iraq), Trowbridge. SAJJIDI, M. & T.H. WRIGHT 1979 Test Excavation in the Elamite Layers at the Izeh East Face, in: H.T. WRIGHT (ed.), Archaeological Investigations in Northeastern Xuzestan (University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology Technical Report 10), Ann Arbor, 106-113. 2013

BIBLIOGRAPHY

223

SAN NICOLÒ, M. & A. UNGNAD 1925-37 Neubabylonische Rechts- und Verwaltungsurkunden, vol. I-VI, Leipzig. SANCISI-WEERDENBURG, H. & A. KUHRT 1990 Centre and Periphery. Proceedings of the Groningen 1986 Achaemenid History workshop (AchHist IV), Leiden. SANCISI-WEERDENBURG, H., A. KUHRT & M.C. ROOT 1994 Continuity and Change: Proceedings of the last Achaemenid History Workshop, April 6-8, 1990 (AchHist VIII), Leiden. SARKHOŠ-CURTIS, V. & S. STEWART 2005 Birth of a Persian Empire: The Idea of Iran, London. SARRAF, M.R. 1990 Bowl in bronze of Kiddin-Hutran discovered at Arjan, Behbehan, Athar 17, 4-61. SCHAUDIG, H. 2001 Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros’ der Große (AOAT 256), Münster. SCHEIL, V. 1901 Textes élamites-anzanites, première série (MDP 3), Paris. 1902 Textes élamites-sémitiques, deuxième série (MDP 4), Paris. 1904 Textes élamites-anzanites, deuxième série (MDP 5), Paris. 1905 Textes élamites-sémitiques, deuxième série (MDP 6), Paris. 1907 Textes élamites-anzanites, troisième série (MDP 9), Paris. 1911 Textes élamites-sémitiques, quatrième série (MDP 11), Paris. 1917 Déchiffrement d’un document anzanite relatif aux présages, RA 14, 29-59. 1925 Passim, RA 22, 141-162. 1927 X. Suse et l’empire néo-babylonian, RA 24, 47-48. 1932 Actes juridiques susiens. Suite: n° 166 à n° 327 (MDP 23), Paris. 1939 Mélanges épigraphiques (MDP 28), Paris. SCHIPPMANN, K. 1971 Hinweise auf einige kleinere Monumente bei Naqš-e Rustam, AMI 4, 187-191, pls. 28-30. SCHMIDT, E.F. 1953 Persepolis I: Structures, Reliefs, Inscriptions (OIP 68), Chicago. 1957 Persepolis II: Contents of the Treasury and Other Discoveries (OIP 69), Chicago. SCHMIDT, E.F., M. VAN LOON & H. CURVERS 1989 The Holmes Expedition to Luristan (OIP 108), Chicago. SCHMITT, R. 1981 Altpersische Siegel-Inschriften, Wien. 1989 Bīsōtun III. Darius’s Inscriptions, EncIr 4, 299-305. 1991 The Bisitun Inscription of Darius the Great. Old Persian Text (Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum I), London. SEIDL, U. 1986 Die Elamischen Felsreliefs von Kurangun und Naqš-e Rustam (Iranische Denkmäler 12/II/H), Berlin. 1997 Izeh, in: E.M. METERS (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East III, New York, 199-203. SEIPEL, W. 2000 7000 Jahre persische Kunst. Meisterwerke aus dem Iranischen Nationalmuseum in Teheran (cat. Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien), Milano. SHISHEHGAR, A. 2008 Discovery of the Family Tomb of King Shutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada attributed to the NeoElamite IIIb Period (585-539 BC), ICAR, Tehran, 1-19. SMITH, G. 1871 History of Assurbanipal translated from the Cuneiform Inscriptions, London.

224

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SODEN, W. VON 1952 Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik (AnOr 33), Roma. 1972 Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. Band II, Wiesbaden. SPECK, H. 2002 Alexander at the Persian Gates. A Study in Historiography and Topography, AJAH 1.1, 7-234. STEIN, M.A. 1940 Old Routes of Western Iran, London. STEINKELLER, P. 1982 The Question of Marhašan: A Contribution to the Historical Geography of Iran in the Third Millenium BC, ZA 72, 237-265. STEVE, M.-J. 1967 Tchogha Zanbil (Dûr-Untash) III. Textes élamites et accadiens de Tchogha Zanbil (MDAI 41), Paris. 1968 Framenta Elamica, Orientalia NS 37, 290-303. 1986 La fin de l’Élam: à propos d’une empreinte de sceau-cylindre, StIr 15, 7-21. 1987 Nouveaux mélanges épigraphiques. Inscriptions royales de Suse et de la Susiane (MDP 53), Nice. 1988 Le determinative masculine BE en néo-élamite et en élamite achéménide, N.A.B.U. 1988.35, 23-24. 1992 Syllabaire élamite: Histoire et paléographie (Civilisations du Proche-Orient 1, série 2: Philologie), Neuchâtel-Paris. STEVE, M.-J., H. GASCHE & L. DE MEYER 1980 La Susiane au deuxième millénaire: À propos d’une interpretation des fouilles de Suse, IrAnt 15, 49-154. STEVE, M.-J. & F. VALLAT 1989 La dynastie des Igihalkides: nouvelles interpretations, in: L. DE MEYER & E. HAERINCK (eds.), Iranica et Orientalia: Miscellanea in honorem Louis Vanden Berghe, Leuven, 223-238. STEVE, M.-J., F. VALLAT & H. GASCHE 2002/03 Suse, in: J. BRIEND & M. QUESNEL (eds.), Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible 73-74, Paris, 359-592. STOLPER, M.W. 1978a Inscribed Fragments from Khuzestan, CDAFI 8, 89-95. 1978b Šarnappu, ZA 68, 261-269. 1982 On the Dynasty of Šimaški and the early Sukkalmahs, ZA 72, 42-67. 1984 Texts from Tall-i Malyan I. Elamite Administrative Texts (1972-1974), Philadelphia. 1986 A Neo-Babylonian Text from the Reign of Hallušu, in: L. DE MEYER, H. GASCHE & F. VALLAT (eds.), Fragmenta Historiae Elamicae. Mélanges offerts à M.-J. Steve, Paris, 235-241. 1987/90 Malamir. B. Philologisch, RlA 7, 276-281. 1992a Stele of Adda-hamiti-Inšušinak: the inscription, in: P.O. HARPER, J. ARUZ & F. TALLON (eds.), The Royal City of Susa. Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre, New York, 198-199. 1992b Cuneiform Texts from Susa, in: P.O. HARPER, J. ARUZ & F. TALLON (eds.), The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre, New York, 253-260 and 267-269. 2004a Elamite, in: R.D. WOODARD (ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages, Cambridge, 60-94. 2004b Hidali, EncIr 12, 308-309. 2013 Sugirs of Anšan, in: K. DE GRAEF & J. TAVERNIER (eds.), Susa and Elam, Leiden-Boston, 399-415. STRECK, M. 1916 Assurbanipal und die letsten assyrischen Könige bis zum untergange Nineveh’s (VAB 7/2), Leipzig. STRONACH, D. 1974 Achaemenid Village I at Susa and the Persian Migration, Iraq 36, 239-248. 1978 Pasargadae: a report on the excavations conducted by the British Institute of Persian Studies from 1961 to 1963, Oxford.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1997

225

Anshan and Persia: Early Achaemenid History, Art and Architecture on the Iranian Plateau, in: J. CURTIS (ed.), Mesopotamia and Iran in the Persian Period: Conquest and Imperialism 539331 BC, London, 35-53. The Tomb of Arjan and the History of Southwestern Iran in the Early 6th Century BC, in: 2003 N.F. MILLER & K. ABDI (eds.), Yedi Bud, Yeki Nabud: Essays on the Archaeology of Iran in Honor of William M. Sumner (Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Monograph 48), Los Angeles, 249-259. 2004 Notes on a Fortified Building and a ‘Yurt’ in Adjacent Registers of the Arjan Bowl, in: A. SAGONA (ed.), A View from the Highlands. Archaeological Studies in Honour of Charles Burney (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Suppl. 12), Leuven, 711-728. 2005 The Arjan Tomb: Innovation and Acculturation in the Last Days of Elam, in: A. DAEMS, E. HAERINCK & B. OVERLAET (eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference “The Iron Age in the Iranian World” at Ghent (17-20 November 2003) (IrAnt 40), Leuven, 179-196. STRONACH, D. & M. ROAF 2007 Nush-i Jan I. The Major Buildings of the Median Settlement, Leuven. SUMNER, W.M. 1972 Cultural Development in the Kur River Basin, Iran: an archaeological analysis of Settlement Patterns, unpublished Ph.D. Diss., Pennsylvania. 1973 Tall-i Malyan and the Chronology of the Kur River Basin, AJA 77, 288-290. 1974 Excavations at Tal-e Malyan 1971-1972, Iran 12, 155-180. 1986 Achaemenid Settlement in the Persepolis Plain, AJA 90, 3-31. 1988 Malyan, Tall-e (Anšan), RlA 7, 306-320. 1989 Anshan in the Kaftari Phase: Patterns of Settlement and Land Use, in: L. DE MEYER & E. HAERINCK (eds.), Archaeologia Iranica et Orientalis: Miscellanea in Honorem Louis Vanden Berghe, Leuven, 135-161. Archaeological Measures of Cultural Continuity and the Arrival of the Persians in Fars, in: 1994 H. SANCISI-WEERDENBURG, A. KUHRT & M.C. ROOT (eds.), Continuity and Change: Proceedings of the last Achaemenid History Workshop, April 6-8, 1990 (AchHist VIII), Leiden, 97-105. 2003 Malyan Excavation Reports III: Early Urban Life in the Land of Anshan, Excavations at Tal-e Malyan in the Highlands of Iran (University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology Monograph 117), Philadelphia. TAVERNIER, J. 2003 Review of Waters (2000), JNES 62, 202-204. 2004 Some Thoughts on Neo-Elamite Chronology, ARTA 003. [http://www.achemenet.com/pdf/arta/2004.003-Tavernier.pdf]. 2007a Elam: Neo-Elamite Period (ca. 1000-530 BC), in: W. EDER & J. RENGER (eds.), Brill’s Chronologies of the Ancient World. New Pauly, Names, Dates and Dynasties, Leiden-Boston, 22-24. 2007b The Case of Elamite tep-/tip- and Akkadian ṭuppu, Iran 45, 57-69. 2007c On some Elamite signs and sounds, ZDMG 157, 265-291. 2007d Iranica in the Achaemenid period (ca. 550-330 B.C.). Lexicon of Old Iranian Proper Names and Loanwords attested in Non-Iranian Texts (OLA 158), Leuven. 2010 On the Sounds Rendered by the s-, š-, and ṣ/z- Series in Elamite, in: L. KOGAN (ed.), Proceedings of the 53e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale vol. 1: Language in the Ancient Near East, Winona Lake, 1059-1078. 2011a Élamite. Analyse grammaticale et lecture de textes, Res Antiquae 8, 315-350. 2011b Iranians in Neo-Elamite Texts, in: J. ÁLVAREZ-MON & M.B. GARRISON (eds.), Elam and Persia, Winona Lake, 191-261. 2013a Elamite NU-MA-KA4, Le Muséon 126, 265-283. 2013b Elamite and Old Iranian Afterlife Concepts, in: K. DE GRAEF & J. TAVERNIER (eds.), Susa and Elam, Leiden-Boston, 471-489. 2014 What’s in the Name: Hallušu, Hallutaš or Hallutuš, RA 108, 61-66.

226 2017

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The Use of Languages on the Various Levels of Administration in the Achaemenid Empire, in: B. JACOBS, W.F.M. HENKELMAN & M.W. STOLPER (eds.), Die Verwaltung im Achämenidenreich: Imperiale Munster und Strukturen — The Administration in the Achaemenid Empire: Tracing the Imperial Signature. Akten des 6. Internationalen Kolloquiums zum Thema “Vorderasien im Spannungsfeld klassischer und altorientalischer Überlieferungen” aus Anlass der 80-Jahr-Feier der Entdeckung des Festungsarchives von Persepolis, Landgut Castelen bei Basel, 14.-17. Mai 2003 (Classica et Orientalia 17), Wiesbaden, 337-412.

