ELAM, ancient country encompassing a large part of the Persian plateau at the end of the 3rd millennium B.C.E. but reduced to the territory of Susiana in the Achaemenid period. The name Elam is derived from Greek Aylam, itself borrowed from Hebrew ┐[email protected]; the Elamites called their country Ha(l)tamti/Hatamti "lord country," which the Akkadians rendered Elamtu and the Sumerians designated with the ideogram NIM "high, elevated."
For a long time scholars confused Elam with Susiana, equivalent to the plain and lower Zagros foothills in the present Persian province of KĘ[email protected]@n. Two important factors have recently modified this understanding, however. First, Tal-e Malyan ([email protected]^[email protected]) in [email protected] has been identified as the ancient center of the component kingdom of Anshan (q.v.; Hansman; Lambert; Reiner, 1973b), and, second, it has been established that Susa and Elam were distinct entities (Vallat, 1980). In fact, during the several millennia of its history the limits of Elam varied, not only from period to period, but also with the point of view of the person describing it. For example, Mesopotamian sources permit establishment of a relatively detailed map of Elam in the late 3rd millennium B.C.E., owing in particular to the "Geography of Sargon of Akkad" (ca. 2300 B.C.E.; Grayson; Vallat, 1991), a Neo-Assyrian representation of the extent of Sargon's conquests. It seems that Mesopotamians in the late 3rd millennium B.C.E. considered Elam to encompass the entire Persian plateau, which extends from Mesopotamia to the Kav^r-e Namak and DaŠt-e [email protected] (see DESERT) and from the Caspian (q.v.) to the Persian Gulf. Elamite cultural, if not political, influence in that period extended far beyond those limits, however, reaching Central Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the southern shores of the Persian Gulf (Amiet, 1986). It should be emphasized that during the last centuries of the 3rd millennium Susiana was sometimes a political dependency of the Mesopotamian empires centered first on Akkad and later on Ur and was included only for a brief period in the Elamite confederation, which embraced the kingdoms of Awan (probably in the Zagros), SimaŠki (in Assyrian łimaŠki; see Steve, 1989, p. 13 n. 1; probably extending from [email protected] to the Caspian), and Anshan (the present province of [email protected] with its natural outlet to the Persian Gulf in the vicinity of [email protected]Šehr, q.v.). Furthermore, this entire definition was Meso-potamian. For the people of the Persian plateau, Awanites and SimaŠkians, Elam meant the country of Anshan (Vallat, 1980; idem, 1991; idem, 1993).
When the Elamites, in alliance with the people of Susiana, brought an end to the empire of Ur in 2004 B.C.E., they annexed Susiana, where the Epartid, or sukkalmah, dynasty was founded by the ninth king of SimaŠki; the dynasty thus had its origins on the plateau. It is difficult to determine the eastern limits of the Epartid kingdom, but the decline of its power in the 18th century B.C.E. (see below) probably led to a reduction of influence in the east. As for the "kings of Anshan and Susa" of the Middle Elamite period (1500-1100 B.C.E.), according to the available documents, they controlled at least the territory of the present-day provinces of KĘ[email protected]@n and [email protected] with [email protected]Šehr.
In the 1st millennium B.C.E. the spread of populations speaking Indo-Iranian languages and dialects onto the Persian plateau forced the Elamites to relinquish one area of their empire after another and to take refuge in Susiana, which only then became coterminous with Elam. It is this reduced territory that is referred to in the annals of AŠŠurbanipal (q.v.; see, e.g., Aynard, pp. 38-61), the Achaemenid inscriptions (Weissbach), and the Bible and Apocrypha (Daniel 8:2; Esdras 4:9).
Despite recent progress, Elamite history remains largely fragmentary. Because there are few indigenous sources, attempts at reconstruction must be based primarily on Mesopotamian documentation. By far the largest proportion of the known Elamite texts have been excavated at Susa, a city that, from its foundation ca. 4000 B.C.E., alternated between subjection to Mesopotamian and Elamite power (Amiet, 1979). The earliest levels excavated at the site furnished remarkable pottery that has no equivalent in Mesopotamia, whereas in the succeeding period (levels 22-17 in the excavations conducted by Le Brun, 1978, pp. 177-92) the archeological material is identical with that of Mesopotamia in the Uruk period. From about 3200 B.C.E. the influence of the Persian plateau can be observed in the presence of numerical and then proto-Elamite tablets identical with those found in smaller numbers at different sites on the plateau, as far away as łahr-e [email protected]˛ta in S^[email protected] (Vallat, 1986). The proto-Elamite script (see iii, below), which has defied all efforts to decipher it, remained in use until about 2700 B.C.E., but it was in the little-known period that followed, between the end of the Proto-Elamite period and the establishment of the dynasty of Awan, that Elam began to emerge from anonymity. The first attestation of the name of the kingdom is in a text of the king Enmebaragesi of Kish, who ruled in about 2650 B.C.E. But it is only from the beginning of the Akkadian period that Elam really enters into history. In the following survey the variable orthography of proper names has been standardized, in the interests of simplification.
The Old Elamite period (ca. 2400-1600 B.C.E.).
In the Old Elamite period three dynasties ruled in succession (Table 1). The kings of the first two, those of Awan and SimaŠki, are mentioned in the king list from Susa of the Old Babylonian period (Scheil, 1931). In this document twelve names are mentioned, followed by the phrase "twelve kings of Awan," then by twelve more names and the phrase "twelve SimaŠkian kings." In contrast to similar texts from Mesopotamia, neither a regnal year nor any mention of parentage appears in this simple document; nor is there any indication that the two lists are exhaustive. But, despite the somewhat artificial character of this document, some of the individuals mentioned are also known from other sources, Susian or Mesopotamian. The third dynasty, that of the Epartids, often called "of the sukkalmahs" because of the title borne by its members, was contemporary with the Old Babylonian period in Mesopotamia.
The Awan dynasty (ca. 2400-2100 B.C.E.). The Awan dynasty was partially contemporary with that of Sargon of Akkad (2334-2279 B.C.E.), and its last king, Puzur-InŠuŠinak, is thought to have reigned in the time of Ur-Nammu (2112-2095 B.C.E.), founder of the Third Dynasty of Ur (Wilcke, p. 110). At that point the information in the sources becomes more explicit, for the Mesopotamians were attracted by the natural riches of the Persian plateau that they themselves lacked (wood, stone, metals). The records of their military campaigns provide important indications for the reconstruction of the history and geography of Elam.
Although nothing is known of the first seven kings enumerated in the Old Babylonian king list, the eighth and ninth are mentioned (in inverse order) in reports of the campaigns of Sargon and his son RimuŠ (Hirsch, pp. 47-48, 51-52; Gelb and Kienast, pp. 180-81, 188, 206-07). The primary purpose of these Akkadian expeditions was the economic exploitation of Elamite territory, including MarahaŠi (Baluchistan, q.v. i-ii). It seems, however, that they were raids, rather than real conquests of this vast territory. The Akkadian king ManiŠtusu (2269-55 B.C.E.) continued to fight in the south, where he achieved a victory at łehirum on the Persian Gulf, which he then crossed in order to subdue an alliance of thirty-two cities on the Arabian coast (Gelb and Kienast, pp. 220-21). In the reign of the Akkadian Naram-Sin a treaty (K÷nig, 1965, no. 2) was concluded between Naram-Sin's vassal ruling at Susa and a king of Awan, perhaps Hita (Cameron, p. 34); it is the first known Elamite text to have been written in cuneiform characters, but interpretation remains difficult.
The last king in the king list, Puzur-InŠuŠinak (Gelb and Kienast, pp. 321-37), conquered Susa, then Anshan, and he seems to have managed to impose an initial unity on the Elamite federation by subduing also the king of SimaŠki. His successors, however, were unable to hold Susa within the Elamite sphere. Puzur-InŠuŠinak left several documents in his name at Susa. Some are inscribed in Akkadian and others in linear Elamite, a script of which only a few signs have been deciphered with certainty (Vallat, 1986; see v, below); these signs may have been derived from proto-Elamite. But the establishment of the Elamite kings at Susa was of short duration. Several years later łulgi of Ur (2094-47) retook the city with the surrounding region, which once again became an integral part of the Mesopotamian empire and remained so until that empire collapsed.
The SimaŠki dynasty (ca. 2100-1970 B.C.E.). Of the twelve SimaŠkian kings mentioned in the king list from Susa, nine have been documented elsewhere (Stolper, 1982, pp. 42-67). The first part of this period was characterized by incessant Meso-potamian attacks on the Persian plateau; the principal objective, though rarely attained, seems to have been SimaŠki, the homeland of the Elamite kings, in the area of modern [email protected] These campaigns alternated with periods of peace, marked by dynastic marriages. For example, łu-Sin of Ur, after having given one of his daughters in marriage to a prince of Anshan, led at least two expeditions to the southeastern coast of the Caspian (Kutscher, pp. 71-101). It seems that the Mesopotamians alternated between peaceful and more forcible approaches, in order to obtain the raw materials they needed. But Mesopotamian power was weakening. The last king of the dynasty of Ur, Ibbi-Sin (2028-04), was unable to penetrate very deeply into Elamite territory, and his agent Ir-Nanna no longer controlled more of the eastern empire than the countries along a northwest-southeast line from Arbela to BaŠime on the north bank of the Persian Gulf (Thureau-Dangin, pp. 148-51). In 2004 the Elamites, allied with the "Susianans" under the leadership of Kindattu, sixth king of SimaŠki, conquered Ur and led Ibbi-Sin away to Elam as a prisoner.
The Epartid or sukkalmah dynasty (ca. 1970-1600 B.C.E.). This long period of nearly three centuries still seems one of the most confused in Elamite history, despite the greater abundance and variety of the available documentation. Modern historians (K÷nig, 1931; Cameron, p. 229; Hinz, p. 183) have been misled by three factors that have completely distorted historical reconstruction.
First, the order of succession and the genealogy of the rulers of this period were distorted by a misinterpretation of the expression "son of the sister of łilhaha" (Ak. [email protected] [email protected](-Šu) Ša łilhaha). It was believed that the correct translation of [email protected] [email protected] was "nephew," as in Mesopotamia, and that the term referred to a real biological relationship. The result was a theory about the division of power between the direct and collateral lines specific to Elam. The reality was quite different: The words "son of the sister of łilhaha" do not mean "nephew" but rather "son that łilhaha sired with his own sister" and are evidence of royal incest, which ensured the legitimacy of the heir. Furthermore, the expression was only a title, as is confirmed by its use for centuries after the death of łilhaha, for example, by UntaŠ-NapiriŠa and HutelutuŠ-InŠuŠinak. It may be added that this Akkadian expression was rendered in Elamite as ruhu-Šak, ruhu meaning "son" when referring to the mother and Šak "son" when referring to the father. There is thus no question of the word "sister" (Vallat, 1990, p. 122; idem, 1994).
A second factor, which played just as negative a role in historical reconstruction as the first, is a text of łilhak-InŠuŠinak, who enumerated those of his royal predecessors who had restored a temple of InŠuŠinak (K÷nig, 1965, no. 48); the majority of historians have considered that this enumeration provides a chronological scheme that has only to be completed by insertion of the names of kings who are not mentioned in it. Although generally early sovereigns are mentioned first in the text and the most recent ones last, within each group there are obvious contradictions with other documents. These distortions result from enumeration according to lineages; sometimes the direct line is given, then the collateral lines, but sometimes the collateral lines precede the direct line, without relation to actual chronology. For the sukkalmah period the order is Eparti (Ebarat), łilhaha, Siruk-tuh, Siwe-palar-huppak, Kuk-KirmaŠ, Atta-huŠu, Temti-halki, and Kuk-NaŠur. Although the sequence Eparti, łilhaha, Siruk-tuh, Siwe-palar-huppak in the direct line is correct, the two kings mentioned next, Kuk-KirmaŠ and Atta-huŠu, are not in the correct place, for they ruled between the reigns of łilhaha and Siruk-tuh. Kuk-KirmaŠ was thus a collateral, as is confirmed by the fact that in this list he is designated "son of Lankuku," an individual unknown elsewhere, who probably never ruled; it is probable that he was the brother of a sukkalmah who died without a direct heir or whose heir was too young to reign. Further confirmation comes from the inscriptions of certain high functionaries who served him after having been in the service of Idaddu II, tenth king of SimaŠki. He could thus not have reigned in the 15th century B.C.E., as had been incorrectly supposed. Temti-halki and Kuk-NaŠur, the last two sukkalmahs known, were probably in the direct line.
Finally, an inscription of Atta-huŠu (Sollberger, 1968-69, p. 31; Vallat, 1989, no. 101) has been considered as evidence that Eparti, łilhaha, and Atta-huŠu were contemporaries, constituting the first "triumvirate" of the dynasty. In fact, from different documents, particularly cylinder seals (q.v.) of servants of these sovereigns, it is possible to demonstrate (Vallat, 1989, no. 34) that between łilhaha and Atta-huŠu six sukkalmahs or sukkals exercised power: Pala-iŠŠan, Kuk-KirmaŠ, Kuk-sanit, Tem-sanit, Kuk-Nahhunte, and Kuk-NaŠur I, a group that reigned in the 20th century B.C.E. and not in the 16th century, as most commentators have believed (e.g., Hinz and Koch, p. 555).