THOMAS, R. 1996 Archive, in: S. HORNBLOWER & A. SPAWFORTH (eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, Oxford, 149-150. THUREAU-DANGIN, F. 1912 Review of S. Langdon (1912): Die Neubabylonischen Königinschriften, RA 9, 84. TOURTET, F. 2013 Distribution, Materials and Functions of the ‘Wall Knob’ in the Near Eastern Late Bronze Age: From South-Western Iran to the Middle Euphrates, in: K. DE GRAEF & J. TAVERNIER (eds.), Susa and Elam, Leiden-Boston, 173-190. TOWHIDI, F. & A.M. KHALILIYAN 1982 A Report on the Study of Objects from the Arjan Tomb, Bahbahan, Athar 7/8/9, 232-286 (in Persian). TUPLIN, CH. 1998 The seasonal migration of Achaemenid Empire, in: M. BROSIUS & A. KUHRT (eds.), Studies in Persian History, Essays in Memory of David M. Lewis (AchHist XI), Leiden, 63-114. UNGNAD, A. 1907 Halllušu II, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 10, 621-622. 1908 Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Königlichen Museen zu Berlin 6, Berlin. VALLAT, F. 1977 Corpus des inscriptions royales en élamite achéménide, Ph.D. Diss., Paris. [https://archive.org/details/CorpusInscriptionsRoyalesElamiteAchemenid/mode/2up] 1980 Suse et Élam (Recherche sur les grandes civilisations, mémoire 1), Paris. 1981 Un fragment de brique de Tépé Bormi inscrit en élamite, CDAFI 12, 193-196. 1984 Kidin-Hutran et l’époque élamite, Akkadica 37, 1-17. 1985 Hutelutuš-Inšušinak et la famille royale élamite, RA 79, 43-50. 1988a À propos de l’origine des tablettes élamites dites ‘de Ninive’ conservées au British Museum, N.A.B.U. 1988.39, 26-27. d Umu à l’époque néo-élamite, N.A.B.U. 1988.14, 9. 1988b 1992a Les prétendus fonctionnaires unsak des textes néo-élamites et achéménides, DATA: Achaemenid History Newsletters 1, n. 4. 1992b L’inscription du cylinder néo-élamite de Chigha Sabz (Luristan), N.A.B.U. 1992.14, 13. 1993 Les noms géographiques des sources suso-élamites (RGTC 11), Wiesbaden. 1995a Šutruk-Nahhunte, Šutur-Nahhunte et l’imbroglio néo-élamite, N.A.B.U. 1995.44, 37-38. 1995b Susa and Susiana in the Second-Millennium Iran, in: J. SASSON (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, vol. 2, 1023-1033. 1996a Nouvelle analyse des inscriptions néo-élamites, in: H. GASCHE & B. HROUDA (eds.), Collectanea Orientalia. Histoire, arts de l’espace et industrie de la terre. Études offertes en hommage à Agnès Spycket (Civilisations du Proche-Orient 1, Archéologie et environnement 3), Neuchâtel-Paris, 385396. 1996b Le retour de Hutelutush-Inshushinak à Suse, N.A.B.U. 1996.88, 78-79. 1996c Le royaume élamite de SAMATI, N.A.B.U. 1996.31, 21-22. 1997a Elam, I. The History of Elam, EncIr 8, 301-302. 1997b Nouveaux problèmes de succession en Élam, IrAnt 32, 53-70.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

227

Cyrus l’usurpateur, in: J. ANDREAU & M.F. BOUSSAC et al. (eds.), Actes du séminaire international (Lyon, 31 mars-1er avril 1997) autour de l’ouvrage de P. Briant, Histoire de l’Empire perse. De Cyrus à Alexandre, Paris (Topoi 7, suppl. 1), Paris, 423-434. 1997d La lettre élamite d’Arménie, ZA 87, 258-270. 1998a hašša – kiparu, deux termes élamites dans les textes accadiens de Suse, N.A.B.U. 1998.127, 119. 1998b Le royaume élamite de Zamin et les “lettres de Ninive”, in: R. BOUCHARLAT, J.E. CURTIS & E. HAERINCK (eds.), Neo-Assyrian, Median, Achaemenian and other Studies in honor of David Stronach (IrAnt 33), Leuven, 95-106. 1998c Les formules de vœux en élamite, N.A.B.U. 1998.126, 118. 1999 Le palais élamite de Suse, Akkadica 112, 34-43. 2000a Le clergé élamite, in: S. GRAZIANI (ed.), Studi sul Vicino Oriente antico dedicati alla memoria di Luigi Cagni (Istituto Universitario Orientale. Dispartimento di studi Asiatici, Series Minor 60.II), Napoli, 1065-1074. 2000b Une inscription élamite sur un rython en argent à tête de belier, Akkadica 116, 29-33. 2001 Les puhlalê d’Assurbanipal, N.A.B.U. 2001.65, 62-63. 2002a Review of Waters M.W. (2000): A Survey on Neo-Elamite History, OLZ 97, 372-376. 2002b Les prétendus fonctionnaires unsak des textes néo-élamites et achéménides, ARTA 2002.006. 2003 Les religions à Suse, in: J. BRIEND & M. QUESNEL (eds.), Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible 74, Paris, 529-546. 2005 L’inscription néo-élamite de Manaka[…]untaš et l’emploi des déterminatifs à basse époque, in: M. BERNARDINI & N.L. TORNESELLO (eds.), Scritti in onore di Giovanni M. D’Erme, Napoli, 12371242. 2006a Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak, Šutur-Nahhunte et la chronologie néo-élamite, Akkadica 127, 59-62. 2006b La chronologie méso-élamite et la lettre de Berlin, Akkadica 127, 123-136. 2011a Textes historiques élamites et achéménides, in: A.R. GEORGE (ed.), Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts in the Schøyen Collection (Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 17), 187-192. 2011b Darius, l’héritier légitime, et les premiers achéménides, in: J. ÁLVAREZ-MON & M.B. GARRISON (eds.), Elam and Persia, Winona Lake, 263-284. VAN LOON, M.N. 1988 Two Neo-Elamite cylinder seals with mounted huntsmen, IrAnt 23, 221-230. VANDEN BERGHE, L. 1952 Archeologische Opzoekingen in de Marv Dasht Vlakte (Iran), Jaarbericht van het VooraziatischEgyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux 12, 211-220. 1954 Archaelogische navorsingen in de omstreken van Persepolis, Jaarbericht van het VooraziatischEgyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux 13, 394-408. 1959 [1966] Archéologie de l’Iran ancien (Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 6), Leiden. 1963 Les reliefs élamites de Malamir, IrAnt 3, 22-39. 1983 Reliefs rupestres de l’Iran ancien (vers 2000 av. J.-C. – 7e siècle après J.-C.), Bruxelles. 1986 Données nouvelles concernant le relief rupestre élamite de Kūrangūn, in: L. DE MEYER, H. GASCHE & F. VALLAT (eds.), Fragmenta Historiae Elamicae. Mélanges offerts à M.-J. Steve, Paris, 157-173. VOIGTLANDER, E. VON 1978 The Bisitun Inscription of Darius the Great. Babylonian Version (Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum II), London. WAERZEGGERS, C. 2010 Babylonians in Susa. The Travels of Babylonian Businessmen to Susa Reconsidered, in: B. JACOBS & R. ROLLINGER (eds.), Der Achämenidenhof, Wiesbaden, 777-816. 2012 The Babylonian Chronicles: Classification and Provenance, JNES 71, 285-298. WALKER, C.B.F. 1980 Elamite Inscriptions in the British Museum, Iran 18, 75-81. 1997c

228 1981

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cuneiform Brick Inscriptions in the British Museum, the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, the City of Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery, the City of Bristol Museum and Art Gallery, London.

WARTKE, R. 2001 Review of E. Bleibtreu (1999): Ein vergoldeter Silberbecher der Zeit Assurbanipals im Miho Museum. Historische Darstellungen des 7. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., OLZ 96, 396-399. WATERS, M.W. 1996 Darius and the Achaemenid Line, Ancient History Bulletin 10, 11-18. 1999a ABL 268 and Tammaritu, ArOr 67, 72-74. 1999b Te’umman in the Neo-Assyrian Correspondence, JAOS 119, 473-477. 1999c The Earliest Persians in Southwestern Iran: The Textual Evidence, IrSt 32, 99-107. 2000 A Survey of Neo-Elamite History (SAAS 12), Helsinki. 2001 Mesopotamian Sources and Neo-Elamite History, in: T. ABUSCH, P. BEAULIEU, J. HUEHNERGARD, P. MACHINIST & P. STEINKELLER (eds.), Historiography in the Cuneiform World, Proceedings of the XLVe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, vol. 1, Bethesda, 473-482. 2002a A Letter from Ashurbanipal to the Elders of Elam (BM 132980), JCS 54, 79-86. 2002b Another Huban-nikaš, N.A.B.U. 2002.88, 87-88. 2004 Cyrus and the Achaemenids, Iran 42, 91-102. 2005 [2007] Review of G.B. Lanfranchi, M. Roaf & R. Rollinger (2003): Media and its Discontents, JAOS 125, 517-533. 2006a Four Brothers and a Throne, in: A. GUINAN, M. DEJ. ELLIS, S. FERRARA, S. FREEDMAN, M. RUTZ, L. SASSMANNSHAUSEN, S. TINNEY & M. WATERS (eds.), If a Man Built a Joyful House… Studies in Honour of Erle Verdun Leichty (CM 31), Groningen, 499-502. 2006b A Neo-Elamite Royal Family, IrAnt 41, 59-69. 2008 Cyrus and Susa, RA 102, 115-118. WEEKS, L.R., K.S. ALIZADEH & M. ZEIDI 2009 Chapter 3: Excavations at Tol-e Nurabad, in: D.T. POTTS et al. (eds.), The Mamasani Archaeological Project, Stage One. A Report on the first two seasons of the ICAR – University of Sydney expedition to the Mamasani District, Fars Province, Iran, Oxford, 31-88. WEIDNER, E.F. 1932/3 Assyrische Beschreibungen der Kriegs-Reliefs Assurbanipals, AfO 8, 175-203. 1939 Jojachin, König von Judea, in Babylonischen Keilschrifttexte, in: Mélanges syriens offerts à Monsieur René Dussaud: sécretaire perpétuel de l’Académie des Inscriptions et de Belles-Lettres, par les amis et ses élèves, vol. 2 (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 30), Paris, 923-935. WEISBERG, D.B. 1984 The Length of the Reign of Hallušu-Inšušinak, JAOS 104, 213-217. 2003 Neo-Babylonian Texts in the Oriental Institute Collection (OIP 122), Chicago. WEISSBACH, F.H. 1902 Susische thontäfelchen, BA 4, 168-202. WISEMAN, D.J. 1956 Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum, London. 1987 Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon, Oxford. 1991 Babylonia 605-539 B.C., in: J. BOARDMAN, I.E.S. EDWARDS, N.G.L. HAMMOND, E. SOLLBERGER & C.B.F. WALKER (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History III.2: The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and Other States of the Near East from the Eight to the Sixth Century B.C., Cambridge, 229-251. WRIGHT, H.T. 1979 Archaeological Investigations in Northeastern Xuzestan, 1976 (Museum of Anthropology, The University of Michigan, Technical Reports 10, Research Reports in Archaeology 5), Ann Arbor. 1981 An Early Town on the Deh Luran Plain: Excavations at Tepe Farukhabad (Memoires of the Museum of Anthropology University of Michigan 13), Ann Arbor, 196-223.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

229

WRIGHT, H.T. & E. CARTER 2003 Archaeological Surveys in the Western Ram Hormuz Plain: 1969, in: N.F. MILLER & K. ABDI (eds.), Yedi Bud, Yeki Nabud: Essays on the Archaeology of Iran in Honor of William M. Sumner (Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Monograph 48), Los Angeles, 61-82. WRIGHT, H.T. & G.A. JOHNSON 1975 Population, exchange and early state formation in southwestern Iran, American Anthropologist 77, 267-289. YOUNG, T.C. 1967 The Iranian Migration into the Zagros, Iran 5, 11-34. 1988 The Early History of the Medes and the Persians and the Achaemenid Empire to the Death of Cambyses, in: J. BOARDMAN, I.E.S. EDWARDS, N.G.L. HAMMOND, E. SOLLBERGER & C.B.F. WALKER (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History IV: Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean, c. 525 to 479 BC, Cambridge, 1-52. 2003 Parsua, Parsa and Potsherds, in: N.F. MILLER & K. ABDI (eds.), Yedi Bud, Yeki Nabud: Essays on the Archaeology of Iran in Honor of William M. Sumner (Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Monograph 48), Los Angeles. YUSIFOV, Y.B. 1963 Эламские хозяйственные документи из Суз (Les documents économiques élamites de Suse. Transcription, traduction et commentaire), VDI 84, 200-261. [in Russian] 1974 The Problem of the Order of Succession in Elam again, AAASH 22, 321-331. ZADOK, R. 1976a On the Connections between Iran and Babylonia in the sixth century BC, Iran 14, 61-78. 1976b review of E.A. Grantovskij, Ранняя история иранских племен Передней Азии Moscow 1970, BiOr 33, 387-389. 1981 Arabians in Mesopotamia during the Late-Assyrian, Chaldean, Achaemenian and Hellenistic Periods chiefly according to the Cuneiform Sources, ZDMG 131, 42-84. 1983 A Tentative Structural Analysis of Elamite Hypocoristica, BNF N.F. 18, 93-120. 1984 The Elamite Onomasticon (Supplemento n. 40 agli Annali vol. 44.3), Napoli. 1985a Geographical Names According New- and Late Babylonian Texts (RGTC 8), Wiesbaden. 1985b Zur Geographie Babyloniens während des sargonidischen, chaldäischen, achämenidischen und hellenistischen Zeitalters, Die Welt des Orients 16, 19-79. 1994 Elamites and other Peoples from Iran and the Persian Gulf Region in Early Mesopotamian Sources, Iran 32, 31-51. 1995 On the Current State of Elamite Lexicography, SEL 12, 241-252. 2002 The ethno-linguistic character of northwestern Iran and Kurdistan in the Neo-Assyrian period, Iran 40, 89-151. ZAGARELL, A. 1982 The Prehistory of the Northeast Bahtiyari Mountains, Iran: The Rise of a Highland Way of Life (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients 42), Wiesbaden. ZAWADSKI, S. 1988 The Fall of Assyria and Median-Babylonian Relations in Light of the Nabopolassar Chronicle, Poznan. ZEIDI, M., B. MCCALL & A. KHOSROWZADEH 2009 Chapter 6: Survey of Dasht-e Rostam-e Yek and Dasht-e Rostam-e Do, in: D.T. POTTS et al. (eds.), The Mamasani Archaeological Project, Stage One. A Report on the first two seasons of the ICAR – University of Sydney expedition to the Mamasani District, Fars Province, Iran, Oxford, 147-168.

230

BIBLIOGRAPHY

WEBSITES http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd1/index.html http://cdli.ucla.edu/ http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/search.aspx http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/ http://www.archatlas.org/Petrie/RoutesandPlains.php http://www.mom.fr/mecquenem/

INDEX

PERSONAL NAMES A Achaemenid(s), 5-6, 10-11, 24, 36, 74, 83-84, 89-91, 102, 162163, 167-168, 177, 184, 199 Adad-nirari III, 20, 182 Addabarru, 65, 185 Addaten, 67, 99 Ahhazzaka-Inšušinak, 126 Aḫ-lumur (Iqiša archive), 76 Ahtir, 105 Aḫu-yaqar, 114 Aḫu-ilāya, 54 Akka-iti, 74, 76 Akši-marti, 103, 106 Aksir-Nahhunte, 85 Amar-Sin, 140, 160 Amedirra, 59-60 Amel-Marduk, 125 Ammaten, 67 Ampiriš, 10, 73, 100, 103-107 Andahar, 76 Ani-Numa, 63 Anni-Šilhak, 10, 104-106 Aplâ, 76 Aplaya, 46 Appalaya (Zari), 10, 68, 70, 100-102, 125, 173, 182, 184 Aqar-Nabu, 76 Ariaramnes, 102 Aspabara, 116-117 Assurbanipal, 5, 6, 9, 13-14, 20-21, 24, 40-48, 51-60, 77, 81, 88, 93, 95-97, 103, 121-124, 127-128, 131, 134, 136, 140, 146, 158-161, 168-169, 173, 176-180, 184, 187-188, 190-191, 197 Assur-nadin-šumi, 118 Assur-uballit II, 97 Ašurnasirpal, 95, 148 Astyages, 89, 168 Ašur-Dan III, 20, 37 Ašur-etil-ilani, 97 Ašur-nadin-šumi, 33, 118, 120 Ašur-nirari V, 20, 37 Atkalšu, 189 Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak I, 7, 10, 32, 56, 67-68, 72, 80-85, 86-91, 99, 160-161, 166, 176, 188, 191, 198-199 Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak II (Aθamaita), 84, 91 Attametu (commander archers), 46, 55-56, 80-81, 188 Attar-kittah, 29 Azzimama, 182 B Babûtu, 76 Bahuri, 10, 69, 92-97, 125-126, 142, 151, 173, 176, 182, 199 Bakiš, 65, 69, 92, 185 Balaṭu (father of Bel-epuš), 47 Balaṭu (son of Nabu-zeru-ibni), 76 Balaṭu (father of Nabu-naṣir), 76 Balaṭu (father of Kurigalzi), 76 Banumi, 65, 185

Bardiya, 89 Barriman, 65, 185 Bel-epuš (son of Balaṭu), 47 Bel-epuš (Aramean sheikh), 114 Bel-ibni, 6, 48, 52, 54-55, 57, 122-123, 180, 182, 186 Bel-ibni (Iqiša archive), 76 Bel-iddina, 76 Bel-iqiša, 120-122 Bel-le’ (Iqiša archive), 75-76 Nabu-mušêtiq-urri, 76 Bel-naṣir (Iqiša archive), 75-76 Belšunu, 55 Belšunu (Iqiša archive), 76 Bel-uballiṭ (Iqiša archive), 76 Bel-upahhir (Iqiša archive), 76 Bel-uppahhir (messenger), 180 Bel-ušabši, 76 Bel-ušallim (Iqiša archive), 76 Bel-uṣallim (Iqiša archive), 76 Bur-Silâ, 116 C Cambyses I, 10, 168 Cambyses II, 10, 74, 89, 91, 174 Cyrus I, 10, 63, 102, 168 Cyrus II, 6, 10, 14, 74, 88-89, 141, 163, 168, 174, 199 D Dabala, 10, 100, 103-106 Dâbibi, 76 Dadluma, 68, 92 Dalta, 113, 116 Danunu, 42, 122, 188 Darius (I) the Great, 6, 10, 14, 24, 67-68, 70, 74, 83-84, 89-91, 97, 132, 134, 151, 162-163, 165, 167-168, 190, 199 E Enmebaragesi, 4 Eparti III, 162 Epêš-ili, 75-76 Esarhaddon, 6, 39-40, 43, 46, 59, 93, 101, 107, 119-122, 127, 176177, 181-182 Eṭeru, 76 G Gaḫal, 52, 176 Gaubaruva (Gobryas), 91 Gaumata, 89 Gimillu (Iqiša archive), 76 Gittiyaš, 10, 103, 105-106 H Halakuk, 182 Halkataš, 84-85, 91, 161

232

INDEX

Hallutuš-Inšušinak (I) (Hallušu), 14, 20, 22-24, 33-35, 36-37, 73, 77, 117, 193, 198 Hallutuš-Inšušinak (II), 7, 10, 11, 29, 33-35, 62, 64, 67-68, 70-71, 73-81, 84, 86, 88, 117, 128, 198, 199 Hamititi, 65 Hanne, 27, 30, 44, 61-63, 67, 71, 73, 83, 94-95, 98, 148-151, 161, 178, 180-181, 183-184, 186, 191, 198 Harak, 65, 185 Harina, 90, 183-184 Haššina (Açina/Atrina), 90-91 Huban, 104 Huban-ahpi, 67-69, 99, 189 Huban-amni (grandson Urtak), 48-49, 53 Huban-amni (grandson Huban-haltaš II), 48-50, 53 Huban-amnu (Acropole), 65, 185 Huban-appa (pi), 39-41, 45-46, 48-50, 53 Huban-duniš, 183 Huban-gisir, 69 Huban-habua, 10, 57-58, 173, 198 Huban-haltaš I, 9, 37-39, 41, 43, 48-50, 52-53, 80, 198 Huban-haltaš II, 6, 26, 37-39, 40-46, 48-53, 119-121, 176, 181-182, 184, 198 Huban-haltaš III, 6, 9-11, 13-14, 42-43, 52, 55-60, 64, 80, 93, 122-124, 128, 136, 145-146, 148, 159, 174, 177-178, 188, 198 Huban-haltaš (son Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak), 42-43, 48-49, 52-53 Huban-haltaš (grandson Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak), 42, 48-49, 5253 Huban-haltaš (palace manager), 65, 183-184 Huban-haltaš (commander infantry), 188 Hubanid(s), 9, 14, 37-54, 55-57, 75, 85, 90, 119, 166, 178, 198 Huban-immena, 22-32, 33-35, 37, 61, 73, 84, 182, 197 Huban-kitin (seal), 30, 31, 44, 61-62, 64-65, 69-71, 92 Huban-kitin (son Huban-appa), 40, 53 Huban-kitin (nagiru official), 44, 53, 182 Huban-menanu, 6, 9, 31, 35-37, 38, 41, 71, 118, 166, 198 Huban-nikaš I, 6, 9, 13, 20-22, 23-26, 30, 33, 35, 37, 104, 113114, 118, 182, 184, 197 Huban-nikaš II, 6, 9, 10, 21, 39-42, 44, 45-47, 48-53, 56, 59, 80, 122, 173, 177, 188, 198 Huban-nikaš (son of Amedirra), 59-60 Huban-nikaš (son Merodach-baladan II), 119, 176 Huban-nikaš (craftsman), 188 Huban-nugaš (Acropole), 65 Huban-Šuturuk, 10, 73, 97-100, 199 Huban-tahra (Umbadara), 9, 20-22, 24, 29, 33-34, 37, 81, 104, 197 Huban-tahra (II), 10, 29, 33-35, 71, 73, 75, 78-79, 84, 198 Huban-umena, 32 Huhin, 149 Humbappi, 122 Humbareši, 122 Hupiti, 68, 92 Hutelutuš-Inšušinak, 5, 19, 23-25, 28, 32, 72, 163, 197 Hutran-tepti, 10, 80, 82, 84 Hutran-tepti (Šimaški), 86 Huttete, 30 Hystaspes, 24 I/Y Yakin, 102 Ibunukaš, 106 Igihalkid(s), 5, 28, 30, 111 Il-Yada’, 26, 113 Imbappi, 56-57, 174, 188

Ina-qîbi-bel (Iqiša archive), 76 Ina-tēšû-eṭir (Iqiša archive), 76-77 Indabibi, 10, 14, 42, 52, 54-55, 56-57, 59, 80, 122-123, 173, 182, 198 Indada, 10, 30, 44, 60-64, 140, 150, 181, 198, 200 Inšušinak-šar-ilani, 5 Iqiša, 75-77, 198 Iqiša (son of Kidinnu), 76 Ištarnan(hun)di, 14, 20, 26, 42, 44-45, 181-182 Išpugurda, 159 K Kanisurra (Iqiša archive), 76 Kidin-Marduk (Iqiša archive), 76 Kidin-niti (Iqiša archive), 76 Kidinuid(s), 5, 162, 179 Kiliman-Anzan, 126 Kindattu, 4 Kinenua (Iqiša archive), 76 Kirinahzi, 65 Kitin-Hutran, 92, 107, 145-146, 173, 200 Kuddakaka, 65-66, 69-70, 107, 185 Kudurru (Iqiša archive), 76 Kudurru (Elamite official), 169 Kutur (šatin), 181 Kurbanni-Marduk, 76 Kurigalzu (Babylonian king), 19 Kurigalzu (Iqiša archive), 75-76 Kuraš, 103, 168 Kurluš, 92, 107, 145, 173, 200 Kurluš (Acropole), 145 Kutir-Huban, 25 Kutir-Nahhunte, 5, 32 Kutur-Nahhunte, 6, 35-37, 117-119, 145, 159, 198 Kutur-Nahhunte (son Huban-haltaš II), 39, 41, 53 Kutur-teir, 65 L Lali, 68 Lalintaš, 106-107 Lu-aḫu’a, 114 Lû-belti, 76 Lutu, 116 M Madān, 107 Mandudu, 184 Manistišu, 4 Mannu-ki-Ninua, 26 Mār-bīti-apla-uṣur, 19 Marduk (Zari), 101-102, 125 Marduk-balāssu-iqbi, 20, 112, 197 Marduk-erîba (Iqiša archive), 76 Marduk-naṣir (Iqiša archive), 76 Marduk-šapik-zeri (Iqiša archive), 76 Marduk-šar-uṣur, 54 Marduk-šar-[x] (Iqiša archive), 76 Marduk-šum-ibni (Iqiša archive), 76 Marduk-šum-ibni (commander Urtak), 121 Marduk-ušallim (Iqiša archive), 76 Marduk-zêru-ibni (Iqiša archive), 76 Marduniš, 183