Taking into account the corrected interpretations on these three points, it is possible today to write a coherent, though incomplete, history of the Epartid dynasty. The SimaŠkian kings who succeeded Kindattu were installed at Susa after the fall of the empire of Ur. The SimaŠkians Idaddu I and Tan-Ruhurater II (who married Mekubi, daughter of Bilalama of EŠnunna in Mesopotamia) built or restored temples at Susa. But Eparti II, though named as the ninth SimaŠkian king in the king list, was the founder of a new dynasty, called the Epartids by modern historians. It is surprising that the first Epartid sovereigns reigned at the same time as the last "SimaŠkian kings," Idaddu II, Idaddu-napir, and probably Idaddu-temti. Eparti, the first of his dynasty, was at least partially contemporary with the sukkalmah-sukkal group (see below); the second, łilhaha, is mentioned in two documents from the time of Atta-huŠu, contemporary with Sumu-abum (1894-81 B.C.E.), the first king of the first dynasty of Babylon. The last Epartid, Idaddu-temti, is known only from the king list. It is not known how power was divided, for, although Idaddu II and Idaddu-napir are attested at Susa, Kuk-KirmaŠ bore the title, among others, "sukkal of Elam, of SimaŠki, and of Susa" (Thureau-Dangin, pp. 182-83), which implies that he ruled the entire Elamite confederation. Despite these titles, it is probable that the last SimaŠkians governed the eastern part of the empire while the first Epartids governed the western part.
At any rate Eparti, łilhaha, and their immediate successors lived in troubled times. Rulers of several Mesopotamian states attempted to retake Susa from the Elamites. Several raids are known, particularly those of Gungunum of Larsa, and it was perhaps because of such a raid that Atta-huŠu seized power. In fact, there are several indications that he was a usurper: Unlike all his predecessors and successors Atta-huŠu was not associated with any other sovereign in the economic and juridical documents. His titles, too, are unusual. Although he called himself "son of the sister of łilhaha," it was probably in order to legitimate himself a posteriori; he also bore the title "shepherd of the people of Susa," which no other dynast during that period assumed, with the exception of a certain Tetep-mada, who may have been his successor.
The name of Siruk-tuh, which appears on a tablet from łemŠarra, permits linkage of Elamite history with Mesopotamian chronology, for he was contemporary with the Assyrian łamŠi-Adad I (1813-1781 B.C.E.). But the best-known sukkalmah of the dynasty is Siwe-palar-huppak, who for at least two years was the most powerful person in the Near East. According to the royal archives of Mari, kings as important as Zimri-Lim of Mari and Hammurabi of Babylon addressed him as "father," while calling each other "brother" and using the word "son" for a king of lesser rank (Charpin and Durand). But the interventions of Siwe-palar-huppak and his brother and successor, Kudu-zuluŠ, in Mesopotamian affairs (as far away as Aleppo) did not last long (Durand, 1986; idem, 1990; Charpin, 1986; idem, 1990). Siwe-palar-huppak's suzerainty was broken by an alliance led by Hammurabi, which put an end to Elamite ambitions in Mesopotamia.
The reigns of Kutir-Nahhunte I and his thirteen successors as sukkalmah or sukkal down to Kuk-NaŠur III, the last known sukkalmah, are documented only in the juridical and economic records from Susa (Scheil, 1930; idem, 1932; idem, 1933; idem, 1939) and in some rare royal inscriptions (Thureau-Dangin, pp. 184-85; Sollberger and Kupper, pp. 262-64). These documents suggest that daily life in Susa and Elam was quite insular. Although no military activity is noted in the documents, it is astonishing that so many royal or princely names are attested at the same time. For example, Kutir-Nahhunte is associated with five potential heirs: Atta-mera-halki, Tata, Lila-irtaŠ, Temti-Agun, and Kutir-łilhaha; only the last two, however, attained supreme power, the status of sukkalmah. Following them Kuk-NaŠur II, a contemporary of Ammisßaduqa, king of Babylon (1646-26 B.C.E.); Temti-raptaŠ; Simut-wartaŠ II; KuduzuluŠ II; and Sirtuh exercised power in an order that cannot yet be established with certainty, despite association with royal names in the texts. The three last known sukkalmahs, Tan-Uli and his two sons Temti-halki and Kuk-NaŠur III, all three of whom were styled "son of the sister of łilhaha," constituted a group that is linked by no document to its predecessors. These different factors raise the question whether, during the second half of this period, palace intrigues had not replaced international conflicts.
This dynasty, which was remarkable for its duration, was also characterized by a progressive "semitization" of the royal line; owing to the annexation of Susiana to the Elamite empire, the sukkalmahs ensured that Susa would remain a major center. This process is reflected in different spheres. For example, the Elamites did not impose their language on the Susians; the vast majority of the documents from this period excavated at Susa, most of them juridical or economic texts related to daily life in the name of the sukkalmah or a sukkal, were written in Akkadian. Similarly, the Susians preserved their Suso-Mesopotamian pantheon, at the head of which was InŠuŠinak, the tutelary divinity of the city (see vi, below). Gods of Elamite origin were rare. Finally, this semitization, or westernization, is illustrated by the titulary. The title "king of Anshan and Susa" borne by Eparti, the founder of the dynasty, was soon abandoned in favor of titles that had belonged to Mesopotamian functionaries posted in Susiana or Elam during the Ur III period. The supreme power was held by the sukkalmah. It happened that the ruler delegated certain powers to his children, who were then given the title "sukkal of Elam and of SimaŠki" while in charge of the eastern provinces of the empire and "sukkal of Susa" when governing Susiana. This last title could be replaced by "king of Susa."
It is thus necessary to set aside the theory of the division of Elamite power (Cameron, pp. 71-72). The succession to the throne was based on male primogeniture, with, however, an important additional element: the different degrees of legitimacy exemplified by the primacy of endogamy over exogamy. The child born to a union of the king with an Elamite princess, that is, a foreigner, was legitimate. The child born to a union of the king with his own sister had a higher degree of legitimacy. An elder son born to the marriage of a sovereign with a princess outside the family (exogamy) thus had to cede the throne to a younger brother born to a later union of the king and his sister (endogamy). The supreme degree of legitimacy was accorded to the son born to a union of the king with his own daughter. That was the case some centuries later with HutelutuŠ-InŠuŠinak, who seems to have been the son of łutruk-Nahhunte by his daughter Nahhunte-utu (Vallat, 1985). In the eventuality that a sovereign had no male heir or an heir was too young to exercise power then, as often elsewhere, power was secured by a collateral branch (Vallat, 1994).
The association of a "sukkal of Elam and of SimaŠki" and a "sukkal of Susa" with the supreme authority of the sukkalmah was not the rule. It sometimes happened, however, that the king associated his children in power for practical reasons: It is probable that, as in the Achaemenid period, the court left the extreme heat of Susa in summer and took refuge on the more temperate plateau. It was thus prudent to leave a trusted man in charge of the low countries.
The Middle Elamite period (ca. 1500-1100 B.C.E.).
The Middle Elamite period was marked by a sharp reversal from the preceding period. It was, in fact, characterized by an "elamization" of Susiana. The kings (Table 2) abandoned the title sukkalmah or sukkal in favor of the old title "king of Anshan and of Susa" (or "king of Susa and of Anshan" in the Akkadian inscriptions). The Akkadian language, still in use under the first family of rulers, the Kidinuids, became rare in the inscriptions of the later Igihalkids and łutrukids. Furthermore, in this period the Elamite pantheon was imposed in Susiana and reached the height of its power with the construction of the politicoreligious complex at ┘[email protected] Zanb^l (q.v.).
The "dynasty" of the Kidinuids (ca. 1500-1400 B.C.E.). The term "dynasty" for the Kidinuids is perhaps improper, for there is no indication of any filial relationship among the five rulers who succeeded one another in an order that is not yet certain: Kidinu, InŠuŠinak-sunkir-nappipir, Tan-Ruhurater II, łalla, and Tepti-Ahar (Steve, Gasche, and De Meyer, pp. 92-100). Susa and Haft Tepe (ancient Kabnak) have furnished evidence (Reiner, 1973b; Herrero) of a break between the period of the sukkalmahs and the Middle Elamite period. The first element was the titulary: Kidinu and Tepti-ahar styled themselves "king of Susa and of Anzan," thus linking themselves with an old tradition. Both also called themselves "servant of KirwaŠir," an Elamite divinity, thus introducing the pantheon from the plateau into Susiana. As in the preceding period, however, they continued to use Akkadian in all their inscriptions.
The Igihalkid dynasty (ca. 1400-1210 B.C.E.). Until quite recently the Igihalkid dynasty seemed one of the best known in Elamite history. It was believed (e.g., Stolper, 1984, pp. 35-38) that, following a raid by the Mesopotamian Kassite ruler Kurigalzu II (1332-08 B.C.E.) against a certain Hurpatila, king of Elam, Igi-halki seized power, in about 1320, power that he than passed on to his six successors, the most celebrated of whom was UntaŠ-NapiriŠa, who built the famous ziggurat at ┘[email protected] Zanb^l (ca. 1250). This period ended with Kidin-Hutran, who put an end to the grandeur of the Kassites by winning two victories over Enlil-nadin-Šumi (1224) and Adad-Šuma-iddina (1222-17).
Combined information from a letter now in the Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin (Van Dijk, 1986) and two fragments of a statue rediscovered in the Louvre (Steve and Vallat, pp. 223-38) has, however, led to a complete revision of this scheme. The letter in Berlin is a Neo-Babylonian document written in Akkadian, whereas the statue fragments contain an inscription in Elamite. The letter was addressed by an Elamite king whose name is lost but who may well have been łutruk-Nahhunte (see below) to assert his claim to rule Babylonia; the name of the person to whom it was addressed is also not preserved in the letter. In support of his claim the king mentioned the names of all the Elamite kings who had married Kassite princesses, followed by the names of the children born of these unions. For example, the immediate successor of Igi-halki, Pahir-iŠŠan, married the sister or daughter of Kurigalzu I, whose reign ended in 1374 B.C.E., which implies that the Igihalkid dynasty was older by about a century than had previously been thought. Furthermore, two previously unknown kings, Kidin-Hutran, son of UntaŠ-NapiriŠa (who could not have been the Kidin-Hutran who fought the Kassites), and his son NapiriŠa-untaŠ, are mentioned in this text. As the fragments of the Louvre statue are attributed to another Kidin-Hutran, son of Pahir-iŠŠan, there must have been three kings of the same name in this dynasty: Kidin-Hutran I, son of Pahir-iŠŠan; Kidin-Hutran II, son of UntaŠ-NapiriŠa; and Kidin-Hutran III, whose paternity is unknown. The number of kings known to have succeeded to the Elamite throne has thus been raised from seven to ten, without any certainty that the list is complete. In fact, the first surviving description of this dynasty occurs in a text of the łutrukid łilhak-InŠuŠinak (K÷nig, 1965, no. 48), in which he enumerated those of his predecessors who had restored a temple of InŠuŠinak. As for the Berlin letter, only the dynasts who married Kassite princesses or their children are mentioned in it. A king who belonged in neither of these two categories would remain unknown. Finally, it can now be confirmed that Hurpatila was not an Elamite king but king of a country known as Elammat (Gassan).
The main characteristic of this dynasty is to have "elamized" Susiana; the religious complex at ┘[email protected]@ Zanb^l, ancient Dur-UntaŠ (or A┌l UntaŠ-NapiriŠa), is evidence of this policy, which had been initiated under the "Kidinuids." Whereas the Epartids had adopted their titulary, gods, and language from the Susians, the Igihalkids emphasized the Elamite aspect of Susiana. Documents written in Akkadian are thus especially rare from their rule, and most are only curses against those who might tamper with dedicated works, as if such outrages could come only from Mesopotamia. Second, the old royal title "king of Anshan and of Susa" was revived. Finally and most important, the gods of the plateau appeared in force in Susiana. For example, the attitude of UntaŠ-NapiriŠa at ┘[email protected] Zanb^l is revealing. The king began by constructing a small ziggurat in the middle of a courtyard 105 m2 surrounded by temples. This first ziggurat bore the obligatory dedication to the tutelary god of Susa and Susiana, InŠuŠinak. But very quickly the king changed his mind and undertook construction of a large ziggurat. The small one was destroyed, and the buildings that surrounded the square courtyard were incorporated in the first story of the new monument, which consisted of five stories, each smaller in area than the one below (Ghirshman; Amiet, 1966, pp. 344-49). It must be emphasized that the new building was dedicated jointly to NapiriŠa, the principal god of Anshan, and to InŠuŠinak, who was always mentioned second, or even third when KiririŠa, the associate of NapiriŠa, was also named. The primacy of the Elamite component over that of Susa was thus reflected on the divine plane. But the situation was even more complex. Within three concentric walls at ┘[email protected] Zanb^l temples were constructed for different gods of the new Suso-Elamite pantheon, and it seems that all the constituent elements in the Elamite confederation were represented (Steve, 1967). For example, Pinikir, Humban, KirmaŠir, and Nahhunte probably belonged to the Awanite pantheon, whereas Ruhurater and HiŠmitik were of SimaŠkian origin. Among the Anshanite gods the pair NapiriŠa and KiririŠa, as well as Kilah-Šupir and Manzat, can be mentioned. Other divinities of Suso-Mesopotamian origin, like InŠuŠinak, IŠmekarab, Nabu, łamaŠ, and Adad, helped to establish a balance between Elamite and Susian power. The creation of this city from nothing had more a political than a religious character, for it implied the cultural and political subjugation of Susiana by the old Elamite confederation. Curiously, this huge complex was quickly abandoned. No king other than UntaŠ-NapiriŠa left his name there, and łutruk-Nahhunte reported having carried some inscriptions from Dur-UntaŠ to Susa. Nothing is known of the two immediate successors of UntaŠ-NapiriŠa, Kidin-Hutran II and NapiriŠa-UntaŠ. The campaigns led by the last sovereign of the dynasty, Kidin-Hutran III, against the Kassite kings Enlil-nadin-Šumi and Adad-Šuma-iddina of Babylonia are evidence that the good relations that had existed between the two royal families had quickly deteriorated.