PERSONAL NAMES

Martiya, 70, 90-91 Mazzini, 92-93, 142 Meli-Šipak II, 19 Merodach-baladan II (Marduk-apla-iddina), 22, 25-26, 37, 46, 55, 77, 96, 102, 113, 114, 117, 118, 119, 120, 127, 176, 181, 197 Menana, 188 Minû-ana-Bel-dâni (Iqiša archive), 76 Mukin-zêri (Iqiša archive), 76 Mušabši(?)-il (Iqiša archive), 76 Mušallimu (Iqiša archive), 76 Mušezib (Iqiša archive), 76 Mušezib-Marduk (Sealand prince), 36, 118-119 Mušezib-Marduk (Iqiša archive), 76-77 Mušezib-Marduk (nephew Bel-ibni), 123

233

P Pa’e, 10, 58-59, 173, 198 Para (grandson Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak), 42, 48-49, 52-53 Parsirra, 145 Paru (son Huban-haltaš II), 39, 41, 46, 53 Paru (mayor Hilmu), 46 Pirri, 65, 106 Puzur-Inšušinak, 4, 133, 146, 160 R Rabi-bânê (Iqiša archive), 76 Rab(u)-kiš, 65 Rimuš, 4 Rimut (Iqiša archive), 76 Ririmut, 68, 92

N S Nabin-naṣir (Zari), 101-102, 125 Nabonidus, 6, 74, 89, 168, 191 Nabopolassar, 81, 124-125 Nabu’le (Iqiša archive), 76 Nabu-ah-iddin (Iqiša archive), 76 Nabu-ahhe-bulṭu (Iqiša archive), 76 Nabu-bel-šumati, 46, 55-56, 58-59, 101, 122-123, 180, 186-188 Nabu-belu-ka”in, 25-26 Nabu-êpuš (Iqiša archive), 76 Nabu-eṭir (Iqiša archive), 76-77 Nabu-gamil (Iqiša archive), 76 Nabu-îpuš (Iqiša archive), 76 Nabu-iqiša, 25-26 Nabu-le’, 76 Nabu-mukin-apli (Iqiša archive), 76 Nabu-na’id (Iqiša archive), 76 Nabu-naṣir (Babylonian king), 20, 21 Nabu-naṣir (Bel-iqiša archive), 75-77 Nabu-šar-ahhešu, 59 Nabu-šuma-iškun, 21-22, 113, 197 Nabu-šum-ereš, 121 Nabu-šum-iddina (Bel-iqiša archive), 76 Nabu-ušallim, 26, 40, 43, 46, 119-120, 176, 181-182 Nabu-zer-iddina (Iqiša archive), 76 Nabu-zer-kitti-lišir, 119 Nabu-zeru-ibni (Iqiša archive), 76 Nabu-zer-ukin, 76 Nadîn (Iqiša archive), 76 Na’id-Marduk, 119-120, 176 Nahhunte-utu, 24, 180 Napiriša-ahpi, 182 Napi-sunkir, 184 Nappa-ahpi, 65, 98, 184 Naram-Sin, 4 Nebuchadnezzar I, 5, 19, 24, 111, 124, 149, 163 Nebuchadnezzar II, 67, 75-77, 124-125 Nergal-šum-ibni (Iqiša archive), 76-77 Nergal-šum-uṣur (Iqiša archive), 76 Nergal-ušezib, 52, 117 Neriglissar, 125 Nešu, 46, 188 Nibê, 59, 116 Ninurta-ah-iddina (Iqiša archive), 76 Ninurta-iddin (Iqiša archive), 76 Ninurta-mukin-[…] (Iqiša archive), 76 Nûr-Marduk (Iqiša archive), 76

Samgunu, 42 Sargon II, 6, 22, 26, 37, 96, 113-117, 121, 127-128, 166-176, 180 Sennacherib, 35-37, 117-120, 122-123, 128, 159, 166, 176, 198 Sikdê, 57 Sin-rim-ili (Iqiša archive), 76 Sin-šadûnu (Iqiša archive), 76 Sin-šarru-iškun, 93, 97 Sin-šumu-lišir, 97 Sin-tabni (Iqiša archive), 76 Sin-uballiṭ (Iqiša archive), 76 Sukkalmah, 4-5, 19, 39, 44, 94, 140, 161-162, 179 Sum-iddina (Iqiša archive), 76 Š Šadununu, 100 Šākin-[šu]-mi (Iqiša archive), 76 Šalmaneser IV, 20 Šalmaneser V, 26, 37, 113 Šamaš-bari (Iqiša archive), 76 Šamaš-da’inanni, 96 Šamaš-naṣir (Iqiša archive), 76 Šamaš-šarru-uṣur, 26 Šamaš-šum-lišir (Iqiša archive), 76-77 Šamaš-šum-ukin, 6, 40, 41, 43, 46, 48, 54-55, 96, 123, 177 Šamši-Adad V, 20, 112-113, 116 Šapik (Iqiša archive), 76 Šati-[…] (Acropole), 65 Šati-Huban, 184 Šati-hupiti, 10, 97-98, 184 Šati-kutur, 103 Šešpeš, 168 Šilha-[…] (Acropole), 65, 68 Šilhak-Inšušinak I, 5, 24-25, 27, 29, 32, 82, 86-88, 94, 128-129, 137, 140, 157, 179, 180, 191-192 Šilhak-Inšušinak II, 7, 10, 38, 41, 67, 70, 71-73, 80-83, 85-87, 106, 199 Šilhaharkan, 68 Šilhaharman-(kut), 69, 92 Šilhina-hamru-Lagamar, 23-25, 197 Šimaški, 4, 152, 162 Šimut (dMAN of Bupila), 69, 92 Šimut (dMAN of Hadanu), 69, 92 Šuma (son Šuma-iddin), 52, 53, 54 Šuma (Iqiša archive), 76

234

INDEX

Šuma-iddin (Iqiša archive), 75-76 Šuma-iddin, 52-53 Šum-ukin (Iqiša archive), 76-77 Šupipi, 65, 185 Šutrukid(s), 5, 19, 23-25, 28, 30, 32, 72, 88, 111, 149-150, 162, 166, 179, 197 Šutruk-Nahhunte I, 5, 19, 24, 27-32, 72, 85, 137 Šutruk-Nahhunte II (Ištarnanhundi), 6-7, 14, 20, 22-32, 33-35, 37, 50, 52, 61-62, 67, 70, 78, 81-87, 92, 96, 114, 116, 117, 126, 134, 166, 176, 183, 190, 197-198 Šutruru (official Šutruk-Nahhunte II), 7, 27, 28, 30, 32, 62, 67, 83, 85, 94-95, 98, 176, 180, 186, 190, 192 Šutruru (ragipal Hanne), 148, 150-151, 181, 183 Šutruru (cup bearer Hanne), 148 Šutur/Šutruk-Nahhunte (Hidalu), 41-45, 53, 61, 159, 177-178, 181-182 Šutur-Nahhunte (son of Indada), 10, 14, 26, 30, 44, 60-64, 69, 71, 73, 124, 140, 148-150, 178, 198-200 Šutur-Nahhunte (seal), 31, 32, 61, 62, 63, 64, 69, 70 Šutur-Nahhunte (Acropole & Apadana), 62, 69 Šuturuk-Inšušinak, 71, 73 Šûzubu (Iqiša archive), 75, 77 Ṣ Ṣillâ (Iqiša archive), 76-77 T Tabnea (Iqiša archive), 76 Tahhi, 148, 150 Takkuku, 65 Tallak-kitin, 65, 185 Tallak-kutur, 94, 97, 182 Tammaritu, 9, 10, 20, 37, 42, 47-54, 55-56, 57-58, 59, 75, 80, 122, 169, 176-177, 182, 198 Tammaritu (of Hidalu), 10, 39-41, 44, 45-47, 48-50, 52-53, 159, 173, 177-178, 198 Tammaritu (son Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak), 42-43, 52-53, 55 Teir (Acropole), 69 Teispes, 10, 102, 168 Teispid(s), 6, 81, 88-89, 91, 129, 163, 167-169, 199 Tepti-ahar, 5, 189-190 Tepti-Huban, 148 Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak I (Teumman), 11, 14, 26, 31, 38-40, 41-45, 46, 48-53, 55-57, 75, 85, 119, 121, 173, 181-184, 188, 192 Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II, 7, 10, 38, 41-42, 67-68, 72, 81, 83, 85-89, 105, 126, 129, 166, 184, 186, 188-192, 199 Tiglath-pileser III, 20-22, 37, 43, 113-114, 127-128

U Ukbaturranma, 90 Umba-dudu, 106, 184 Umhuluma, 59, 186-187 Ummanabba, 46 Ummandada, 188 Umman-minâ, 25, 116 Ummanšibar, 55-57, 180 Ummanunu (Acropole), 10, 70, 68, 72-73, 80-81, 199 Ummanunu (Apadana), 70 Ummanunu (father of Šilhak-Inšušinak), 71-73, 199 Ummanuš, 70, 90 Umpeniš, 66 Umpiriš, 106 Unban-me(n)iš, 65, 185 Unsak (Samatian king), 10, 105-107, 145 Unsak (Samatian general), 106 Untaš (son Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak), 42-43, 46, 52-53, 56 Untaš-napiriša, 5, 28-30, 32, 128 Unukaka, 188 Unzi-kilik, 10, 105-106 Upahalir, 94 Upizza, 97 Ur-Nammu, 4 Ur-Nanna (Bel-iqiša archive), 76 Urtak, 6, 21, 38, 39-40, 41-53, 121, 182-183, 188, 198 Urtak (son-in-law Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak), 42, 53 Ururu, 7, 10, 73, 79, 82, 92, 97-100, 162, 182-184 Ururu (Persepolis), 99 Z Za-[…] (Acropole), 65 Zanini, 70 Zari, 10, 68, 102 Zazaz, 46 Zedekiah, 124 Zineni (Assyrian general), 22, 43, 113 Zineni (Elamite envoy), 40, 43, 181-182 Zineni (palace supervisor), 43, 181 Zinzakriš, 90 Ziut-šakira, 69 […] […]-untaš (Samati), 104 […]-šuma-iddin, 101

ETHNONYMS Anšanites, 165-166, 168-169, 178, 201 Appalyaeans, 70, 73, 100-101 Arameans, 22, 58, 101, 113, 166 Ayanekeans, 182 Bakurri, 70 Balahute, 87, 88, 89, 129, 199 Bananeans, 120 Chaldeans, 22, 117 Bit-Amukani, 117-118 Bit-Ašillani (Bit-šillani), 117 Bit-Yakin, 25, 36, 102, 117-220, 176

Bit-Sa’alli, 112, 117 Dulleans, 126 Duteans, 120 Ellipians, 116, 118, 166, 178 Gambuleans, 112, 121 Gurašimmu, 123 Gutians, 121 Hindaru, 112, 114, 117-118 Lallari, 87-89, 129, 199 Martenaeans, 59 Medes, 4, 6, 9, 45, 89, 113, 124, 139, 145, 175

GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES

Nahaleans, 120, 129 Nugu, 123 Nuguhu (Nugu), 123 Persians, 4, 10, 14, 84, 89-91, 95, 99-100, 102, 125, 132, 156, 159, 162, 166-169, 179, 199 Puqudu, 95, 112-114, 117-118 Ru’ua, 112 Samatians, 102-107, 128-129 Šiksian, 126

235

Tahhasaru, 146 Tankians, 126 Targibateans, 120 Unsakeans, 145 Urarteans, 175 Zampegirian, 159 Zari, 10, 13, 70, 91, 100-102, 107, 125, 127, 173-177, 179, 182, 184, 199

DIVINE NAMES

Adad, 20, 76 Assur, 20, 41, 46, 121-122

Marduk, 5, 41, 64, 125 Mašti, 186 MÙŠ.EREN, 28 MÙŠ.LAM, 28, 33-34, 71, 78-79, 80, 82, 85-88

B

N

Bel, 46, 119, 122 Beltu, 99

E

Nabu, 46, 64, 122 Nahhunte, 27, 30-31, 35 Nanna, 99 Napiriša, 23, 27, 34, 42, 79, 88, 134 Nappi, 67 Narsina, 71 Nergal, 46, 122 Nin, 76 Ninhursag, 134

Eanna, 76, 81

P

H

Parti, 71 Pinigir, 30, 31, 42

A

D DIL.BAT, 67, 71-73, 99, 103, 150, 191, 199 DINGIR.GAL, 27, 34, 78-79, 182,

Hu(m)ban, 14, 70, 90, 134, 186, 190 R I Ruhuratir, 160 Inšušinak, 23, 26-32, 34, 42, 70, 78-82, 85-88, 133-134, 190, 192 Išnikarab, 28, 72 Ištar, 20, 40-41, 46, 71, 76, 121-122 L Lady of Arbela, 46, 59, 122 Laliya, 67, 99

Š Šamaš, 76, 119 Šašum, 99 Šimut, 67 Šati, 67, 99, 103 U

M MAN,

61-62, 67

Umu, 134 Uršu, 63

GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES Toponyms A Aboo Amoud Nejat, 137 Ahwaz, 138, 146 Ak(ka)barina, 118, 124 Akkad, 4, 36, 40, 121, 124 ‘Ale, 123 Algariga, 96, 123

Alvand, 111 Alum-ša-Belet-biti, 118 Amedi, 95 Andada, 66 Andimešk, 118 Anšan, 4-5, 8-9, 11, 24, 25, 30, 32, 35, 63, 68, 71, 78-81, 84-85, 89, 102-103, 111, 133, 139, 141, 151-152, 155, 160-169, 174, 176-180, 201

236

INDEX

Anzari, 68, 70 Aqbanu, 123 Arabziaše, 124 Araše, 59 Ardakan, 146 Arjan, 4, 7, 9, 63-64, 92, 107, 120, 125, 141-146, 150, 173, 184, 200 Arrapha, 22, 113 Assyria, 12, 14, 20, 36, 40-41, 43, 47-48, 50-51, 54-56, 58-59, 74, 81, 92, 94, 96-97, 101, 111-113, 116-123, 125-128, 142, 175, 177, 179-180, 187-188, 199 Ayapir, 44, 61, 63, 84, 94-95, 125-126, 145, 147, 150-151, 173, 177-179, 181, 183-184, 186, 198, 200

Bupilu/a (Pupilu), 57, 66, 68-69, 74, 77, 95-96, 116, 123-124, 128, 140-141, 179-185 Burati, 116 Burutu, 118 Bushehr, 118, 120, 141, 152, 159

B

D

Bab-duri, 96, 114, 127 Bab-marrati, 123 Bab-Nar-Kabari, 120 Babylon, 5-6, 9, 19, 21, 36, 43, 46, 52, 55, 65-67, 76-77, 90, 93, 118-121, 124, 177 Babylonia, 12, 14, 20-21, 26, 28, 40, 54, 68, 74-75, 89, 97, 101, 111-115, 117, 123, 125, 130, 142, 177 Bactria, 5-6 Badra, 112 Bahar, 99 Baharakširi, 66, 69 Bakapir, 68, 70 Bakhtiari, 111, 138, 147, 150, 200 Balti-lišir, 118 Band-i Qir, 137 Bananu, 118, 146 Bard-e Karegar, 137 Bašt, 146, 161 Behbahan, 8, 12, 92, 94-95, 111, 125, 141, 143, 145-146, 152, 154, 159-161, 165, 179, 200 Bisetin, 161 Bisitun, 3, 7, 24, 67, 83, 89-91, 111, 167, 199 Bit-Adini, 118 Bit-Ahhe-iddina, 118 Bit-Ahlamê, 112, 118 Bit-Amukani, 117-118 Bit-Arrabi, 96, 118, 123-124 Bit-Aṣusi, 118 Bit-Bunakku, 20, 77, 95-96, 112, 116, 118, 123-124, 128 Bit-Darruki, 102, 117, 120 Bit-Giṣṣa, 118 Bit-Ha’ir(i), 114, 118 Bit-Hamban, 113 Bit-Yakin, 36, 102, 112, 117, 119-120, 176 Bit-Imbi, 42-43, 51-52, 56-58, 95-96, 112, 114-116, 118, 121, 123-124, 150, 174, 188 Bit-Katpalani, 118 Bit-Kunukki-bissu, 96, 123 Bit-Qatatti, 124 Bit-Risiya, 118 Bit-Singibuti, 113 Bit-Sin-ibni, 114 Bit-Ša’alli (Bit-Sala), 112, 117-118 Bit-Šalani (Bit-Ašillani), 112, 117-118 Bit-Šulâ, 119 Bit-Ubiya, 118 Bit-Unzaya, 124 Bit-Zamani, 95 Borsippa, 125 Bube, 96, 118, 123-124, 127

Daeba, 96, 123 Damunu, 114, 117-118 Dannat-Sulaya, 118 Darab, 12, 147, 162-163, 201 Dašer, 146 Dašt-e Rostam-e Do, 146, 151, 154-158 Dašt-e Rostam-e Yek, 151, 154-155, 157-158 Dau-o Dokhtar, 152, 154 Deh-i Now, 27, 29-30 Deh Luran, 12, 118, 129-130, 154, 200 Der, 6, 12, 20, 22, 26, 36, 40, 59, 94, 96, 111-123, 127-128, 182, 197, 199 Derr-i Shahr, 118 Dibirina, 96, 123 Dilmun, 5, 120, 141, 143 Dimtu-ša-biti-eṭir, 118 Dimtu-ša-dume-ili, 118 Dimtu-ša-Simame, 118, 124 Dimtu-ša-Sulaya, 118 Dimtu-ša-Tapapa, 124 Diyala, 26, 111, 122 Diyarbakir, 95 Dizful, 84, 130-132, 161, 200 Do Gonbadan, 146, 152 Dum-e Mil, 152 Dummuqu, 96, 118-119, 123 Dun-sunki (Dur/Din-šarri), 12, 74, 77, 96, 112, 123-124, 128 Dunnu-Šamaš, 118, 120-121, 124 Durapuhši (Dur-abi-?), 95 Dur-Abi-Hara (Harâ, Hara’), 12, 94, 96, 114, 123, 127-128 Dur-Amnani, 96, 123 Dur-Athara, 12, 114 Dur-Yakin, 118 Dur-Nabu, 12, 114, 127 Dur-Papsukkal, 20-21, 112, 197 Dur-Teliti, 112, 127 Duru, 118 Dur-Untaš-(Napiriša), 58, 95-96, 123-124, 128

C Chaldea, 20, 40, 113, 117, 119-120, 166 Chigha Sabz, 95, 107, 128-129 Chogha Bonut, 139 Chogha Zanbil, 5, 28-29, 30, 80, 124, 153-154, 200

E Ecbatana, 89, 111 Elam, 3-6, 8-9, 11-15, 19-26, 31-33, 35-60, 63-64, 69-75, 80-83, 85-86, 89-98, 100-101, 103, 111-113, 115-117, 119-127, 129, 142, 149, 151, 158-159, 162-163, 166, 169, 173-182, 187, 198, 199, 201 Ellipi, 26, 113, 116, 118, 120, 166, 169, 199 Enlil-iqiša (Samunu), 12, 96, 114 Epadu, 119 Eridu, 125

GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES

F

Huradu, 20

Fahliyan, 63, 90, 99-100, 127, 146, 151, 157, 159-162, 177 Fars, 8-9, 11, 19, 68, 84, 90, 102, 111, 129, 133, 138-139, 141, 147, 151-152, 154, 158, 162-164, 167, 175, 177 Fasa, 12, 147, 162-163, 201

I/J/Y

G Gachsaran, 146 Gambulu, 42, 112, 114, 117-118, 120, 122, 127-128, 188 Gan-e Šin, 146 Gatudu, 96 Gaudu, 123 Gibrê, 117 Giyan Tepe, 127, 175 Gisat (Kesat), 10, 71, 73, 81-82, 84, 91, 99-100, 158, 160-162, 178, 185, 199, 201 Godin Tepe, 175 Gurukirra, 124 Gurumu, 117

237

Yadaqqu, 117 Yadburu, 74, 77, 94, 96, 112, 114, 116, 119, 126-128 Yagheh Sangar, 157 Iahdik, 167 Jambolava, 137 Janjan, 154 Yasil, 118 Idibirina, 113 Jebel Hamrin, 128 Ikila, 66 Ilam, 59 Ilteuba, 118 Joobji, 63, 140 Ipat, 124 Irgudu, 123 Išan al Dovveh, 137 Izeh, 8, 12, 19, 30, 44, 60-63, 67-68, 72, 95, 111, 126, 138, 147151, 178, 181, 183, 198-200

H K Haft Tepe, 5, 124, 132, 160 Hadanu, 69 Hagaranu, 117 Hagiabad, 166 Haidanu, 59 Haj Monem, 137 Hayusi, 96, 123 Halatu, 118 Haltemaš, 77, 124, 128 Halule, 6, 36-37, 118-120, 166, 169, 176, 178 Hamadan, 111, 127 Hamanu, 96, 118, 123-124, 128 Hamranu, 117-118 HAR, 25, 114, 127 Hara(n), 12-13, 94, 96, 114, 125-128, 176, 182, 199 Harama, 127 Harmašu, 120 Harran, 126-127 Harrania, 127 Harri-Ašlake, 118 Hartappanu, 77, 124 Harzunu, 118 Hašar, 66 Hatamti, 25, 32, 83, 127 Hatti, 22 Hidalu (Haijadalu), 11, 13, 36, 38, 40-50, 52-53, 55, 58, 66-67, 82, 84, 99, 116, 118, 122, 146, 150, 158-160, 162, 168-169, 173-174, 176-178, 182, 198, 201 Hillah, 125 Hilmu (Hilimmu, Bit-hulummu, Pidilma), 46, 74, 76-77, 117, 112114, 122-124, 128, 141 Hindaru, 112, 114, 117-118 Hiritu, 112 Hu’a, 96 Huhnur (Hunnu/a/ir, Huhan), 45, 66, 81, 116, 140, 146, 158, 160162, 177, 179, 185, 188, 201 Hulululi, 66 Humun (Hamun), 99-100 Hung-i Nauruzi, 148 Hupšan, 180, 190 Hupupanu, 112, 116

Kabinak, 77, 124, 128, 132, 141 Kalmakarra, 7, 9-10, 67, 71, 73, 79, 95, 100, 102-107, 122, 128, 146, 191, 199 Kamfiruz, 162-163 Kammuzziraka, 66, 82 Kangavar, 111 Kaniṣu, 124 Kapar-Marduk-šarrani, 96, 123 Karintaš, 82, 85, 179 Kar-Šarrukin, 26 Kār-zēra-iqīša, 118 Kašan, 82 Katmurti, 82, 94-95, 125, 145, 151, 173, 179 Kermanshah, 111 Khorasan, 111-112, 127, 175 Khorramabad, 106, 142 Khuzestan, 8, 11, 19, 90, 100-101, 111, 127, 129, 131, 133, 137, 141, 146, 154, 156, 162, 174, 175, 200 Kipû, 28, 72 Kiš, 4, 117, 125 Kišessim, 175 Kotal-i Sangar, 161 Kubarana (Qabrina), 95-96, 123 Kuhdašt, 128-129 Kukumašti, 66 Kul-e Farah, 7-8, 19, 30, 61-64, 143, 148-151, 178, 181-184, 192, 200 Kummama, 99 Kurangun, 9, 19, 151-152, 154-158 Kurpun, 161 Kurputtu, 87 Kur River Basin, 4, 8, 12, 63, 68, 81, 84, 111, 126-127, 141, 147, 151-154, 156-157, 162-169, 201 Kuzurtein, 124 L Lahiru, 96, 113, 118, 120, 123 Lahtie, 87 Larak, 118

238

INDEX

Liyan, 141, 143 Li’ta’u, 117 Lurestan, 8-9, 11, 19, 151-152, 154-158

Pillatu, 46, 112-114, 116-117, 122-123 Pol-e Dokhtar, 128 Pol-e Pirim, 156, 161 Pušt-e Kuh, 12, 107, 141