The łutrukid dynasty (ca. 1210-1100 B.C.E.). Under the łutrukids Susa regained its greatness, which had been somewhat eclipsed by ┘[email protected] Zanb^l, and Elamite civilization shone in all its glory. The riches of łutruk-Nahhunte and his three sons and successors, Kutir-Nahhunte II, łilhak-InŠuŠinak, and HutelutuŠ-InŠuŠinak permitted these new "kings of Anshan and of Susa" to undertake frequent military expeditions against Kassite Mesopotamia and to embellish the Elamite empire and particularly Susiana with luxuriously restored temples.
łutruk-Nahhunte, son of HallutuŠ-InŠuŠinak, perhaps following the Babylonian rejection of the Elamite claims to sovereignty in the Berlin letter discussed above, undertook several campaigns against Mesopotamia, whence he carried off a number of trophies, which he had inscribed with his name. It is thus known that he raided Akkad, Babylon, and EŠnunna, from the last of which he carried off the statues of ManiŠtusu. It was he who brought to Susa such renowned documents as the code of Hammurabi and the stele of Naram-Sin. In 1158 B.C.E. he killed the Kassite king, Zababa-Šuma-iddina, and placed his own eldest son, Kutir-Nahhunte, on the throne of Babylon. When łutruk-Nahhunte died Kutir-Nahhunte succeeded him and continued his policy in Mesopotamia, putting an end to the long Kassite dynasty by deposing Enlil-nadin-ahi (1157-55 B.C.E.). He reigned only a short time before he was succeeded by his brother łilhak-InŠuŠinak, who left a large number of inscriptions in Elamite, recording his numerous campaigns against Mesopotamia, on one hand, and, on the other, dedicating to the gods temples that he built or restored; for example, on one stele twenty temples "of the grove" in Susiana and Elam are mentioned (K÷nig, 1965, no. 48). The last king of the dynasty, HutelutuŠ-InŠuŠinak, who called himself sometimes "son of Kutir-Nahhunte and of łilhak-InŠuŠinak" and sometimes "son of łutruk-Nahhunte, of Kutir-Nahhunte, and of łilhak-InŠuŠinak," was probably a son of łutruk-Nahhunte by his own daughter, Nahhunte-utu (Vallat, 1985, pp. 43-50; idem, 1994), apparently another example of incest in the royal Elamite family. Less brilliant than his predecessors, HutelutuŠ-InŠuŠinak had to abandon Susa briefly to Nebuchadnezzar (1125-04 B.C.E.). He took refuge at Anshan, where he built or restored a temple (Lambert; Reiner, 1973b), then returned to Susa, where his brother łilhina-amru-Lagamar may have succeeded him. With this king Elamite power faded from the political scene for a long time.
The Neo-Elamite Period (1100-539 B.C.E.).
The essential element that distinguished the Neo-Elamite period was the massive arrival of Iranians on the Iranian plateau, which had the result of reducing still further what remained of the former Elamite empire. Although these invaders appeared only late in the Elamite texts, they were documented in Assyrian sources, where two groups of Medes were distinguished: the Medes or "powerful Medes" and the "distant Medes" or "Medes who live beside Mount Bikni, the mountain of lapis lazuli." The first group, which occupied the region around Ecbatana (q.v.; modern [email protected]), was well-known because of its frequent and often warlike contacts with the Assyrians, but the second group, which encompassed all the tribes that held territories between the region around modern Tehran and eastern Afghanistan was not; the Achaemenids (and following them Herodotus) designated the latter group by their proper names: Parthians, Sagartians, Arians, Margians, Bactrians, Sogdians, and probably neighboring peoples. In the Assyrian annals, however, all these Iranian tribes were confused under the general appellation "distant Medes." An identification of Mount Bikni with [email protected] (q.v.; Cameron, p. 149) or Alvand (Levine, 1974, pp. 118-19) must thus be rejected. An identification with the sources of lapis lazuli in Badak˛Šan was not only credited by some classical authors but also lends a certain coherence to history, whether recorded by Assyrians, Elamites, or Iranians (Vallat, 1993).
The slow progression of the Medes and the Persians across the plateau pushed the Elamites in the region of Anshan toward Susiana, which had been the second center of their empire for almost a millennium and a half. The country of Anshan gradually became Persia proper while Susiana thenŚand only thenŚbecame known as Elam. In most sources of the period, particularly those from Mesopotamia, Susiana is designated as Elam. Nevertheless, the Neo-Elamite kings (Table 3) still called themselves "king of Anshan and of Susa," except for the last three, Ummanunu, łilhak-InŠuŠinak II, and Tepti-Humban-InŠuŠinak.
Neo-Elamite I (ca. 1100-770 B.C.E.). No Elamite document from this first phase of two and a half centuries provides any historical information. The tablets from Malyan (Stolper, 1984), which M.-J. Steve (1992, p. 21) attributes to the beginning of the period, reveal that Anshan was still at least partially Elamite, for almost all the individuals mentioned in them had names of Elamite origin. Mesopotamian tablets from the same period offer very little additional information; it is known only that the Babylonian king Mar-biti-apla-usßur (984-79 B.C.E.) was of Elamite origin and that Elamite troops fought on the side of the Babylonian king Marduk-balassu-iqbi against the Assyrian forces under łamŠi-Adad V (823-11 B.C.E.).
Neo-Elamite II (ca. 770-646 B.C.E.). Only after the middle of the 8th century B.C.E. does the Babylonian Chronicle (Grayson, 1975) provide the elements of a historical framework, particularly the role of Elam in the conflicts between Babylonians and Assyrians. The king Humban-nikaŠ (743-17 B.C.E.), son of Humban-tahra and brother of Humban-umena II, came to the aid of Merodach-baladan against the Assyrian Sargon II, which seems to have had little permanent result, as his successor, łutruk-Nahhunte II (716-699), son of Humban-umena II, had to flee from Sargon's troops during an attempt on the region of [email protected] in 710. The Elamite was again defeated by Sargon's troops two years later; finally he was beaten by Sargon's son Sennacherib, who dethroned Merodach-baladan and installed his own son AŠŠur-nadin-Šumi on the throne of Babylon. łutruk-Nahhunte was then murdered by his brother HalluŠu, mentioned in the Babylonian Chronicle (698-93). After several skirmishes with the troops of Sennacherib, HalluŠu was assassinated and replaced by Kudur, who quickly abdicated the throne in favor of Humban-umena III (692-89). Humban-umena recruited a new army, including troops from Ellipi, ParsumaŠ, and Anshan, in order to assist the Babylonians in the battle against the Assyrians at Halule on the Tigris in 691. Each side proclaimed itself the victor, but Babylon was taken by the Assyrians two years later. Elamite relations with Babylonia began to deteriorate during the reign of Humban-haltaŠ II (680-75), son of Humban-haltaŠ I (688-81), which may explain why his brother and successor, Urtak (674-64), at first maintained good relations with the Assyrian king AŠŠurbanipal (668-27), who helped him by sending wheat during a famine. But peaceable relations with Assyria also deteriorated, and it was after a new Elamite attack on Mesopotamia that the king died. He was replaced on the throne by Te-Umman (664-53 B.C.E.). The new king was the object of a new attack by Assurbanipal, who, after the battle of the Ula´ in 653, put an end to the king's life. After this victory AŠŠurbanipal installed in power the son of Urtak, who had taken refuge in Assyria. Humban-nikaŠ II (Akkadian UmmanigaŠ) was installed at Madaktu, an advance post toward Mesopotamia, and Tammaritu at Hidalu, a retreat in the eastern mountains on the road to Anshan. These two towns thus functioned as capitals from the beginning of the 7th century, to the detriment of Susa. The war that broke out between AŠŠurbanipal and his brother łamaŠ-Šum-ukin, whom he had installed on the throne of Babylon, provided some respite for the Elamites, who profited from it to fight among themselves. Tammaritu captured the throne of Humban-nikaŠ II and was in turn driven out to Assyria by IndabigaŠ, who was himself killed by Humban-haltaŠ III in 648. The collapse of the Elamite kingdom seems even clearer when it is realized that a certain Umba-habua reigned at Bupila and that Pa'e was called "king of Elam" at B^t-Imbi. The coup de grace, however, was delivered by AŠŠurbanipal in 646, when he sacked Susa after having devastated the whole of Susiana (Streck; Aynard; Grayson, 1975).
The defeat of the Elamites was, however, less devastating than AŠŠurbanipal made it appear in his annals, for after his victory the Elamite kingdom rose from the ashes with łutur-Nahhunte, son of Humban-umena III.
Neo-Elamite III (646-539?B.C.E.). So far nothing has been known about the century between the sack of Susa by AŠŠurbanipal in 646 and the conquest of Susiana, thus of Elam, by the Achaemenids, perhaps by Cyrus in 539. This apparent gap in the history was owing in fact to two errors of interpretation by modern scholars, who, first, considered that the Neo-Elamite kings łutruk-Nahhunte, son of Humban-umena; łutur-Nahhunte, son of Humban-umena; and sometimes even łutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada, were the names of a single sovereign (Hinz, 1964, pp. 115-20). Now, it is possible to show that they belonged to three different individuals. The first, who reigned from 717 to 699, is known from the Mesopotamian sources. He was the son of Humban-umena II (ca. 743), whereas łutur-Nahhunte was the son of Humban-umena III (692-89) and reigned after the fall of Susa. As for łutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada, he was a petty king in the region of ╚za/[email protected]^r in the first half of the 6th century (Vallat, 1995).
The second error of interpretation was to have considered the names of the Elamite kings mentioned in the Mesopotamian documents as simple distortions of the names of kings known from their inscriptions at Susa. For example, it was believed that the name łutruk-Nahhunte was rendered łutur-Nahhunte in Assyria and IŠtar-hundu in Babylonia. Again, it can be demonstrated from internal analysis of the Elamite documents that these identifications are erroneous and that, with the exception of łutruk-Nahhunte II, all the Neo-Elamite kings known from Susian inscriptions reigned after AŠŠurbanipal's sack of Susa (Vallat, 1996).
For this period no text furnishes a synchronism with Mesopotamia. Nevertheless, one group of more than 300 tablets (Scheil, 1909) can be dated by the iconography of their seal impressions to the first quarter of the 6th century. Analysis of the language of these documents, which was no longer classical but not yet Achaemenid, reveals details that permit a chronology in relation to other inscriptions. In addition, on one of these tablets a king (Ummanunu) and on another the name of Humban-kitin, who was probably the son of łutur-Nahhunte, are mentioned (Vallat, 1995). It is thus possible to locate the reigns of łutur-Nahhunte, son of Humban-umena III; HallutaŠ-InŠuŠinak, son of Humban-tahra II; and Atta-hamiti-InŠuŠinak, son of Hutran-tepti in the second half of the 7th century. Ummanunu, who is mentioned in the tablets from the Acropolis, appears to have been the father of łilhak-InŠuŠinak II, himself the father of Tepti-Humban-InŠuŠinak. These three individuals ruled in succession between 585 and about 539, at a time when Elamite royalty seems to have been fragmented among different small kingdoms, though it is not possible to determine that there was any sort of vassal relationship with the king of Susa. It is thus known that łutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada ruled in the region of [email protected]^r; Humban-Šuturuk, son of łati-hupiti, probably in the region of Kesat in what was later Elymais; and the first Achaemenids over the city of Anshan. It is interesting to note that the three kings at the end of the 7th century (łutur-Nahhunte, HallutaŠ-InŠuŠinak, and Atta-hamiti-InŠuŠinak) still called themselves "king of Anzan and of Susa" or "enlarger of the kingdom of Anzan and of Susa," whereas Ummanunu and łilhak-InŠuŠinak II bore the simple title "king," without any further specification, and Tepti-Humban-InŠuŠinak did not even allude to his royal position! This last known king of Elam did boast, however, of having led a campaign in the Zagros.
The Achaemenid period (539-331 B.C.E.).
With the Achaemenids in general and Darius I (q.v.) in particular Susa regained its previous greatness, but Elam lost its independence, becoming the third "province" of the empire, after Persis and Media. Curiously, in that period, though the country was called Elam (Elamite Hatamtu, Akkadian NIM) in the sources, in Old Persian it was called Susiana (Uja). Susa eclipsed the other capitals, like Anshan and Pasargadae, in Cyrus' time and even Persepolis, founded by Darius himself, and Ecbatana. It is striking, for example, that officials traveling to such distant destinations as Egypt, India, or Arachosia departed from Susa and returned to Susa, as confirmed in numerous archival tablets found at Persepolis (Hallock, nos. 1285-1579). Furthermore, these documents were written in Elamite, as if Darius had wished to make use of a class of scribes belonging to an already existing administration. The majority of royal inscriptions were written in Old Persian, Akkadian, and Elamite versions, but Elamite had by then absorbed Iranian influences in both structure and vocabulary. The Elamite gods, after having benefited from a final revival of the cult under Darius and Xerxes, disappeared forever from the documents. Elam was absorbed into the new empire, which changed the face of the civilized world at that time.