M Q Madaktu, 9, 20, 36, 40, 44-46, 55, 57-59, 64, 77, 95-96, 116, 118, 122-124, 128, 131, 159, 173, 177, 179 Magan, 5 Mahmitu, 123 Mainab, 8, 130, 136-138, 200 Malak(ku), 116, 121 Malamir, 10, 19, 30, 44, 61-63, 67, 69, 73, 93, 98, 138, 147, 160, 186 Ma’leh, 102, 128 Malihu, 117-118 Mamanuwiš, 99 Mamasani, 4, 8, 12, 30, 111, 141, 146-147, 151-152, 154-162, 165, 169, 176, 178, 199-201 Mangisu, 42, 46, 47, 52-53, 56, 81, 122, 188 Marašda, 127 Marvdašt, 141, 162-163, 166 Masuti(-šapliti), 118, 124 Mašhalu, 66 Media, 89, 113, 121, 127 Mehran, 128 Mesopotamia, 3-5, 8, 11, 22, 36-37, 46, 74-75, 77, 111, 114, 119120, 124, 128, 138, 141-142, 186, 190, 200 Misri-[…], 68 Murubisi (Murubištu), 59 N Nabatu, 117 Nadi’, 96, 123 Naditu, 77, 112, 114, 118, 128 Nagitu, 112, 117 Nagitu-di’bina, 117 Nahšimarti, 122 Namri, 113 Naqidate, 118, 124 Naqš-e Rostam, 9, 19, 162, 166-168 Nehavand, 127 Nimrud, 20, 22, 113, 142, 182 Nineveh, 7, 9, 36, 40-42, 45-46, 59, 93, 96-97, 121-122, 125126, 145, 182, 190 Nippur, 35, 48, 73-76, 117, 120-122, 128, 198 Nugu’, 96, 123 O Opis, 89 P Parsua, 113 Parsuaš, 118, 166 Parsumaš, 20, 112, 116, 168, 182 Pasargadae (Tall-e Takht), 89, 98, 141, 162-164, 167 Pašeru, 118, 166 Persepolis (Takht-e Jamshid), 7, 9, 84, 98-100, 125-126, 143, 145146, 152, 159-165, 167-168, 187 Persis, 100 Pesi, 150, 161 Pessitme (Bašimu), 84, 146, 158, 160-162, 199 Pezatamme, 84, 161

Qal’at-i Raza, 118 Qal’eh-ye Tol, 150 Qaleh Sepid, 159 Qal’eh Tal-e Kabud, 163 R Rabakka, 126 Rabbaya, 118 Rakka(n), 126 Ram Hormuz, 7-9, 12, 60, 62-64, 84, 95, 111, 137-141, 143, 146, 148, 152, 154-155, 161, 179, 191, 199-200 Raniya, 127 Rapiqu, 118 Rasu, 118 Raši (Araši), 112, 114-116, 118, 121, 123-124, 128, 186, 199 Rihihu, 117 Rumišgan, 95, 102, 127 Ru’u’a, 117-118 S Saladri, 124 Samati, 10, 13, 82, 89, 92, 100, 102-104, 106-107, 129, 173-177, 179, 182, 191, 199 Samunu (Zamin), 12, 95-96, 114, 118, 123, 126-128, 176 Sarab-e Bahram, 152 Sarhuderi, 118 Sealand, 6, 22, 26, 40, 43, 46, 54-55, 102, 113-114, 119-120, 122-123, 176-177, 180-182 Seleuka-on-the-Hedyphon, 146 Se Tolun, 155, 157 Shah Savar, 148 Shiraz, 141, 162-163 Shush, 132, 161 Shushtar, 136-138, 141, 159 Sippar, 39-40, 120-121, 125, 167-168 Solak, 146 Subahe, 124 Sullagi (Šullakke), 146 Sumandir (Suma/undar), 122 Sumunta/unaš, 74, 76-77, 124, 128 Sumurtan-duri, 99 Surkh Dum, 117, 129 Susa, 3-11, 13-14, 19-21, 23-27, 29-33, 34-40, 42-45, 48, 55, 57-66, 68-73, 77-97, 99-103, 114, 118, 119-125, 128-136, 139-141, 144-148, 151-155, 159-162, 166-168, 173-180, 183, 185-191, 197-201 Acropole, 4, 26-30, 34, 48, 70-71, 78, 80-81, 86-88, 97, 132136, 176, 190, 200 Apadana, 30, 60, 70, 132-134, 136, 139, 144, 190, 200 Village perse-achéménide, 64, 132, 200 Ville des artisans, 97, 136, 200 Ville Royale II, 8, 19, 22, 25, 60, 131-136, 139-141, 200 Susiana, 3, 5, 8, 11-12, 27, 29, 32, 57-58, 66, 68, 77, 83, 90-91, 95-96, 100, 111-112, 117, 122-123, 128, 130-132, 136, 138-141, 152, 155-156, 159, 165, 167, 173-174, 176, 199-200 Syria, 5

GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES

Š Šaih Ya’buq al-Yusuf, 127 Ša-Kisaya, 124 Šamaršušu, 84, 160, 162 Šapibel, 120, 122, 188 Šassu-[…]-un, 69 Šekaft-e Salman, 7, 19, 61-62, 83, 94-95, 148-151, 191, 200 Šepšilak, 84, 160-162 Šilhite, 61-63, 150-151, 181 Šilibtu, 118 Šuharisungur (Šursunkiri), 146 Šulaya, 96, 118, 123 Šulistan, 146 T Tall-i Ghazir, 63, 139-140, 141, 200 Tall-i Malyan, 19, 24-25, 28, 82, 85, 153-155, 163-165, 167-168 Tall-e Hosniyeh, 138 Tall-e Qabaz, 137 Tall-e Teimuran, 164 Tall-e Zahar, 164 Tang-i Khas, 161 Tappeh Dehnau Sadat, 155-156, 160 Tappeh Dozak, 155-156 Tappeh Emamzadeh, 137 Tappeh Gelšouneh, 137 Tappeh Khajeh Mohammadi, 155-156 Tappeh Pahnu, 155-156 Tappeh Pashedan, 155-156 Tappeh Sorna, 152, 154-156, 161 Taqab-lišir, 118 Taraqu, 96, 123 Targibatu, 119 Tarriša, 61, 63, 150 Tartin, 99 Tasarra, 146 Tašan, 146 Taurus, 142 Tehran, 126, 141 Tell Aqar, 112 Tell Nasrat Pasha, 125 Tepe Aïn Khosh, 130-131, 200 Tepe Biropijah, 131, 200 Tepe Bormi, 63, 139-141, 161, 200 Tepe Chogha Pahn, 128, 131-132 Tepe Darvazeh, 162-163, 165

239

Tepe Gughan, 128 Tepe Imamzadeh Abbas, 130-131 Tepe Nush-i Jan, 143, 175 Tepe Patak, 118, 130-132, 200 Tepe Senjar, 131-132 Tepe Shaur, 132 Tepe Survan, 154 Tigime, 66, 69 Til-Humba, 118, 124, 127 Til-Tuba, 9, 13, 14, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 52, 53, 85, 95-96, 121124, 173-178, 182, 188, 198 Til-Uhuri, 118 Tin-[…], 66 Trans-Tigridian corridor, 12, 112-113, 115, 117, 119, 124-125, 127-128, 176, 199 Tol-e Band Barik, 155, 157, 160 Tol-e Bondu, 155-156 Tol-e Borj, 155-156 Tol-e Khasm, 155-156 Tol-e Mirza Mohammadi, 155, 157 Tol-e Nurabad, 146, 152-154, 155-157, 160, 200 Tol-e Spid, 151-152, 154-155, 157 Tubu, 77, 96-97, 123-124, 128 Turkey, 95 Tu’umuna (Tûmuna), 117 U Ubulu, 117-118 Udazammin, 99 Udman, 99 Unari, 161 Ur, 141-142, 168, 191 Urdalika, 96, 123 Uruk, 4, 37, 40, 64, 81, 122 Urammu, 116 Z Zabdanu, 123 Zagros, 5, 12, 20, 40, 45, 87, 89, 96, 111, 113-114, 117, 122, 129, 141-142, 147, 149-152, 162, 175, 177 Zamê, 95 Zamin (Samunu), 10, 12, 13, 92-96, 114, 125-128, 145, 151, 173174, 176, 182, 190, 199 Zamua, 87, 101, 129 Zinjirli, 142 Zohreh, 8, 141, 152

Hydronyms A

I/J/Y

Abani, 115 Ab-e Diz, 118, 130, 132 Ab-i Gargar, 136-137 Ala, 139

Jarrahi, 63 Idide, 124, 128

D Duwairij, 118, 130

Karkheh, 95, 118, 130, 132 Karun, 95, 113, 118, 130, 136-137 Korr-e Sangan, 152

H

L

Hudhud, 59

Lallar, 87, 89, 129

K

240

INDEX

Little Zab, 87, 129

S

M

Shaur, 130, 132, 134 Surappu, 112, 114, 117, 127

Marun, 141, 200 T N Naditu, 114, 124 Nar-Kabari, 120

Tigris, 12, 19, 95, 112, 117-118, 120, 122, 124 Tupliaš, 112, 114 U

P Persian Gulf, 12, 54, 57, 112-115, 117, 120, 123, 132, 138, 141, 151, 199-200

Uknu, 111-114 Ulai, 19, 112, 121-122

ak (97)

ab/p (128)

(398)

ah/uh/ih

a (579)

Signs

Kings

Nahhunte I

Šutruk-

(dagger)

+ MS 4555

54/55/56

IRS

Nahhunte II

Šutruk-

EKI 73

(= IRS 57) /

EKI 72 MS 2879 bead

EKI 71 horns

Šutruru

EKI 74

AND

Hanne

EKI 76

ANNEX 1: MIDDLE

Inšušinak II

Hallutuš-

(= IRS 58)

EKI 77

Inšušinak II

Šilhak-

EKI 78 MDP 11, 301-307

AttahamitiInšušinak I

IRS 61/62 Tepti-HubanInšušinak II

EKI 86-89

EKI 79-85

NEO-ELAMITE PALAEOGRAPHY

Kalmakarra

letters

Nineveh

ANNEX I: MIDDLE AND NEO-ELAMITE PALAEOGRAPHY

241

bar/pár (74)

ban (439)

ba/pá (5)

at (145)

áš (339)

aš/DIL (1)

as/z (131)

ar (451)

APIN (56)

am (170)

al (298) (88)

(87)

242 ANNEXES

du (206)

diš (480)

(13)

dingir/an

da (335)

b/pu (371)

(214)

bi/gaš/BAD

be/pè (69)

ANNEX I: MIDDLE AND NEO-ELAMITE PALAEOGRAPHY

243

(297)

GUD

ha (589)

(548)

GIBÌL

gìr (444)

gi/kí (85)

gal (343)

en (99)

el (564)

e (308)

244 ANNEXES

im (399)

il (205)

ik/g (80)

ia (142a)

i (142)

hu (78)

hi (396)

(401)

har/mur

hal (2)

ANNEX I: MIDDLE AND NEO-ELAMITE PALAEOGRAPHY

245

kam (406)

ka4 (62)

iz/s/giš (296)

ITU (52)

it/d (334)

iš (212)

ip (535)

ir/tik (232)

in (148)

/ (89)

246 ANNEXES

(366)

LAM

(435)

lak (314)

la (55)

KUR

ku (536)

KIMIN (464)

ki (461)

kán (105)

ANNEX I: MIDDLE AND NEO-ELAMITE PALAEOGRAPHY

247

MÀŠ

(76)

mar (307)

man (471)

mal (233)

ma (342)

SUNKI (593)

LUGÀL/

EŠŠANA/

lu/UDU (537)

li (59)

maz

248 ANNEXES

(533)

(103)

na (70)

mut (81)

MÙŠ

mu (61)

mi (427)

MEŠ

me (532)

(86)

(89)

ANNEX I: MIDDLE AND NEO-ELAMITE PALAEOGRAPHY

249

(72)

PAD (469)

pa (295)

NUMUN

nu (75)

NÌTA (50)

NIM (433)

ni (231)

nah (321)

250 ANNEXES

sag (115)

sa (104)

ru (68)

ri (86)

ra (328)

(393)

PÍR/tàm

pi (393)

pal (9)

ANNEX I: MIDDLE AND NEO-ELAMITE PALAEOGRAPHY

251

(12)

šil/tar/kut

ši/lì (449)

še (367)

sal (554)

šá (597)

ša (353)

su (7)

ir (373)

i/zí (147)

si (112)

252 ANNEXES

tin (465)

ti (73)

te (376)

tan (322)

tak/ráš (126)

tah (169)

tá (335)

šu (354)

?