Bibliography: (For abbreviations found in this bibliography, see "Short References.") P. Amiet, ╔lam, Auvers-sur-Oise, France, 1966. Idem, "Archaeological Discontinuity and Ethnic Duality in Elam," Antiquity 53, 1979, pp. 195-204. Idem, L'Ôge des eéchanges inter-iraniens, 3500-1700 avant J.-C., Notes et Documents des Museées de France 11, Paris, 1986. J.-M. Aynard, Le prisme du Louvre AO 19.939, Paris, 1957. J. A. Brinkman, Prelude to Empire. Babylonian Society and Politics, 747-626 B.C., Occasional Publications of the Babylonian Fund 7, Philadelphia, 1984. G. G. Cameron, History of Early Iran, Chicago, 1936. D. Charpin, "Les ╔lamites aÓ łubat-Enlil," in Fragmenta Historiae Elamicae, Meélanges offerts aÓ M.-J. Steve, Paris, 1986, pp. 129-37. Idem, "Une alliance contre l'╔lam et le rituel du lipit napiŠtim," in Contribution aÓ l'histoire de l'Iran. Meélanges offerts aÓ Jean Perrot, Paris, 1990, pp. 109-18. Idem and J.-M. Durand, "La suzeraineteé de l'empereur (sukkalmah) d'╔lam sur la Meésopotamie et le 'nationalisme' amorrite," in L. De Meyer and H. Gasche, eds., Meésopotamie et Elam. Actes de la XXXVIeÓme Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Mesopotamian History and Environment, Occasional Publications 1, Ghent, 1991, pp. 59-66. J.-M. Durand, "Fragments rejoints pour une histoire eélamite," in Fragmenta Historiae Elamicae. Meélanges offerts aÓ M.-J. Steve, Paris, 1986, pp. 111-28. Idem, "Fourmis blanches et fourmis noires," in Contribution aÓ l'histoire de l'Iran. Meélanges offerts aÓ Jean Perrot, Paris, 1990, pp. 101-08.
M. Gassan, "Hurpatila, roi d'Elammat," AIUON 49/3, 1989, pp. 223-29. I. J. Gelb and B. Kienast, Die altakkadischen K÷nigsinschriften des dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr., Freiburger altorientalische Studien 7, Stuttgart, 1990. R. Ghirshman, Tchoga Zanbil (Dur Untash) I. La ziggurat, Meémoires de la Mission archeéologique en Iran 39, Paris, 1966. A. K. Grayson, "The Empire of Sargon of Akkad," Archiv fŘr Orientforschung 25, 1974-77, pp. 56-64. Idem, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Texts from Cuneiform Sources V, Locust Valley, N.Y., 1975. R. T. Hallock, Persepolis Fortification Tablets, Oriental Institute Publications 92, Chicago, 1969. J. Hansman, "Elamites, Achaemenians and Anshan," Iran 10, 1972, pp. 101-25. P. Herrero, "Tablettes administratives de Haft-Teépeé," CDAFI 6, 1976, pp. 93-116. W. Hinz, The Lost World of Elam, London, 1972. Idem und H. Koch, Elamisches W÷rterbuch, AMI, Ergńnzungsbd. 17, Berlin, 1987. H. Hirsch, "Die Inschriften der K÷nige von Agade," Archiv fŘr Orientforschung 20, 1963, pp. 1-82. F. W. K÷nig, "Geschichte Elams," Der Alte Orient 29, 1931, pp. 1-38. Idem, Die elamischen K÷nigsinschriften, Archiv fŘr Orientforschung, Beiheft 16, Graz, 1965. R. Kutscher, The Brockmon Tablets at the University of Ha´fa. Royal Inscriptions, Haifa, 1989. M. Lambert, "Hutelutush-Insushnak et le pays d'Anzan," RA 66, 1972, pp. 61-76. A. Le Brun, "Chantier de l'Acropole I," Paleéorient 4, 1978, pp. 177-92. L. Levine, "Geographical Studies in the Neo-Assyrian Zagros II," Iran 12, 1974, pp. 99-124. P. de Miroschedji, "Note sur la glyptique de la fin de l'╔lam," RA 76, 1982, pp. 51-63. E. Reiner, "Inscription from a Royal Elamite Tomb," Archiv fŘr Orientforschung 24, 1973a, pp. 87-104. Idem, "The Location of Anshan," RA 67, 1973b, pp. 57-62. V. Scheil, Textes eélamites-anzanites, 3e seér., Meémoires de la Deéleégation en Perse 9, Paris, 1907. Idem, Actes juridiques susiens, Meémoires de la Mission archeéologique en Perse 22, Paris, 1930. Idem, "Dynasties eélamites d'Awan et de SimaŠ," RA 28, 1931, pp. 1-8. Idem, Actes juridiques susiens (suite: n░ 166 aÓ n░ 327), Meémoires de la Mission archeéologique en Perse 23, Paris, 1932. Idem, Actes juridiques susiens (suite: n░ 328 aÓ n░ 395), Meémoires de la Mission archeéologique en Perse 24, Paris, 1933. Idem, Meélanges eépigraphiques, Meémoires de la Mission archeéologique en Perse 28, Paris, 1939. E. Sollberger, "A Tankard of Atta-huŠu," Journal of Cuneiform Studies 22, 1968-69, pp. 30-33. Idem and J.-R. Kupper, Les inscriptions royales sumeériennes et akkadiennes, Paris, 1971. M.-J. Steve, Tchoga Zanbil (Dur-Untash) III. Textes eélamites et accadiens de Tchoga Zanbil, Meémoires de la Deéleégation archeéologique en Iran 41, Paris, 1967. Idem, "La fin de l'╔lam. └ propos d'une empreinte de sceau-cylindre," Stud. Ir. 15, 1986, pp. 7-21. Idem, Nouveaux meélanges eépigraphiques. Inscriptions royales de Suse et de la Susiane, Meémoires de la Deéleégation archeéologique en Iran 53, Nice, 1987. Idem, "Des sceaux-cylindres de SimaŠki?" RA 83, 1989, pp. 13-26. Idem, "╔lam. Histoire continue ou discontinue?" in L. De Meyer and H. Gasche, eds., Meésopotamie et Elam, Actes de la XXXVIeÓme Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Meso-potamian History and Environment, Occasional Publications I, Ghent, 1991, pp. 1-9. Idem, Syllabaire eélamite. Histoire et paleéographie, NeuchÔtel-Paris, 1992. Idem, H. Gasche, and L. De Meyer, "La Susiane au deuxieÓme milleénaire. └ propos d'une interpreétation des fouilles de Suse," Iranica Antiqua 15, 1980, pp. 49-154. M.-J. Steve and F. Vallat, "La dynastie des Igihalkides. Nouvelles interpreétations," in Archaeologia Iranica et Orientalis. Miscellanea in Honorem Louis Vanden Berghe, Ghent, 1989, pp. 223-38. M. W. Stolper, "On the Dynasty of łimaŠki and the Early Sukkalmahs," ZA 72, 1982, pp. 42-67. Idem, Texts from Tall-i Malyan I. Elamite Administrative Texts (1972-1974), Occasional Publications of the Babylonian Fund 6, Philadelphia, 1984. Idem, "Political History," in E. Carter and M. W. Stolper, Elam. Surveys of Political History and Archaeology, Near Eastern Studies 25, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1984. M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen K÷nige bis zum Untergange Niniveh's, Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 7, Leipzig, 1916. F. Thureau-Dangin, Die sumerischen und akkadischen K÷nigsinschriften, Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 1/1, Leipzig, 1907.
F. Vallat, Suse et l'╔lam, Recherche sur les grandes civilisations, Meémoire 1, Paris, 1980. Idem, "Kidin-Hutran et l'eépoque neéo-eélamite," Akkadica 37, 1984, pp. 1-17. Idem, "HutelutuŠ-InŠuŠinak et la famille royale eélamite," RA 79, 1985, pp. 43-50. Idem, "The Most Ancient Scripts of Iran. The Current Situation," World Archaeology 17/3, 1986, pp. 335-47. Idem, "L'expression ADDA LUGAL an-Šan uÓ MUśł.EREN dans un texte d'Atta-huŠu," Nouvelles assyriologiques breÓves et utilitaires, 1989a, pp. 75-76 no. 101. Idem, "Le scribe Ibni-Adad et les premiers sukkalmah," Nouvelles assyriologiques breÓves et utilitaires, 1989b, pp. 23-24 no. 34. Idem, "Reéflexions sur l'eépoque des sukkalmah," in Contribution aÓ l'histoire de l'Iran. Meélanges offerts aÓ Jean Perrot, Paris, 1990, pp. 119-27. Idem, "La geéographie de l'╔lam d'apreÓs quelques textes meésopotamiens" in L. De Meyer and H. Gasche, eds., Meésopotamie et Elam. Actes de la XXXVIeÓme Rencontre Assyrio-logique Internationale, Mesopotamian History and Environment Occasional Publications 1, Ghent, 1991, pp. 11-21. Idem, "Succession royale en ╔lam au IIeÓme milleénaire," in Cinquante-deux reéflexions sur le Proche-Orient ancien offertes aÓ Leéon De Meyer, Mesopotamian History and Environment, Occasional Publications 2, 1994, pp. 1-14. Idem, "łutruk-Nahunte, łutur-Nahunte et l'imbroglio neéo-eélamite," Nouvelles assyriologiques breÓves et utilitaires, 1995, pp. 37-38. Idem, "Nouvelle analyse des inscriptions neéo-eélamites," forthcoming. Idem et al., Les noms geéographiques des sources suso-eélamites, TAVO, Beihefte, Reépertoire geéographique des textes cuneéiformes 11, Wiesbaden, 1993. J. Van Dijk, "IŠbi-Erra, Kindattu, l'homme d'╔lam et la chute de la ville d'Ur," Journal of Cuneiform Studies 30, 1978, pp. 189-208. Idem, "Die dynastischen Heiraten zwischen Kassiten und Elamern. Eine verhńng-nisvolle Politik" Orientalia 55, 1986, pp. 159-70. F. H. Weissbach, Die Keilinschriften der Achńmeniden, Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 3, Leipzig, 1911. C. Wilcke, "Die Inschriftenfunde der 7. und 8. Kampagnen (1983 und 1984)," in B. Hrouda, Isin. IŠ[email protected]^[email protected] III. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1983-1984, Abh. Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Kl., N.F. 94, Munich, 1987, pp. 83-120. T. C. Young, "The Early History of the Medes and the Persians and the Achaemenid Empire to the Death of Cambyses," Cambridge Ancient History IV, 1988, pp. 1-52.
The archeological use of the term "Elam" is based on a loose unity recognizable in the material cultures of the period 3400-525 B.C.E. at Susa in KĘ[email protected]@n, at Anshan (q.v.) in [email protected], and at sites in adjacent areas of the Zagros mountains, particularly in the modern provinces of [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected] (Figures 1, 2; Carter, 1984, p. 103). Text-based definitions (see i, above; cf. Steinkeller, 1988; idem, 1990) often lead to interpretations that are at odds with those derived from the study of material culture. This article is based on evidence from controlled excavations and surveys in the geographically diverse areas called Elam in a general cultural sense, though not in a more precise geographical sense. Most of the archeologically excavated material comes from the large site of Susa.
The archeological record.
Susa was excavated almost continuously from the late nineteenth century until the Persian revolution of 1357 ł./1978. Both Jacques de Morgan and Robert de Mecquenem, the successive directors of the French archeological mission from 1897 to 1946, were trained as mining engineers and brought that background of large-scale earth removal to archeology. They were also uninterested in the excavation of mud-brick buildings and little concerned with archeological contexts and associations. Roman Ghirshman, director from 1946 to 1967, adopted the "organic" method of excavation, clearing large areas of mud-brick buildings, in order to gain an idea of the overall city plan in the 2nd millennium B.C.E. Controlled stratigraphic excavations at the site began only in the 1960s, when first M.-J. Steve and then Jean Perrot became directors of the French archeological mission at Susa. Although large numbers of objects were found in earlier campaigns, the relative chronology of this material has only recently been established (Carter, 1992, pp. 20-24). Other excavations, in KĘ[email protected]@n, [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected], have been so much smaller in scale and shorter in duration that comparisons with Susa are difficult (for summaries of these smaller excavations and surveys in both KĘ[email protected]@n and the highlands, as well as comprehensive bibliographies, see Carter, 1984, pp. 108-10; Hole, 1987, pp. 293-321).
Elam was distinct from the contemporary civilizations of Sumer and the Indus valley in the episodic cultural and political integration of large expanses of geographically diverse territory. The lines of communication between Susa and Anshan, the largest cities of Elam, as well as with other, more distant mountain regions, were limited in number and generally difficult, owing to rugged topography. Neither Susa nor Anshan was centrally located in its own region or lay directly on major international trade routes; both could easily be bypassed through the Persian Gulf, on the sea route between Mesopotamia and the Indus valley. Susiana, the plain in which Susa is located, was the only large lowland region in Elam, an extension of the Mesopotamian plain. It is the best known from excavations, but, because of its location, its material culture was also the most heavily influenced by Mesopotamia of any Elamite region. Many upland valleys in the folds of the Zagros were linked with Susa culturally or politically at various points in its history. Most prominent were the Kor river basin in [email protected] ca. 500 km southeast, where Anshan was situated, and [email protected] and [email protected], where the SimaŠki lands may have been located (Henrickson, 1984; for another view, see i, above). These highland areas, which are still for the most part unexplored, are considered to have been the Elamite core. The southeastern Zagros, where large deposits of copper ores have been identified, are known through excavations at Tepe Sialk (S^[email protected]), Tepe Yahya (Yahß[email protected]), Tall-i Iblis (Ebl^s), and Shahdad (ł[email protected]). Excavated finds suggest that this region was part of the Elamite cultural world, at least in some periods (cf. Amiet, 1986, pp. 160-70, referring to the region as "trans-Elamite"). Both Susiana in the west and the regions to the southeast in the [email protected] range should perhaps be considered the Elamite periphery. Mobile pastoralism and agriculture formed the basis of economic life in Elam, but trade and exchange with lowland Mesopotamia, particularly in metals, timber, and various stones, also played a part in the Elamite economy from as early as the 4th millennium B.C.E. (Alizadeh, 1988; Algaze, pp. 11-18).
The Proto-Elamite (Susa III/Banesh) period, ca. 3400/3200-2800 B.C.E.
The Proto-Elamite period was characterized by a distinctive assemblage of artifacts and an artistic style distributed from [email protected] in the west to [email protected] in the east. The artifacts include administrative texts written in the still undeciphered proto-Elamite script (see iii, below; Plate I); a distinctive glyptic style (Pittman, 1992a; see CYLINDER SEALS, p. 485); ceramics (cf. Le Brun, 1971, figs. 60-66; see CERAMICS vi); and various stone and metal objects made from materials mined, worked, or both in the Iranian highlands and shipped east and west. The establishment of a city at Anshan during the Proto-Elamite period (also called Banesh after the corresponding archeological phase in central [email protected]) and smaller outposts at Tepe Sialk and Tepe Yahya in the eastern highlands suggest that the foundations of the union between lowland and highland regions characteristic of later Elam were first laid in the late 4th millennium. The archeological evidence also indicates that in the [email protected] range an indigenous population coexisted with a foreign, Proto-Elamite group; the latter had an administrative technology and material culture closely linked to, if not imported from, those known from Susa or Anshan (Carter, 1984, pp. 115-32).
Susa remains the site of reference for any discussion of the Proto-Elamite period, as controlled stratigraphic work on the Acropole (Le Brun, 1971; idem, 1978) has led to a more exact definition of the assemblage. Earlier excavations had also yielded more than 1,450 tablets written in the Proto-Elamite script and a large corpus of contemporary seals and sealings (Damerow and Englund, p. 2 n. 4; Harper et al., pp. 70-77 nos. 48). Excavations at Anshan (Sumner, 1974; idem, 1976) have revealed the construction of a city wall and a sequence (ABC levels IV-II) of mud-brick public buildings dated to the Proto-Elamite (Banesh) period (Plate II). Most remarkable are the building phases from levels III and II in operation ABC. The level-III structure was precisely constructed and had painted walls (Plate III); the level-II building was a fragmentary large structure containing twelve painted pithoi, indicating a central storage facility. Some idea of daily life in Proto-Elamite Anshan can be gained from a building characterized by domestic installations and areas of small-scale craft activity, called TUV, on the edge of the city (Nicholas). By 3000 B.C.E. Anshan, estimated at 50 ha (Sumner, 1988, p. 317), had become the largest known settlement in Elam. Contemporary Susa is estimated at less than 11 ha. There were no other large settlements in Susiana during the Proto-Elamite period. The rapid growth of Anshan, coinciding with the decline of population in Susiana, led J. R. Alden (1982, p. 620; 1987, pp. 159, 164 table 28) to suggest emigration from lowland Susiana to Anshan just before 3000 B.C.E.
The Old Elamite period (ca. 2600-1600 B.C.E.).
The dynasties of Awan and SimaŠki. The period in which these two dynasties reigned corresponds approximately to periods IV-V at Susa (ca. 2600-1900 B.C.E.; Schacht). At sites in the [email protected] range Proto-Elamite administrative texts and associated glyptic and ceramics fell into disuse at some time between 2900 and 2800. At Anshan a gap in the sequence occurs at ca. 2600, and the site was not reoccupied on an urban scale until the Kaftari phase (ca. 2200), when the Proto-Elamite city wall was repaired (Sumner, 1988, p. 317). Proto-Elamite tablets and seals disappeared at Susa at about the same time as in the [email protected] range. Statues and wall plaques found without clear contexts on the Acropole indicate the presence of a temple of Mesopotamian type, albeit a rather poor example (Amiet, 1976). Susian ceramics datable to the mid-3rd millennium are not of Mesopotamian inspiration, however. Monochrome-painted wares decorated with birds, plants, and geometric motifs (Henrickson, 1986, pp. 15-16 table 3) and accompanying plain wares have their closest analogues in assemblages from [email protected] and [email protected] (Godin III6-5; CERAMICS vii).
Susa grew from approximately 11 to 46 ha during the 3rd millennium. According to textual sources, it was a border city alternately under control of the highland polities of Awan and SimaŠki and the Akkadian and Ur III empires of Mesopotamia. To a degree these shifting relations are reflected in the archeological record, for example, the increasing popularity of Akkadian glyptic and ceramic types and the disappearance of monochrome-painted wares in Susa IVB (Carter, 1980, pp. 25-30). After the Akkadian period, seals (CYLINDER SEALS, pp. 486-92) and ceramics in Susiana continued to be strongly influenced by Mesopotamian styles through the 3rd and most of the 2nd millennia; at Susa, for example, buff-ware cups, bowls, and goblets were similar to, though not identical with, Mesopotamian pottery forms (CERAMICS viii).
Only a few small scattered settlements appeared elsewhere in Susiana during the last centuries of the 3rd millennium. Tepe Mussian ([email protected]^[email protected]), on the Deh Loran (q.v.) plain 90 km to the northwest of Susa, was the only other large town (14 ha) of this period in KĘ[email protected]@n (Schacht, pp. 174-75; Wright, 1981, pp. 192-95).
In [email protected], in the PoŠt-e [email protected], several small groups of stone-built underground burial chambers have been investigated; they are located apart from settlement sites. These cemeteries, datable ca. 2600-2400 B.C.E., attest to a period of prosperity in the region (Vanden Berghe, pp. 39-50). Funerary goods in the larger tombs included copper or bronze weapons and ceramic pots closely paralleling those of Susa IVA and Godin III6-5 (Henrickson, 1986, pp. 23-25). Around 2400 these tombs were superseded by smaller stone cist graves also grouped in cemeteries isolated from settlement sites. Claire Goff (pp. 150-51) points out that new settlements were appearing along traditional migration routes during the late 3rd millennium and that these changes in the locations of settlements away from prime farming land may have reflected a shift from agriculture to stock breeding and the beginning of transhumance in the region. Farther north the establishment of towns at sites like Godin (Gowd^n) Tepe, Girairan ([email protected]), and Tepe Giyan (G^[email protected]) indicate a period of growth in [email protected] The painted-ceramic assemblage called Godin III, dating from the mid-to-late 3rd millennium, though modified over time, continued in use in [email protected] until the second half of the 2nd millennium, when it was superseded by Iron I wares (Henrickson, 1987).
During the second half of the 3rd millennium B.C.E. cities, presumably the centers of larger states, also grew up in the areas southeast of Anshan. Shahdad, on the western edge of the DaŠt-e [email protected], and Shahr-i Sokhta (łahr-e [email protected]˛ta) in the Helmand river valley on the Afghan border are the two best-known sites (Hakemi; Lamberg-Karlovsky and Tosi). It is possible that Shahdad (ł[email protected]) should be considered an Elamite center, but limited excavation and publication of the archeological finds prevent final identification. Material remains discovered there and at Tepe Yahya, 250 km to the southwest, date from the late 3rd through the early 2nd millennium. These finds show links with the east (in ceramics, compartmentalized stamp seals, various exotic stones) and the west (cylinder seals, stone and ceramic vessels, a Proto-Elamite B inscription; Carter, 1984, pp. 136-41; Amiet, 1986, pp. 160-70). Growth in the Shahdad region may perhaps have been initially stimulated by an earlier Proto-Elamite presence in the area, but by the mid-3rd millennium the city was the major urban center in the region, identified by Piotr Steinkeller (1982; 1990) with MarhaŠi and by Franšois Vallat (1993, pp. cxiii-cxviii) with SimaŠki.
At Tepe Yahya a workshop for making chlorite vessels was discovered in level IVB (ca. 2600-2300 B.C.E.). Chlorite vessels decorated in the intercultural, or "old," style were shipped from Yahya and presumably neighboring sites to Mesopotamian temples, as well as to destinations in the east (Kohl, pp. 464-66). A simpler, "new," style of chlorite vessel and "Persian Gulf seals" were found together at later sites on the Persian Gulf and in Susa and Mesopotamia. These discoveries, as well as the use of Omani copper in Mesopotamia by the mid-3rd millennium, attest to use of the sea route between Mesopotamia and eastern Iran in the late 3rd millennium. By period IVA (ca. 2300-1800 B.C.E.) Tepe Yahya had reached its maximum size and come within the sphere of influence of the Shahdad culture (de Miroschedji, 1973; Carter, 1990, pp. 97-98).
The Sukkalmah Period (ca. 1900-1600 B.C.E.). Early in the 2nd millennium Susa expanded and became a city covering an estimated 85 ha. New towns and villages appeared all over the Susiana plain and in the surrounding upland valleys (Schacht, pp. 177-80; Carter, 1984, pp. 146-55). Anshan and the [email protected] river basin also experienced a period of growth, and settlement in both areas reached a peak that remained unparalleled until the Achaemenid period (Sumner, 1988; de Miroschedji, 1990, p. 49-62). The distribution of small settlements across the Susiana plain and the [email protected] river basin suggests the agricultural exploitation of the two plains and the use of irrigation canals (Sumner, 1989; Carter, 1984). Texts from Susa and the relatively large number of villages and towns found in the plains indicate a high level of agricultural development in the period. Susa became a political capital and an international city active in Near Eastern politics and trade, a locus of cultural and commercial interchange between the mountain folk of the Zagros and the inhabitants of the Mesopotamian plain.
The excavations in Ville Royale A and B at Susa, conducted by Roman Ghirshman (for a complete bibliographic summary, see Steve et al., pp. 148-54), yielded archeological and architectural sequences spanning most of the 2nd millennium B.C. and provided evidence of town planning. Courtyard houses of mud brick opened from large intersecting streets or from smaller alleys. The dead were frequently buried in baked-brick (family?) tombs under house or courtyard floors; this custom remained in use at Susa until the middle of the 1st millennium.
In this period the repertoire of buff-ware ceramics at Susa was expanded to include such new forms as the "Elamite flask" with painted decoration and gray wares; these objects permit cross dating with the Kaftari assemblage at Anshan (Carter, 1979; idem, 1984, fig. 10).
Contemporary Anshan is much less well-known than Susa. The Kaftari ceramic assemblage, characterized by painted buff ware decorated with rows of birds (Plate IV), is clearly a local development, as are the plain and painted Kaftari red wares (cf. CERAMICS vi). These vessels were used along with plain buff wares reminiscent of Susian and Mesopotamian types. Cuneiform documents from Anshan also underscore the ties of the city with the lowlands in the sukkalmah period. There was a scribal school at Anshan (Stolper, 1976, pp. 90-91), and all known documents were written in both the language and format usual in Mesopotamia. So far no Elamite tablets from the early 2nd millennium B.C.E. have been found in Anshan, but it seems possible that they will appear in future excavations. The glyptic includes Mesopotamian-inspired pieces, an eastern group of cylinder and stamp seals distinguished by ladies in "crinolines," and "popular style" seals, usually of bitumen (cf. CYLINDER SEALS, pp. 489-90).
There is still little archeological evidence for this period from areas farther east, but to the northwest, in [email protected] and [email protected], the older towns of the Godin III4-3 cultures continued to be occupied.
The Middle Elamite period (ca. 1600-1000 B.C.E.).
The beginning of the Middle Elamite period is marked historically by the disappearance of the dynasty of the Sukkalmahs and the revival of the royal title "king of Susa and Anshan." The end is conventionally placed at ca. 1000 B.C.E. Few changes in material culture can be identified before the 8th century, however (de Miroschedji, 1981a; idem, 1982, pp. 60-63), and there are gaps in the written sources at both the beginning and the end of the period.
Middle Elamite I (1600-1350 B.C.E.). The archeological and art-historical distinctions that mark the beginning of the period are matters of debate (e.g., Carter, 1984, pp. 144-45; idem, 1994b; Steve, Gasche, and De Meyer, p. 78; Spycket, 1992a, pp. 230-33). This uncertainty reflects the absence of published stratigraphic information on the Ville Royale A at Susa and a scarcity of other documentation (cf. Vallat, 1990, pp. 124-25). Architectural remains from Susa AXII-XI include the large central building (ca. 1600-1450), possibly a beer hall and brothel associated with the cult (TrŘmpelmann, pp. 36-44), and a large courtyard house (the eastern complex) with a long construction history. The use of four pilasters attached to the long walls of the main reception room distinguished the Susian house plan from those common in Mesopotamia (Roaf, p. 82).
The major architectural remains known from this period are, however, at Kabnak (Haft Tepe) in the Susiana plain 25 km southeast of Susa. Excavated structures include a funerary temple and associated vaulted baked-brick underground tombs, as well as two mud-brick terraces (possibly the eroded cores of ziggurats) and adjacent rooms (Negahban, pp. 12-19, plans 1-7). One fragmentary inscribed stele found in the temple courtyard near the largest of the tombs indicates that the complex was part of a funerary cult center maintained by, if not built for, King Tepti-ahar in the 16th century B.C.E. (Reiner). Attached to the larger mud-brick terrace were a double-chambered kiln and a workshop area, providing evidence of metal, bone, mosaic, and shell-working, as well as ceramic production and the modeling of unbaked clay heads. Painted clay funerary heads first appeared in Middle Elamite I contexts at Kabnak and continued in use throughout the period (cf. Amiet, 1966, figs. 347-53; Spycket, 1992b, pp. 135-36; Negahban, pp. 37-39; Plate V).
Characteristic Middle Elamite I ceramic types include a variety of round-shouldered, button-, stump, or pedestal-based jars or goblets (Negahban, figs. 2-7; Gasche, type 20 a-b). The final date at which these forms were in use appears to have been ca. 1350, for they are unknown at A┌l UntaŠ NapiriŠa (┘[email protected] Zanb^l, q.v.; the ancient city was also known as [email protected] UntaŠ). Glyptic of this period from Susiana shows close links with seals and sealings from Nuzi in northern Mesopotamia; the latter are well dated to the 15th-14th centuries B.C.E. (cf. CYLINDER SEALS, pp. 492-93).