ANNEX I: MIDDLE AND NEO-ELAMITE PALAEOGRAPHY

253

un (312)

um (134)

ul (441)

uk (130)

ú (318)

DUMU (144)

tur/tire/

tum8

tuk (574)

tu4 (207)

tu (58)

tir (375)

254 ANNEXES

zí (147)

za (586)

(381)

ut/tú

uš (211)

u /s/z (372)

URU (38)

(575)

ur/taš

up (306)

ANNEX I: MIDDLE AND NEO-ELAMITE PALAEOGRAPHY

255

256

ANNEXES

ANNEX 2: RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEO-ELAMITE INSCRIPTIONS LINGUISTIC AND PALAEOGRAPHICAL FEATURES

BASED ON

ROYAL INSCRIPTIONS Šutruk-Nahhunte II (EKI 72)

Šutruk-Nahhunte II (EKI 71, 73)

ŠilhakInšušinak (EKI 78)

vs. su-un-ki

su-un-kip su-gìr205

su-un-ki

LUGÀL

DUMU vs. ša-ak, šá-ak

ša-ak

šá-ak

šá-ak

šá-ak

šá-ak

-k vs. -h

ik-ki/ ak-ka4 /gi-ik

ik-ki/ ka4 /ak-ka4

-ra (delocutive)

ah-ha / -ah

ik-ka4 -ha (caption)

ik-ka4

-ra vs. -na

-ra

-ra

-ra

-an / -na

-ra (caption)

-na

tah-ha-am-pá vs. tah-ha-an-pá, hu-uh-da-am-pá vs. hu-uh-da-an-pá (EKI 86)

tah-ha-am-pá vs. tah-ha-an-pá

Royal Inscriptions LUGÀL

Hallutuš-Inšušinak II (EKI 77)

diš

diš

broken spelling

diš

be

uš du-nu-iš-da

uš ku-tu-iš ti-um-i-ir

PÍR

logo DN vs. spelled

PÍR

d

DINGIR.GAL in-šu-uš-na-ak

šá-ak (titulary) DUMU

uš in-su-iš-na-ak

uš in-su-iš-na-ak

d

d

MÙŠ.LAM

d d

Tepti-Huban-Inšušinak II (EKI 79-85)

su-un-ki-ik su-gìr (caption)

n vs. m

diš vs. be

Atta-hamiti-Inšušinak I (EKI 86-89)

d

in-šu-ši-na-ak/ MÙŠ.LAM206 DINGIR.GAL d pi-ni-gìr

MÙŠ.LAM DIL.BAT

MÙŠ.LAM

DINGIR.GAL

MÙŠ.LAM

DINGIR.GAL

d

Ki-ri-ri-šá ru-hu-ra-tir d te-ip-ti d in-su-iš-na-ak (87) d

d

DINGIR.GAL

in-su-iš-na-ak (81) d pi-ni-gìr

AŠ

An-za-an Šu-šu-un-ka4 Gi-sa-ti-ip-pe hal Ha-tàm-ti AŠ Pe-is-si-it-me AŠ Še-ip-ši-lak AŠ Šá-mar-šu-šu

ha-alMEŠ balahuti-ippe lallari-ippe

–

–

AŠ

GN-ippe

h- omitting

AŠ

–

AŠ

AŠ

Karintaš

Šu-šu-un-ra

–

–

An-za-an Šu-šu-un

AŠ

–

205 The orthography refers to the late Middle Elamite tradition, comparable to the Tall-i Malyan tablets. Šutruk-Nahhunte emphasizes his distant relatives. 206 In EKI 73, both the syllabic din-šu-iš-na-ak as the late Elamite logogram MÙŠ.LAM (MÙŠ.EREN) occur.

257

ANNEX II: RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEO-ELAMTE INSCRIPTIONS

OFFICIAL AND DOCUMENTARY INSCRIPTIONS Šutruru stele (EKI 74) LUGÀL

vs. su-un-ki

Šutur-Nahhunte (EKI 75-6)

Ummanunu Acropole

su-un-ki-ri

su-un-ki-ri

LUGÀL

LUGÀL

su-gìr

DUMU vs. ša-ak, šá-ak

Ururu LUGÀL

šá-ak (for king) ka4 /ak-ka4

-ik/-ah

-ra vs. -na

-ra/-na

-ra/-na (as G)

broken spelling

(texts are not written in locative)

hu-ma-am-pá vs. hu-man-pá (EKI 76)

S. 150 te-em-pi for te-in-pi S. 307 tah-ha-ma-am-ri for tah-ha-ma-an-ri

du-ma-am-pá vs. du-man-pá

diš

diš be (EKI 76)

be

be

be

a-pi-e? ma-as-si-en

AR, IL, IM, UŠ ši-ul-hi-te ši-ul-ha-ma-ak te-um-pe-ik-ra li-ul-ma-ma-na ši-ul-ha-h-ba ri-šá-ir šà-ra-ir-ra a-a-in-ú-me-na si-ul-hi-te-ik-ra ku-el su-ul-ra-ir-ra-na e-sa-el si-mi-ni-en ṣa-al-mi-ú-mi-ni-ú du-iš-ni ta-iš-ni ru-el ku-iš

transition competed

ID/T IM UB UŠ

ID/T IM IL US UŠ

n vs. m

diš vs. be

LUGÀL

dumu

DUMU

-ak vs. -ah

(seal)

Nineveh letters

d Ti-ru-tur te-ip-ti ki-te-en

d

d

logo DN vs. spelled

d

DINGIR.GAL

in-šu-ši-na-ak d La-ka4-mar d pi-ni-gìr d Nah-hu-un-te

MAN

d

PÍR

d

d

Na-ir-si-na DIL.BAT d Maš-ti207 d Na-pír DINGIR.GAL d Ki-ri-ri-ša

Maš-ti

DIL.BAT

AŠ

GN-ippe

ha-alMEŠ Kurput ha-alMEŠLahtie AŠ Din-LUGÀL AŠ Ku-ba-ra-na AŠ Du-ra-pu-h-ši AŠ Ra-tu-ma-an-na AŠ Ku-ni-ni AŠ Za-man

A-a-pír Šil-hi-te AŠ Li-pi-in AŠ A.MEŠ AŠ Pe-ṣi-ia-ma AŠ Za-mi-ip (EKI 76) AŠ Tar-ri-šá-ra/ikkiha AŠ KUR Pe-e-si-ikkiha za-am-mi-ip da-li-ip-pe

h- omitting

–

–

AŠ

Um-man

–

iše vs. hiše

DIL.BAT is first attested in the Neo-Elamite period (EKI 75:22, EKI 78; Ururu; Samati cf. Lambert 1995). The lady of Susa is identified with dMaš-ti (Grillot 1971, 232; Vallat 1983), a more recent orthography for the name Parti (Vallat 2002, 535). 207

Babylon, Mesopotamia? ? Susiana?

Bahar

Baharakširi

Izeh, Malamir

Ayapir

Babilu

possibly Susiana

Ayanakka

?

?

Ayana

Ayazappi

possibly Elamite-Babylonian border region

Ayahari

Izeh

Fahliyan district, Fars

Atuk

Mesopotamia

Assyria

Ašura

Persepolis or Kamfiruz district, Fars

Anzan

possibly Susiana

?

Ante-maš/bar/me

Anzar

possibly Susiana

Andaba

Tall-i Malyan

?

Amperi

Kur River Basin, Fars

location

Susiana, Khuzestan

Darvazeh tepe

modern name

Ahšeka-x

?

ancient city name

S. 24; S. 207

Ururu 6, 48

S. 51; S. 62; S. 151; S. 171; S. 207; S. 256; Ururu 29?

S. 108

EKI 75; EKI 76 A, C, F; EKI 86; Nin 5:4; S. 4; S. 29; S. 47; S. 66; S. 95; S. 101; S. 119; S. 120; S. 147; S. 169; S. 172; S. 173

S. 93:10; S. 179:8; S. 80:10; S. 100:9-10; S. 133:8; S. 151:7

S. 133

Nin 1:15

PFT

Nin 3:3; Nin 13:4; Nin 15:16; S. 44; S. 112; S. 113; S. 131; S. 137; S. 140; S. 145; S. 174; S. 231; S. 257; RA 14:30 1

S. 78:5; S. 107:6; S. 167:15; S. 233:6

TTM 11-13; 22; 24; 39; 44; 66; 75; 85-87; 103; EKI 71:2; EKI 73:6; EKI 77:1; EKI 85:11; EKI 86:1; S. 117:6; S. 281:10?; PFS 93

S. 233

S. 36:14; S. 103:7; S. 107:8; S. 160:12; 169:3?

S. 138:6

S. 31:4

source

ANNEX 3: NEO-ELAMITE TOPONYMS

ElW 120; Vallat 1993, 31

Waters 2000, 88; ElW 31

Vallat 1993, 28-29

Vallat 1993, 27; ElW 17

Vallat 1993, 26-27

Vallat 1993, 26; ElW 14

Vallat 1993, 26; ElW 14

Vallat 1993, 26; ElW 13

Henkelman 2008, 44

Vallat 1993, 22

ElW 64, 67-68; Vallat 1993, 16

Henkelman 2008, 44; Vallat 1993, 14-15

Vallat 1993, 12

Vallat 1993, 10, ElW 57

Vallat 1993, 9; ElW 50

Vallat 1993, 6; ElW 35

Henkelman 2008, 45; Jacobs 1994

publication

discussion: toponym or anthroponym because of det. be

Elamite toponym

non-Iranian toponym

discussion: toponym or anthroponym because of det. be

remarks

258 ANNEXES

Yadburu region

Fahliyan district, Fars?

Hamun

Hara(n)

in Media?

Haharkunash

Fahliyan district, Fars?

?

Hadanu

Hamun

Fahliyan district, Fars

Gisat

?

Persepolis or Kamfiruz district, Fars

Elbatte

Hamantallika

?

Enra

?

Persepolis or Kamfiruz district, Fars

Dutaš

Halumiraši

?

Dulli

?

?

Dattiyana

?

Fahliyan district, Fars

Dašer

Halik

Lurestan?

Burati

Susiana, Khuzestan

Fahliyan district, Fars?

Bessitme

Kabnak?

along Persian Gulf shore?

Baza/u

Bupila

?

Bataš-x

?

Southern Khuzistan along the Persian Gulf?

Bashime

Bin

Southern Luristan?

Balahute

Bašt?

Fars?

Bakurri

location ?

modern name

Bakapir

ancient city name

Nin 13:3-4; S. 117; S. 147

Ururu 9, 20-21, 33

S. 85

S. 19; S. 174

S. 12

Ururu 8’, 17’, 31-32’

S. 64

S. 10; S. 152; S. 281

EKI 86; Ururu 43, 67

PFT

S. 149

PFT

S. 117

S. 51; S. 187; S. 272; S. 281

PFT

SAA 15, 113, 114, 129

S. 12; S. 34; S. 38; S. 40; S. 100; S. 112; S. 130; S. 138; S. 152; S. 184; S. 220; S. 211

S. 108

EKI 86

Assyrian sources: Sargon, Esarhaddon, ABL 839

S. 107

Assyrian sources

EKI 79:6; EKI 80

S. 167

S. 158

source

Akk. Tasharra

El. Fortress in the mountains north of Susa

Elamite toponym, also PFT

Also ME toponym, together with Lallari

same as PF 1857 Bakurran?

remarks

Vallat 1993, 80; Gorris 2018

Vallat 1993, 76-77

Vallat 1993, 76; ElW 612

ElW 611; Vallat 1993, 75

ElW 598; Vallat 1993, 74

Waters 2000, 88

ElW 589; Vallat 1993, 72

Vallat 1993, 71; ElW 585

Henkelman 2008, 44; Waters 2000, 88

Henkelman 2008, 44

ElW 398; Vallat 1993, 65

Henkelman 2008, 44

Sargon Ann. 69?

also PFT

non-Iranian toponym

non-Iranian toponym

Vallat 1993, 58; ElW 356, 382 ElW: perhaps profession?, also PFT

Vallat 1993, 55; ElW 257-258

Henkelman 2008, 44

SAA 15, 113, 114, 129

SAA 15, 111, 112

Vallat 1993, 42

Henkelman 2008, 44

Vallat 1993, 40

Vallat 1993, 37; ElW 165

Vallat 1993, 36

Vallat 1993, 33

Vallat 1993, 33; ElW 129

Vallat 1993, 32

publication

ANNEX III: NEO-ELAMITE TOPONYMS

259

? possibly Elamite-Babylonian border region Fahliyan district, Fars? ? near Kermanshah?

Kerend?

Kašein?

Ikila

Ilihir

Irkume

Kamuzziraka

Karindaš

Kašan

Fars

Fahliyan district, Fars

Susiana, Khuzestan

Hupšan

Hutpirri

?

Huprarra

?

along Persian Gulf shore

Hupapanu

Huri

?

Huliš-x

Mesopotamia?

possibly Susiana

Hullil

Huratu

Fahliyan district, Fars

Huhnur

S.108; S. 247; S. 281

EKI 72:11

S. 25

Ururu 83

Nin 10:4

S. 120; S. 181

PFT

S. 49

S. 188

EKI 73:9

S. 149

SAA 15, 130

S. 272

S. 27; S. 74; S. 229; S. 285

EKI 88; S. 28; S. 42-43; S. 51; S. 63; S. 114-115; S. 128; S. 159; S. 180; S. 192; S. 237; S. 244; S. 291

PFT

PFT

PFT

Fahliyan district, Fars

Deh-i Now?