Middle Elamite II-III (ca. 1350-1000 B.C.E.). The periodization followed here is less finely drawn than one based on texts. The written sources show that the Elamite kings of this period successfully invaded Mesopotamia and controlled the hinterlands of Susiana: the Persian Gulf coast and [email protected] This picture is confirmed by the distribution of archeological sites and finds from [email protected] to [email protected] (Figure 2). The use of the Elamite language in documents and inscriptions, as well as the development of distinctive art and architectural forms, underscores the rise of Elam as an international power. The royal sponsorship of metalworking and related technologies is revealed by finds from the major cities of KĘ[email protected]@n. The demand for minerals and luxury goods in the sanctuaries and courts of the Late Bronze Age indicates that interregional and international trade in raw materials was an additional factor in the growing power of the Elamite kings of this period (Carter, 1984, pp. 156-81). The concentration of population in larger towns and cities during the Middle Elamite period suggests that pastoralism, trade, and plunder may have replaced an earlier life style in which both the Susiana plain and the [email protected] river basin were farmed extensively by a more settled rural population.
A┌l UntaŠ NapiriŠa is the major excavated site of the period. The ziggurat and its surrounding temples may have served as a kind of common sanctuary, where the major divinities of the entire realm were brought together (de Miroschedji, 1980, pp. 142-43). It appears that most of the city was never settled intensively (Ghirshman, 1966, pp. 7-10; idem, 1968, avant propos). In the royal quarter excavation revealed a group of three monumental buildings with large courts surrounded by long halls and storerooms. Palaces II and III may have served to house the royal entourage and can be dated to the time of UntaŠ NapiriŠa; Palace I, the hypogeum palace, was planned to include five vaulted underground tombs similar to those at Haft Tepe.
Architectural remains from Susa are poorly known from this period owing to the methods of the early excavators. To judge from the numbers of inscribed bricks found on the site, UntaŠ NapiriŠa was an active builder and restorer of sanctuaries, but the major preserved remains date from the łutrukid dynasty (ca. 1210-1100 B.C.E.). These rulers rebuilt the structures on the Acropole, using glazed bricks (Heim, 1992b, pp. 123-27). Restored plans, based on the inadequate records of the early excavators, include temples identified as those of Ninhursag and InŠuŠinak in the central and western parts of the mound flanking the central ziggurat. An enigmatic southwestern structure yielded the stele with the law code of Hammurabi, the stele of Naram Sin, and a number of victory trophies brought back from Mesopotamia by the Middle Elamite kings. Through the display of such captured monuments and trophies it is probable that they attempted to establish Susa as a great city in the Mesopotamian tradition and to legitimize their dynasty as the successors of the defeated Kassite kings, who had ruled in Meso-potamia for around 400 years (Brinkman, pp. 86-90; Harper).
Inscribed baked bricks and pottery from Liyan (modern [email protected]Šehr) on the Persian Gulf and inscribed bricks from Tulaspid (Tolasp^d), not far from Fahl^[email protected] (90 km northwest of Anshan), reveal a Middle Elamite presence along the major trade routes between Susiana and [email protected] in the latter half of the 2nd millennium B.C.E. (Peézard, pp. 39-96; Herzfeld, pp. 176-78). In [email protected] proper, no trace of artifacts of Susian style has been recovered outside Anshan (see Sumner 1988). Contemporary sites west of the [email protected] river are identified by the presence of painted Qaleh (Qal┐a) pottery (CERAMICS viii), those east of the river by Shogha (ł[email protected]) and Teimuran ([email protected]@n) wares (Jacobs, pp. 157-70). The strong lowland cultural affinities of the Middle Elamite materials from Anshan, in contrast to the local character of the finds from archeological surveys of the surrounding [email protected] river region, suggest that in the late 2nd millennium the town was an isolated outpost of the kings of Susa (Carter, 1984, pp. 172-80). The highest point of the city was occupied by a variety of constructions, including a monumental structure covering more than 1000 m2 (Carter, forthcoming; idem and Stolper; Figure 3) and datable, by epigraphic, archeological, and radiocarbon-14 data, to the time of HutelutuŠ-InŠuŠinak (ca. 1120), the last king of the Middle Elamite dynasty. The core of the building consists of an unroofed rectangular courtyard surrounded by a long, narrow corridor from which open rooms or suites. The entire structure has the same basic layout, pattern of access, and architectural decoration as those in the palaces at A┌l UntaŠ NapiriŠa in KĘ[email protected]@n (cf. Ghirshman, 1968, plans 13, 14), but it is smaller and constructed without extensive use of baked bricks. Cuneiform texts written in Elamite were stored in the building, which thus functioned as some kind of administrative complex (Stolper, 1984). Many tablets were impressed with a distinctive seal, its design composed of deeply impressed points arranged in intersecting lozenge patterns (Carter, forthcoming; Plate VI).
The ceramics of Middle Elamite II-III are defined by excavated assemblages from A┌l UntaŠ NapiriŠa and Susa (Ville Royale II, levels 13-10). The most distinctive shape is the "Elamite goblet" (Gasche, type 19c), which became more elongated and cylindrical in phase III (de Miroschedji, 1981a, pp. 15-16; Ghirshman, 1966, pp. 91-92). These vessels are found as far north and west as Tepe Guran ([email protected]; Thrane, p. 31) in [email protected] and as far south and east as Anshan. At Anshan the buff wares, with their parallels in the lowlands, were associated with Qaleh painted wares. Outside [email protected] Qaleh painted wares have been discovered in ╚d˛a (Wright, 1979, figs. 42-43) and the [email protected]@z region of eastern KĘ[email protected]@n and in [email protected] (Carter, 1994a; Schmidt, van Loon, and Curvers, pls. 109/g, k, e, 115/b). Only a few examples of Qaleh painted wares are known from Kabnak in Susiana proper (Negahban, fig. 13/153-55). The distribution of 2nd-millennium painted wares suggests that the ceramic traditions of the central Zagros were distinct from those in contemporary Susiana, where ceramics influenced by Mesopotamian wares prevailed.
The main evidence for Middle Elamite II-III glyptic is a group of more than 160 seals found at A┌l UntaŠ NapiriŠa (CYLINDER SEALS, pp. 494-96). They were votive objects and were found in association with numerous small animal figurines that must have served a similar purpose (Porada, p. 3). The cylinders in "pseudo-Kassite" and "elaborated Elamite" styles closely resemble Mesopotamian Kassite seals but are made of a distinctive dark-blue glass. Sealings in the latter style from as far away as Zubeidi (Zobeyd^) in the Jabal H«amr^n in Iraq reveal trade links between Elam and Kassite Babylonia (Boehmer and Dńmmer, pp. 68-73). The majority of Middle Elamite II-III seals were made of faience, with banquet, hunting, and worship scenes (Porada, 1970, pp. 27-41, 57-74). The same types have been found at the sanctuary site of Surkh Dum (Sork˛-e Dom) in [email protected] (e.g., Schmidt, van Loon, and Curvers, seals 65, 75, 77, 80).
The most outstanding works of art from the period are cast bronzes found by the early excavators at Susa. They include the headless bronze and copper statue of Napir-Asu, wife of UntaŠ NapiriŠa, found in the so-called "temple of Ninhursag" on the Acropole at Susa (Harper et al., pp. 132-34). The "sit Šamsi" (lit., "sunrise") is a three-dimensional bronze model of a cult scene made for łilhak-InŠuŠinak (Plate VII). The setting of this ritual scene between a ziggurat and a temple recalls the arrangement of cult installations discovered at the foot of the ziggurat at A┌l UntaŠ NapiriŠa and those presumed to have existed on the Acropole at Susa. In addition to metalwork, glass, faience, and glazing technologies were highly developed in the Middle Elamite II-III period (Heim, 1992a, pp. 202-04) and continued to flourish during the first phase of the Neo-Elamite period (de Miroschedji, 1981a, pp. 37-38). Discoveries of faience figurines and containers at Surkh Dum (Schmidt, van Loon, and Curvers, pls. 148-54) suggest the impact of lowland Elamite culture on the mountain folk of [email protected]
Characteristic of the popular arts in Elam in this period are terra-cotta figurines and models. Small round tables holding food offerings have been found at Susa and Haft Tepe (TrŘmpelmann, pl. 4). Terra-cotta models of beds are also typical of the late 2nd millennium B.C.E. but do not appear to continue into the Neo-Elamite period. Naked female figurines supporting their breasts with their hands came into fashion at mid-millennium and continued in use until ca. 1000 (Spycket, pp. 237-50). Figurines of hump-backed bulls were found in levels AXII-IX at the Ville Royale at Susa and have parallels at Kabnak, A┌l UntaŠ NapiriŠa, and Anshan (Carter, 1984, fig. 11). These objects suggest a continuity of popular religious beliefs through the latter half of the 2nd millennium.
Also suggesting continuity of religious beliefs are the rock-cut sanctuaries of the Elamite highlands: [email protected]@[email protected] and NaqŠ-e Rostam (Seidl, pp. 6-19) in [email protected] and [email protected] Fara and ł[email protected] [email protected] near ╚d˛a/[email protected]^r in eastern KĘ[email protected]@n (de Waele, pp. 45-62). [email protected]@[email protected] was begun under the sukkalmahs but was expanded during Middle Elamite II-III. [email protected] Fara and ł[email protected] [email protected] were also carved in the Middle Elamite period but possibly usurped and reused later in the Neo-Elamite period (see below). These shrines indicate an Elamite presence in the mountains of Iran through the second half of the 2nd millennium B.C.E. and the early 1st millennium.
The Neo-Elamite period.
At the end of the 2nd millennium B.C.E. Susa rapidly lost its position of importance. Famines around the turn of the millennium appear from archeological surveys to have had disastrous effects on the farming populations of Susiana (de Miroschedji, 1981b, pp. 170-72; idem, 1990, pp. 58-60). By 1000 the Susian kings had also lost their foothold in Anshan, and new ethnic groups, or perhaps groups that had been subservient to Elamite populations, may have pushed the remaining Elamites into the valleys of eastern KĘ[email protected]@n (Carter, 1994a).
Both archeological and historical records confirm the renewal of Susa late in the 8th century B.C.E. By that time, however, at least two other Elamite centers, Madaktu and Khidalu, had come to play major roles in Elamite politics (de Miroschedji, 1986). Excavations at Susa nevertheless provide some data on the period. A sounding in Ville Royale II produced eight levels dating from the second half of the 2nd through the first half of the 1st millennium. Pierre de Miroschedji (1981a, p. 40) dated levels 9-8 to Neo-Elamite I (ca. 1000-725/700) and levels 7-6 to Neo-Elamite II (ca. 725/700-520). Little imported pottery and few small objects are known from these excavations, but there is enough to show considerable continuity between the early Neo-Elamite phase and preceding late Middle Elamite. Shared features include ceramic types, faience objects, and glyptic styles. Neo-Elamite II was distinguished by disappearance of long-lived Elamite ceramic types like the "Elamite goblet," the vat, and the band-rim jar, as well as the introduction of new ceramic and glyptic types (Carter, 1984, pp. 184-85 fig. 12). The seals and impressions, for the most part discovered in the earlier excavations, include both examples closely related to contemporary Assyro-Babylonian cut-style seals and a more local group, characterized by pairs of confronted or entwined beasts framed by inscribed panels (de Miroschedji, 1982, pp. 51-63; CYLINDER SEALS, pp. 496-501).
Early excavations at Susa also revealed a small temple decorated with glazed tiles on the Acropole; it was datable to the time of łutruk-Nahhunte II (ca. 716-699 B.C.E.; Amiet, 1966, fig. 380), the most powerful of the Neo-Elamite kings. Burial vaults of mud or baked brick or both were also discovered in several areas at Susa. They yielded gold jewelry and richly decorated faience objects, including containers and small bird figurines. These burial practices are linked with earlier Elamite traditions (Heim, 1992a, p. 203). The rich funerary offerings also attest to a period of renewed prosperity at Susa in the 8th century B.C.E.
Scattered archeological evidence shows that eastern KĘ[email protected]@n increased in importance during the late 2nd and early 1st millennia B.C.E. The only excavated site in the region is Tall-i Ghazir (Tal-e G┌az^r) in the [email protected]@z plain about 150 km southeast of Susiana and less than 50 km east of [email protected], surrounded by the foothills of the Bak˛t^[email protected]^ mountains. The ceramic sequence found there parallels that known from Susa, and archeological surveys suggest that the period was one of population growth in the area (Carter, 1994a). Surveys in the ╚d˛a region, 80 km north of [email protected]@z, have so far failed to reveal any material of the Neo-Elamite I and II periods (Bayani, p. 102). The inscriptions carved on rock reliefs at łekaft-e [email protected], 3 km south of ╚d˛a, and [email protected] Fara, 7 km northeast, indicate that the region was part of a state called Aapir, ruled by Hanni, a contemporary of łutur-Nahhunte (for the dating of these reliefs, see de Waele, 1972; Carter, 1984, pp. 170-71; Stolper, 1984, pp. 170-71 nn. 364, 366).
The chance discovery of an extraordinarily rich tomb near [email protected], on the road to [email protected] 10 km north of [email protected] and 100 km southeast of Ghazir (Alizadeh, 1985, p. 49), also suggests that eastern KĘ[email protected]@n was probably much more important in the period than can at present be proved. The [email protected] tomb contained a U-shaped bronze coffin of a type known in Mesopotamia (e.g., at Ur) and Iran (e.g., at Z^v^a). Objects inside it included a large, inscribed gold "ring," ninety-eight bracteates, a dagger, some textile fragments, and a silver rod. On the floor of the tomb chamber were an elaborate bronze stand, a lamp, a silver jar, a bronze jar, a bronze cup with rounded bottom, and ten cylindrical vases. The date of the tomb is disputed; both the late 8th century and the period between 640 and 525 have been suggested (Alizadeh, 1985, pp. 67-68; Vallat, 1984), but there is no doubt that it is of the Neo-Elamite II phase.
Northwest of Susiana in [email protected] Neo-Elamite II material has been discovered at the Surkh Dum shrine, level IIB. These discoveries in turn confirm that the influence of łutruk Nahhunte II (ca. 716-699 B.C.E.), the most powerful of the Neo-Elamite kings, also reached into the mountains northwest of Susiana (Schmidt et al., p. 490). But the rising power of the Medes still farther to the northwest and of the Persians to the southeast appears to have pushed the Elamites of the early 1st millennium B.C.E. into the Bak˛t^[email protected]^ mountains between Anshan and [email protected] at the end of the period (Carter, 1995).
The rise of the Achaemenid empire brought an end to the existence of Elam as an independent political power but not as a cultural entity. Indigenous Elamite traditions (e.g., the use of the title "king of Anshan" by Cyrus (q.v.); the "Elamite robe" worn by Cambyses (q.v.) and seen on the famous winged genii at Pasargadae; some glyptic styles; the use of Elamite as the first official language of the empire; and the persistence of Elamite religious personnel and cults supported by the crown formed an essential part of the newly emerging Achaemenid culture in [email protected] Neo-Elamite traditions in domestic pottery, metallurgy, and glyptic, however, continued in use in KĘ[email protected]@n until at least as late as ca. 520 B.C.E., when Darius I (q.v.) took Susa (de Miroschedji, 1985, pp. 296-303). Under Darius the entire city was rebuilt, and, although some Elamite traditions, like the extensive use of molded glazed-brick panels and the use of Elamite in official inscriptions and administration, persisted, they were minor elements in the newer and more international Achaemenid imperial styles.
Bibliography: J. R. Alden, "Trade and Politics in Proto-Elamite Iran," Current Anthropology 23/6, 1982, pp. 613-40. Idem, "The Susa III Period," in F. Hole ed., The Archaeology of Western Iran, Washington, D.C., 1987, pp. 157-70. G. Algaze, The Uruk World System. The Dynamics of Expansion of Early Mesopotamian Civilization, Chicago, 1993. A. Alizadeh, "A Tomb of the Neo-Elamite Period at [email protected], near [email protected]," AMI, N.F. 18, 1985, pp. 49-73. Idem, "Socio-Economic Complexity in Southwestern Iran during the Fifth and Fourth Millennia B.C. The Evidence from Tall-i Bakun A," Iran 26, 1988, pp. 17-34. P. Amiet, ╔lam, Auvers-sur-Oise, 1966. Idem, "Contribution aÓ l'histoire de la sculpture archa´que de Suse," CDAFI 6, 1976, pp. 47-82. Idem, L'Ôge des eéchanges inter-iraniens 3500-1700 J.-C., Paris, 1986. M. I. Bayani, "The Elamite Periods on the Izeh Plain, " in H. T. Wright ed., Archaeological Investigations in Northeastern Xuzestan, 1976, Technical Reports 10, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1979, pp. 99-113. R. Boehmer and H. Dńmmer, Tell Imlihiye, Tell Zubeidi, Tell Abbas, Baghdader Forschungen 7, Mainz, 1985. J. R. Brinkman, A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia, 1158-722 B.C., Analecta Orientalia 43, Rome, 1968. E. Carter, "Elamite Pottery, ca. 2000-1000 B.C.," JNES 38/2, 1979, pp. 111-28. Idem, "Excavations in Ville Royale I at Susa. The Third Millennium B.C. Occupation," CDAFI 11, 1980, pp. 7-134. Idem, "Archaeology," in E. Carter and M. W. Stolper, Elam. Surveys of Political History and Archaeology, Near Eastern Studies 25, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1984, pp. 103-230. Idem, "Elamite Exports," in F. Vallat, ed., Contribution aÓ l'histoire de l'Iran. Meélanges offerts aÓ Jean Perrot, 1990, pp. 89-100. Idem, "Bridging the Gap Between the Elamites and the Persians in Southeastern Khuzistan," in H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg et al., eds., Achaemenid History. Continuity and Change VIII, Leiden, 1994a, pp. 65-95. Idem, "Mittelelamische Kunstperiode (Middle Elamite (ME) Period)," RlA 8/3-4, 1994b, pp. 309-16. Idem, Excavations at Tal-e Malyan, Iran. The Middle Elamite Period, University Museum Monograph 75, Philadelphia, forthcoming. Idem and M. W. Stolper, "Middle Elamite Malyan," Expedition 18/2, 1976, pp. 33-42. P. Damerow and R. K. Englund, The Proto-Elamite Texts from Tepe Yahya, Cambridge, Mass., 1989. H. Gasche, La poterie eélamite du deuxieÓme milleénaire a.C., Meémoires de la Deéleégation archeéologique en Iran 47, Leiden and Paris, 1973. R. Ghirshman, Tchoga Zanbil (Dur-Untash) I. La Ziggurat, Meémoires de la Deéleégation archeéologique en Iran 39, Paris, 1966. Idem, Tchoga Zanbil (Dur-Untash) II. Temenos, temples, palais, tombes, Meémoires de la Deéleégation archeéologique en Iran 40, Paris, 1968. C. Goff, "[email protected] before the Iron Age," Iran 9, 1971, pp. 31-51. A. Hakemi, Catalogue de l'exposition. Lut, Shahdad (Xabis), Tehran, 1972. P. Harper, "The Mesopotamian Presence. Mesopotamian Mounuments Found at Susa," in P. Harper, J. Aruz, and F. Tallon, eds., The Royal City of Susa. Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre, New York, 1992, pp. 159-62. S. Heim, "Glazed Objects and the Elamite Glaze Industry," in P. Harper et al., eds., The Royal City of Susa. Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre, New York, 1992a, pp. 202-10. Idem, "Royal and Religious Structures and Their Decoration," in P. Harper et al., eds., The Royal City of Susa. Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre, New York, 1992b, pp. 123-37. R. Henrickson, "łimaŠki and Central Western Iran. The Archaeological Evidence," ZA 74, 1984, pp. 98-122. Idem, "A Regional Perspective on Godin III. Cultural Development in Central Western Iran," Iran 24, 1986, pp. 1-55. Idem, "Godin III and the Chronology of Central Western Iran circa 2600-1400 B.C.," in F. Hole, ed., The Archaeology of Western Iran, Washington, D.C., 1987, pp. 205-27. E. Herzfeld, The Persian Empire. Studies in Geography and Ethnography of the Ancient Near East, ed. G. Walser, Wiesbaden, 1968. F. Hole, ed., The Archaeology of Western Iran, Washington, D.C., 1987. L. Jacobs, Darvazeh Tepe and the Iranian Highlands in the Second Millenium B.C., Ph.D. diss., University of Oregon, Eugene, 1980. P. Kohl, "The Balance of Trade in Southwestern Asia in the Mid-Third Millennium B.C.," Current Anthropology 19/3, 1978, pp. 463-92. C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky and M. Tosi, "Shahr-i Sokhta and Tepe Yahya. Tracks on the Earliest History of the Iranian Plateau," East and West 22, 1973, pp. 21-58. A. Le Brun, "Recherches stratigraphiques aÓ l'Acropole de SuseŚ1969-1971," CDAFI 1, 1971, pp. 163-216. Idem, "Le niveau 17B de l'Acropole de Suse (campagne de 1972)," CDAFI 9, 1978, pp. 57-154. P. de Miroschedji, "Vases et objets en steéatite susiens," CDAFI 3, 1973, pp. 9-79. Idem, "Le dieu eélamite Napirisha," RA 74, 1980, pp. 129-43. Idem, "Fouilles du chantier Ville Royale II aÓ Suse (1975-1977) I. Les niveaux eélamites," CDAFI 12, 1981a, pp. 9-136. Idem, "Prospections archeéologiques au Khuzistan en 1977," CDAFI 12, 1981b, pp. 169-92. Idem, "Notes sur la glyptique de la fin de l'╔lam," RA 76, 1982, pp. 51-63. Idem, "La fin du royaume d'AnŠan et de Suse et la naissance de l'empire perse," ZA 75, 1985, pp. 265-306. Idem, "La localisation de Madaktu et l'organisation politique de l'╔lam aÓ l'eépoque neéo-eélamite," in L. De Meyer et al., eds. Fragmenta Historiae Aelamicae. Meélanges offerts aÓ M. J. Steve, Paris, 1986, pp. 209-25. Idem, "La fin de l'╔lam. Essai d'analyse et d'interpreétation," Iranica Antiqua 25, 1990, pp. 47-95. E. Negahban, Excavations at Haft Tepe, University Museum Monograph 70, Philadelphia, 1991. I. Nicholas, The Proto-Elamite Settlement at TUV, University Museum Monograph 69, Philadelphia, 1990. M. Peézard, Mission aÓ Bender-Bouchir. Documents archeéologiques et eépigraphiques, Meémoires de la Deéleégation en Perse 15, Paris, 1914. H. Pittman, "The Proto-Elamite Period," in P. Harper et al., eds., The Royal City of Susa. Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre, New York, 1992a, pp. 68-70. Idem, "The Late Uruk Period," in P. Harper et al., eds., The Royal City of Susa. Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre, New York, 1992b, pp. 48-57. E. Porada, Tchoga Zanbil (Dur-Untash), Meémoires de la Deéleégation archeéologique en Iran 42, Paris, 1970. E. Reiner, "Inscription from a Royal Elamite Tomb," Archiv fŘr Orientforschung 24, 1973, pp. 87-102. M. Roaf, "The Diffusion of the 'Salles aÓ quatre saillants,'" Iraq 35, 1973, pp. 83-91. R. M. Schacht, "Early Historic Cultures," in F. Hole, ed., The Archaeology of Western Iran, Washington, D.C., 1987, pp. 171-203. E. Schmidt, M. van Loon, and H. Curvers, The Holmes Expeditions to Luristan, Oriental Institute Publications 108, Chicago, 1989. U. Seidl, Die elamischen Felsreliefs von [email protected]@[email protected] und NaqŠ-e Rustam, Iranische Denkmńler 12, Berlin, 1986. A. Spycket, Les figurines de Suse. Les figurines humaines IVe-IIe milleénaires av. J-C., Meémoires de la Deéleégation archeéologique en Iran 52, Paris, 1992a. Idem, "The Middle Elamite Period. Metal, Clay and Ivory Sculpture. Funerary Heads," in P. Harper et al., eds., The Royal City of Susa. Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre, New York, 1992b, pp. 135-36. P. Steinkeller, "The Question of Mar¬aŠi. A Contribution to the Historical Geography of Iran in the Third Millennium B.C.," ZA 72, 1982, pp. 237-65. Idem, "On the Identity of the Toponym LU┤.SU(.A)," JAOS 108, 1988, pp. 197-202. Idem, "More on LU┤.SU(.A=łimŠki," Nouvelles assyrio-logiques breÓves et utilitaires 1, 1995, pp. 10-11. M.-J. Steve, H. Gasche, and L. De Meyer, "La Susiane au IIe milleénaire. └ propos d'une interpreétation des fouilles de Suse," Iranica Antiqua 15, 1980, pp. 49-154. M. W. Stolper, "Preliminary Report on Texts from Tal-e [email protected] 1071-1974," in F. Bagherzadeh, ed., Proceedings of the IVth Annual Symposium on Archaeological Research in Iran, Tehran, 1976, pp. 89-100. Texts from Tall-i Malyan. Elamite Administrative Texts (1972-1974), Occasional Publications of the Babylonian Fund 6, Philadelphia, 1984. W. Sumner, "Excavations at Tall-i [email protected], 1971-72," Iran 12, 1974, pp. 155-80. Idem, "Excavations at Tall-i [email protected] (Anshan) 1974," Iran 14, 1976, pp. 103-15. Idem, "Political History," in E. Carter and M. W. Stolper, eds., Elam. Surveys of Political History and Archaeology, Near Eastern Studies 25, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1984, pp. 3-100. Idem, "[email protected], Tall-e," in RlA, 1988, 7/3-4, pp. 306-20. Idem, "Anshan in the Kaftari Phase. Patterns of Settlement and Land Use," in L. De Meyer and E. Haerinck, eds., Archaeologia Iranica et Orientalis. Miscellanea in Honorem Louis vanden Berghe I, Ghent, 1989, pp. 135-61. H. Thrane, "Tepe Guran and the Luristan Bronzes," Archaeology 23, 1970, pp. 26-35. L. TrŘmpelmann, "Eine Kneipe in Susa," Iranica Antiqua 16, 1981, pp. 35-44. F. Vallat, "Kidin-Hutran et l'eépoque neéo-╔lamite," Akkadica 37, 1984, pp. 1-17. Idem, "Reéflexions sur l'eépoque des sukkalmah," in F. Vallat, ed., Contribution aÓ l'histoire de l'Iran. Meélanges offerts aÓ Jean Perrot, Paris, 1990, pp. 119-27. L. Vanden Berghe, "La construction des tombes au Pusht-i [email protected], [email protected], au 3e milleénaire avant J.-C.," Iranica Antiqua 14, 1979, pp. 39-49. E. de Waele, "Shutruk-Nahhunte II et les reliefs rupestres dits neéo-eélamites d'Iseh-Malamir," Revue des archeéologues et historiens d'art de Louvain 5, 1972, pp. 17-31. Idem, "Travaux archeéologiques aÓ ł[email protected] [email protected] et [email protected] Farah preÓs d'Iz˛eh ([email protected]^r)," Iranica Antiqua 16, 1981, pp. 45-62. H. T. Wright, ed., Archaeological Investigations in Northeastern Xuzestan, 1976, Technical Reports 10, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1979. Idem, ed., An Early Town on the Deh Luran Plain. Excavations at Tepe Farukhabad, Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, The University of Michigan, 13, Ann Arbor, 1981.