Vallat 1993, 93

Vallat 1993, 90-92

Vallat 1993, 89; ElW 641

Vallat 1993, 88

Vallat 1993, 85-86

Vallat 1993, 83; ElW 627

publication

Vallat 1993, 135; ElW 450

Vallat 1993, 131

Vallat 1993, 124; ElW 429

Vallat 1993, 114

Vallat 1993, 111

Vallat 1993, 111; ElW 747

Henkelman 2008, 44

Vallat 1993, 105

Vallat 1993, 105; ElW 701

Vallat 1993, 104

Vallat 1993, 104

SAA 15, 130

Vallat 1993, 103

Vallat 1993, 103; ElW 690, 715

Henkelman 2008, 44; SAA 15, 111

Henkelman 2008, 44

Vallat 1993, 100; ElW 674

Henkelman 2008, 44

Henkelman 2008, 44

S. 37; S. 65; S. 69; S. 238; S. 261; Vallat 1993, 96; Henkelman S. 268 2008, 44; SAA 15, 112

S. 94; S. 100; S. 111; S. 129

Nin 2; 5; 15; 24; S. 154; EKI 72; EKI 73; EKI 86; EKI 89

Hulipiš

Fahliyan district, Fars

Hišema

S. 183 S. 36

S. 103

Persepolis or Kamfiruz district, Fars

Hiran

S. 93

source

S. 12; S. 98; S. 139; S. 149; S. 154; S. 160; S. 248

Hitrapi-x

Fahliyan district, Fars

Hidalu

Elam (country name)

Hatamti

possibly Susiana

?

Hašar

Hati

Kur River Basin, Fars?

Harsana

Elam

? possibly Susiana

location

Harku

modern name

Hardama

ancient city name

also ME toponym

Elamite toponym

PFT: Hunar; Annals Ass.

Elamite toponym

non-Iranian toponym

or Hidali (PFT)

unlikely to be the land of Hatti (Syria)

Akk. KUR.NIM.MA.KI: Stolper 1986:236-7 (PFS 2713)

in PFT Harshana

remarks

260 ANNEXES

Persepolis or Kamfiruz district, Fars ? ? ?

Matannan

Mattašan

Mayakanaš

Mizri

harbor at Persian Gulf

Liyan

Fahliyan district, Fars

?

Littitak

Mašlapti

Fahliyan district, Fars

Liduma

?

Zagros foothills, Luristan

Lallari

Mankinatak

Persepolis or Kamfiruz district, Fars

Kutkuš

?

Persepolis or Kamfiruz district, Fars

Kušan

Manahšamana

Persia?

Kurtašan

Persepolis or Kamfiruz district, Fars

Persepolis or Kamfiruz district, Fars

Kurra

Malibban

Persepolis or Kamfiruz district, Fars

Kurpun

?

?

Kurkuruhhu

Madaktu

Fahliyan district, Fars

Kurdushum

?

Fahliyan district, Fars?

Kummama

Luna-x

?

Kukumašti

Bushehr

?

Katmurti

location ?

modern name

Kašbaranti

ancient city name

S. 158; S. 170

S. 160

S. 1

PFT

PFT

S. 141; S. 170

S. 6

PFT

SAA 15, 111

S. 28

S. 165

S. 161

PFT

EKI 79-80

PFT

PFT

S. 1

PFT

PFT

S. 257

S. 11

Ururu 44-45’

S. 31; S. 205

Nin 5:5

S. 67; 288

source

Vallat 1993, 190

Vallat 1993, 181

Vallat 1993, 180

Henkelman 2008, 44

Henkelman 2008, 44

Vallat 1993, 167

Vallat 1993, 166

Henkelman 2008, 44

ElW 858; Vallat 1993, 162

Vallat 1993, 158

Vallat 1993, 157

Vallat 1993, 157

Henkelman 2008, 44

Vallat 1993, 155

Henkelman 2008, 44

Henkelman 2008, 44

Vallat 1993, 151; ElW 534

Henkelman 2008, 44

Henkelman 2008, 44

Vallat 1993, 149

Vallat 1993, 148; Henkelman 2008, 44

Waters 2000, 88; Vallat 1993, 144

Vallat 1993, 143

Vallat 1993, 136

Vallat 1993, 135

publication

also PFT: Muzir; Mudariya

alternative reading: Kurtašan (ElW 901)

non-Iranian toponym

Elamite toponym

non-Iranian toponym

El. fortress in the mountains north of Susa

ElW 843: perhaps Lunaminka

important harbor in ME period

Elamite toponym

connected to Balahute

non-Iranian toponym

non-Iranian toponym

non-Iranian toponym

non-Iranian toponym

Elamite toponym, also PFT

ElW 545: meaning ‘throne’

remarks

ANNEX III: NEO-ELAMITE TOPONYMS

261

Fahliyan district, Fars ? along Persian Gulf shore ? Niniveh? Persia

Fars Bakhtiari mountains (= name of mountain range) Persepolis or Kamfiruz district, Fars along Persian Gulf shore ? ? ? Fahliyan district, Fars ? possibly Susiana ? ? Sogdiana? Samarkand? Lulu territory? ? ? Persepolis or Kamfiruz district, Fars ? ?

Mušlir

Naba

Nagiati

Nuhtar

Nunuhu

Parsi

Parsumaš

Pesi

Pidduman

Pillat

Pinakki

Pirišti

Puda-x

Pumu

Rahada

Raka(n)

Raše-x

Saelli

Sugda

Suni

ša bibila

Šagal

Šala

Šamaršušu

Šattu-(x)-um

location Persepolis or Kamfiruz district, Fars

modern name

Muran

ancient city name

Vallat 1993, 247

Vallat 1993, 246

Vallat 1993, 245

Vallat 1993, 236; ElW 1057

Vallat 1993, 231

Vallat 1993, 227

Vallat 1993, 227

Henkelman 2008, 44

Vallat 1993, 222

Vallat 1993, 218

Vallat 1993, 217

SAA 15, 33, 130

Henkelman 2008, 44

Vallat 1993, 215; EKI p. 155 n. 9

SAA 15, 129

Vallat 1993, 207-211

Vallat 1993, 200

Vallat 1993, 199

SAA 15, 186

Vallat 1993, 193

Henkelman 2008, 44

Henkelman 2008, 44

publication

S. 11

EKI 86 Vallat 1993, 255

S. 23; S. 36; S. 64; S. 130; S. 149; Vallat 1993, 253; Henkelman S. 166; S. 189; S. 213; S. 298 2008, 44

S. 45; S. 107; S. 150; S. 183

EKI 85

S. 89

S. 134

S. 121; S. 215

S. 76

S. 61; S. 93; S. 101; S. 134; S. 147; S. 295

S. 88

PFT

EKI 85

S. 95

S. 153

PFT

EKI 75

S. 11; S. 47; S. 49; S. 51; S. 94; S. 97; S. 117; S. 121; S. 166; S. 185; S. 187; S. 233; S. 246; S. 281; MDP 11, 307; Nin 2

Nin 10:20

S. 68

SAA 15, 186

S. 149

PFT

PFT

source

PFT

mainly Achaemenid period

Elamite toponym

non-Iranian toponym

location and reading contested

Elamite toponym

non-Iranian toponym

remarks

262 ANNEXES

Susiana? Fahliyan district, Fars ? Izeh, Malamir Fahliyan district, Fars? Fahliyan district, Fars

Talmarša

Tandari

Tanki

Tarriša

Tartin- (Ammak)

Tašpak

Susiana, Khuzestan

Fahliyan district, Fars

Šumaru

Susa

?

Šullagi

Šušan/Šušun

?

Širman

Fahliyan district, Fars

?

Širingirratakra

Šursunkiri

?

Šiltu

?

?

Šillit

Fahliyan district, Fars

?

Šilhite

Šurkutur

?

Šeriman

Šumurtan-duri

?

Šepšilak

location ?

modern name

Šemantak

ancient city name

PFT

Ururu 3, 4

EKI 75

S. 117

PFT

S. 4

EKI 72-73; EKI 77-78; EKI 86-87; MDP 11, 308; S. 3; S. 7.; S. 9; S. 12; S. 14-22; S. 29; S. 35; S. 37; S. 39; S. 44; S. 46-47; S. 50; S. 52-57; S. 60-61; S. 66; S. 71; S. 75; S. 80-81; S. 84; S. 86-87; S. 89; S. 91-92; S. 97; S. 99; S. 101; S. 104-108; S. 111-112; S. 118-119; S. 122-124; S. 126-127; S. 129-137; S. 139-140; S. 145149; S. 151; S. 155; S. 158; S. 162-164; S. 168; S. 173; S. 176-177; S. 179; S. 187-188; S. 192; S. 196-197; S. 208; S. 213; S. 217; S. 228; S. 232; S. 236; S. 239; S. 243; S. 245; S. 247249; S. 265; S. 281; S. 284; S. 287; S. 289; S. 296

PFT

PFT

Ururu 48’

PFT

S. 123; S. 235

EKI 85

S. 118; S. 171

EKI 85

S. 173; S. 284

EKI 75:1, 16

S. 178

EKI 86

S. 47

source

Henkelman 2008, 44

Waters 2000, 88; Vallat 1993, 275

Vallat 1993, 275; König 1965, n. 9

Vallat 1993, 274

Henkelman 2008, 44

Vallat 1993, 272

Henkelman 2008, 44

Henkelman 2008, 44

Waters 2000, 88

Henkelman 2008, 44

Vallat 1993, 262

Vallat 1993, 260

Vallat 1993, 260

Vallat 1993, 259

Vallat 1993, 259

Vallat 1993, 258

Vallat 1993, 257

Vallat 1993, 257

Vallat 1993, 256

publication

Elamite toponym

alternative reading Kuttin

Elamite toponym

ElW 1039: Rimarsha

Elamite toponym

Elamite toponym

Elamite toponym

ElW 1165: profession

remarks

ANNEX III: NEO-ELAMITE TOPONYMS

263

?

Udman ? Fahliyan district, Fars Fahliyan district, Fars ? ? Fahliyan district, Fars Zamin? Yadburu region Zamin? Yadburu region Yadburu region Zamin? Yadburu region ? Fahliyan district, Fars Fahliyan district, Fars? Fahliyan district, Fars Elamite-Babylonian border region ? ? Fahliyan district, Fars

Ukuk

Umbabanuš

Umpuranuš

Urkadaya

Urtak

Zakzaku

Zaman-(ki-…)-ra

Zami

Zamin

Zammin

Zampegir

Zanana

Zanu

Zappi

Zari

Zazadanu

Zippa

Zila-Humban

?

?

?

Persepolis or Kamfiruz district, Fars

Tirazziš

Udazammin

?

Tippina

Assyrian border region?

Persepolis or Kamfiruz district, Fars

Tikraš

Ubašin

?

Tigime

Shiraz?

?

Tertak

location ?

modern name

Taškira

ancient city name

PFT

Ururu

S. 63, S. 185

S. 48, S. 71, S. 178

PFT

Ururu

PFT

S. 11, S. 94, S. 238

S. 141; S. 283

Nin 5; Nin 15

EKI 76; EKI 76c

S. 153

PFT

S. 120

S. 164

PFT

PFT

S. 125

Ururu 43’

Ururu 45’, 47’, 50’

S. 70

PFT

S. 92, S. 281

PFT

S. 83, S. 93

S. 38, S. 53

S. 153

source

Henkelman 2008, 44

Vallat 1993, 312

Vallat 1993, 310

Vallat 1993, 309

Henkelman 2008, 44

Vallat 1993, 308

Henkelman 2008, 44

Steve 1988, 22; Vallat 1993, 308

Vallat 1993, 307

Vallat 1993, 307

Vallat 1993, 307

Vallat 1993, 307

Henkelman 2008, 44

Vallat 1993, 299

Vallat 1993, 299

Henkelman 2008, 44

Henkelman 2008, 44

Vallat 1993, 293

Waters 2000, 88

Waters 2000, 88

Vallat 1993, 289

Benveniste 1958, 56; Henkelman 2008, 44; Tavernier 2007, 377, 403

Vallat 1993, 282

Henkelman 2008, 44

Vallat 1993, 278

Vallat 1993, 277

Vallat 1993, 275

publication

Elamite toponym

Elamite toponym

ElW 537: alternative reading Kurzanuna

Elamite toponym

alternative reading Zampenir; Zambezak

EKI 15

ElW 1267; 1281 alternative reading Zappulahsimi

Elamite toponym

Elamite toponym

Elamite toponym

non-Iranian toponym

non-Iranian toponym

remarks

264 ANNEXES