Figure 1. Major settlements in Elam and adjacent areas, ca 3000-2000 B.C.E.
Figure 2. Major settlements in Elam and adjacent areas, ca 2000-640 B.C.E.
figure 3. Plan of the Middle Elamite building at Anshan (Tal-e [email protected]). after Carter, 1996, fig.6.
"Proto-Elamite" is the term for a writing system in use in the Susiana plain and the Iranian highlands east of Mesopotamia between ca. 3050 and 2900 B.C.E., a period generally considered to correspond to the Jamdat Nasr/Uruk III through Early Dynastic I periods in Mesopotamia. This span is represented in Iran by levels 16-14B in the Acropole at Susa (Le Brun, 1971), as well as Tepe Yahya (Yahß[email protected]) IVC, Sialk (S^[email protected]) IV2, and Late Middle Banesh (BaneŠ). Proto-Elamite tablets are the earliest complex written documents from the region; the script consists of both numerical and ideographic signs, the latter sometimes assumed to represent a genetically related precursor of the Old Elamite language (see iv, below). This supposed precursor language is, however, unknown, and the script itself has been only partially deciphered. Nevertheless, conclusions about the contents of the Proto-Elamite texts can be drawn from contextual analyses and formal similarities to proto-cuneiform tablets from Mesopotamia. In particular, the structure of published documents containing accounts and the use of numerical signs and of certain signs for objects in bookkeeping can be somewhat clarified.
History of decipherment. Since the first Proto-Elamite documents were discovered at the turn of the century (Scheil, 1900, pp. 130-31; Friberg, I, pp. 22-26) approximately 1,450 Proto-Elamite tablets from Susa have been published. Recent excavations at other sites have proved that the script and numerical systems known from Susa were in use at administrative centers ranging across Persia as far as the Afghan border, including the sites of Sialk, Malyan (Mal^[email protected]), Yahya, and Shahr-i Sokhta (łahr-e [email protected]˛ta; Damerow and Englund, 1989, pp. 1-2; Stolper, 1985, pp. 6-8; Sumner, 1976; Carter and Stolper, p. 253; Nicholas, p. 45). The texts, written on clay tablets, seem without exception to be administrative documents: receipts and transfers of grain, livestock, and laborers; rationing texts; and so on. There are neither literary nor school texts of the sort known as "lexical lists" from contemporary Mesopotamia. The earlier "numerical tablets" from Godin (Gowd^n) Tepe V and Chogha Mish (┘[email protected] M^Š, q.v.), generally dated contemporary with Uruk IVb and level 17 in the Acropole at Susa, lack ideographic signs and are thus not classified as Proto-Elamite (Weiss and Young, pp. 9-10; Porada, p. 58)
Some scholars have attempted to demonstrate a link between the Proto-Elamite and Linear Elamite scripts (see v, below; Hinz, 1975; Meriggi, 1971-74, I, pp. 184-200; Andreé and Salvini), but adducing syllabic values proposed for Linear Elamite has not led to successful deciphering of Proto-Elamite. A preliminary graphotactical analysis of the Proto-Elamite texts has also met with only modest success (Meriggi, 1975; idem, 1971-74, I, pp. 172-84; Brice, 1962-63, pp. 28-33; Gelb, 1975). Other scholars have attempted to establish a connection between Proto-Elamite and proto-cuneiform, which first appeared in Uruk IVa (ca. 3200-3100 B.C.E.) and thus seems to predate Proto-Elamite by about a century (Langdon, p. viii; de Mecquenem, p. 147; Gelb, 1952, pp. 217-20; Meriggi, 1969; Damerow and Englund, 1989, pp. 11-28).
Advances in the decipherment of Proto-Elamite have been hindered to a certain degree by the absence of necessary philological tools. A first step would be a sign list sufficiently dependable and cleansed of redundant variants to offer an approximate idea of the number and frequency of signs in the scribal repertoire, as well as providing a transcriptional instrument for analysis of sign combinations and simple contexts. Such textual work is a pre-requisite for a complete edition of the Proto-Elamite texts.
Sign lists provided by early editors (Scheil, 1905; idem 1923; idem, 1935; de Mecquenem; Meriggi, 1971-74) have proved wanting (Damerow and Englund, 1989, pp. 4-7). The first serious attempt at a formal description and decipherment of Proto-Elamite script was undertaken in the 1960s and early 1970s (Brice, 1962-63; idem, 1963; Meriggi, 1971-74; Vaiman, 1989a). Most recent advances have resulted from a new understanding of the structure of the numerical sign systems, which has provided a powerful tool for semantic identification of a number of ideograms, including those for grain products, animals, and, it seems, human beings (Vaiman, 1989a; Friberg, I; Damerow and Englund, 1989).
Format and semantic hierarchy. Proto-Elamite texts are written on clay tablets similar in general shape and proportions to Mesopotamian clay tablets of the 3rd millennium B.C.E., including Uruk III proto-cuneiform tablets of the later phase. The tablets are thick oblongs, their height and width normally in a ratio of 2:3. Following the convention established in the earliest proto-cuneiform phase, Proto-Elamite scribes used both sides of the tablet. Regardless of the space remaining after two or more entries on the obverse, the scribe usually rotated the tablet around a vertical axis and recorded the totals along the upper edge of the reverse. Larger accounts could have a more complex format (Brice, 1962-63, pp. 20-21; Vaiman, 1989a, pp. 130-32; Damerow and Englund, 1989, pp. 11-13; Figure 1).
Three features distinguish Proto-Elamite tablets from proto-cuneiform documents, however. First, the Proto-Elamite documents were written in a linear script. Second, the first signs on a tablet, the heading, have approximately the same function as the proto-cuneiform "colophon," which is usually inscribed together with the final total on the reverse of the tablet; Proto-Elamite headings never contain numerical notations, however. Third, each entry normally includes an ideogram followed by a numerical notation, a divergence from the strict sequence of numerical sign followed by ideogram in proto-cuneiform texts.
The heading of a Proto-Elamite tablet generally specifies the purpose and authorizing person or institution; the best known such ideographic designation is the so-called "hairy triangle", which seems to represent a leading institution or possibly kin group in Elam. Qualifying ideograms were inscribed within this sign, apparently to designate subordinate institutions or groups (Dittmann, 1986a, pp. 332-66; Lamberg-Karlovsky, p. 210; Damerow and Englund, 1989, p. 16). Following these introductory sign combinations are the individual entries, in horizontal registers without regard to formal arrangement into columns (Figures 2 -3). The ideograms in Proto-Elamite text entries seem almost exclusively to denote persons, quantified objects, or both; sign combinations seeming to designate persons invariably precede those designating quantified objectswhen both appear in one notation. A sign or sign combination representing a person or title is often introduced by a sign representing his position. Objects are generally designated by ideograms in combination with qualifiers; as yet, however, there are no statistical means of testing the probability that certain signs functioned as qualifiers of presumed substantives.
In Proto-Elamite documents there can be multiple entries with different levels of internal organization. A text may consist simply of a sequence of entries of exactly the same type; an example would be a list of grain rations for a number of different recipients. A text may also embody a hierarchical order of transmitted information, as in the oft-encountered alternation of two different types of entry, perhaps a number of workers followed by the amount of grain allotted to them. In this instance the two entries may be considered to be combined in a more comprehensive text unit. A text may also, however, be highly structured, with many identifiable levels, reflecting, for instance, the organizational structure of a labor unit (Figures 2-3; Nissen, Damerow, and Englund, pp. 116-21).
That all entries seem to contain numerical notations suggests that they represent a bookkeeping system, rather than the distinct sentences or other comparable semantic units of a spoken language. This semantic structure is evidence of a close relation between Proto-Elamite and proto-cuneiform texts. Proto-Elamite headings correspond to the "colophons" that often accompany totals on proto-cuneiform texts. Entries in Proto-Elamite documents correspond to the physically encased notations on proto-cuneiform texts; curiously, the hierarchical structure of individual Proto-Elamite entries is not reflected in a syntactical structure, whereas in Mesopotamian texts this hierarchy continues to be represented in some measure by the graphic arrangement of cases and subcases. Despite different graphic forms, Proto-Elamite texts thus exhibit the same general semantic structure as that of proto-cuneiform texts. This relationship must be considered a strong indication of their relative chronology: The more developed linear syntax apparent in Proto-Elamite texts, in which the graphical arrangement of semantic units has been dispensed with, implies that proto-cuneiform is earlier. This conclusion is in full accord with the established stratigraphic correspondences between Susa and Uruk (Dittmann, 1986a, pp. 296-97, 458 table 159e; Dittmann, 1986b, p. 171 n. 1).
Numerical sign systems. Early work on the numerical notations in Proto-Elamite texts was hampered by inadequate identification of individual signs and in particular of sign systems, which were applied in Mesopotamia and Elam to record different types of objects. Initially there was an attempt to combine a large number of what are now recognized as incompatible numerical notations into a single "decimal" system (Scheil, 1905, pp. 115-18; idem, 1923, p. 3). This attempt was abandoned in 1935, when it was recognized that different numerical systems had been in use in Mesopotamia, particularly for enumeration of discrete objects and for measuring grain by capacity (Scheil, 1935, pp. i-vi). It was, however, mistakenly assumed that the sign (Symbol 1) had the same decimal value 10 x (Symbol 2) (instead of 6 x (Symbol 2) ) when representing grain measures as when representing numbers of discrete objects (Thureau-Dangin, p. 29; Langdon, pp. v, 63-68; Vaiman, 1989a), which prevented understanding of capacity notations until the late 1970s (Friberg, 1978-79). Although detailed documentation of the various numerical systems has not yet been undertaken, the formal structure of these systems and their dependence upon the older proto-cuneiform systems are now clear (Damerow and Englund, 1987, pp. 117-21, 148-49 n. 12; idem, 1989, pp. 18-30).
As the semantic analysis of Proto-Elamite is largely dependent upon examination of the contexts in which signs are used, the close connection with proto-cuneiform sources in the numerical systems has been helpful in establishing correspondences between Proto-Elamite and proto-cuneiform ideograms. For example, the sexagesimal system used in Meso-potamia for most discrete objects, including domestic and wild animals, human beings, tools, products of wood and stone, and containers (sometimes in standard measures), is also well attested in the Susa administrative texts, though the field of application seems limited to inanimate objects like jars of liquid and arrows (Damerow and Englund, 1989, pp. 52-53). A decimal system used in Proto-Elamite texts for counting animals and human beings has no proto-cuneiform counterpart. Bisexagesimal notations qualify barley products, as in contemporary Mesopotamian documents. The numerical system for indicating grain capacity involves signs from the sexagesimal system but with entirely different arithmetical values. This system is well attested in both Proto-Elamite and proto-cuneiform sources and seems to have had the same area of application. In particular, the small units inscribed below (Symbol 2) are qualifying ideograms for grain products, thus denoting the quantity of grain in one unit of the product. The Proto-Elamite system differs from the proto-cuneiform system in that below the sign (Symbol 2) only units that are multiples of one another appear (e.g. 1/2, 1/4, 1/8), a simpler system than the somewhat cumbersome use of fractions in proto-cuneiform texts (Damerow and Englund, 1987, pp. 136-41). As with the proto-cuneiform texts, in the Proto-Elamite texts there are numerical systems graphically derived from the basic systems but perhaps applied to different sorts of discrete objects or grain (Figure 4). All these similarities together suggest that the Proto-Elamite systems, with the exception of the decimal system, were borrowed from Mesopotamia; even signs in the decimal system were apparently borrowed from the Mesopotamian bisexagesimal system to represent the higher values 1,000 and 10,000.
Ideograms. Semantic analysis of the objects counted by the decimal system has led to the probable identification of a number of ideograms. The most important are the two signs (Symbol 3) and (Symbol 4) . The graphic form, as well as the association, of the ideogram (Symbol 3) with other signs strongly resembling proto-cuneiform signs known to represent domestic animals, in particular sheep and goats (Symbol 5), suggests the interpretation of this sign as "sheep" (Figure 1). In texts from the essentially rural economy of ancient Persia the large numerical notations qualifying this ideogram and related signs seem to confirm the identification. The fact that the signs are on the whole abstract forms may suggest either a set of symbols for domestic animals common in Mesopotamia and Susiana before the inception of written documents or, more likely, signs borrowed in altered form from Uruk (Damerow and Englund, 1989, pp. 53-55).
It appears that the very common sign (Symbol 4) was used to qualify personal names. All signs or sign combinations in a text may be introduced by it, though more commonly it introduces only the first entry (Damerow and Englund, 1989, pp. 53-55). The same sign was used as an ideogram for objects, together with decimal notations commonly used for counting animals. This double function suggests that the sign denotes a category of workers or slaves. The use of the sign in both ways is firmly established in the text illustrated in Figures 2-3 (Damerow and Englund, 1989, pp. 56-57; Nissen, Damerow, and Englund, pp. 116-21). In the same text numbers of objects represented by this ideogram correspond to a regular capacity measure of barley of 1/2 (Symbol 2), parallel to texts known from contemporary Mesopotamia. Finally, the sign is often used parallel to signs that may
thus also be interpreted as referring to persons. One of them is a clear graphic equivalent of the proto-cuneiform sign SAL (Symbol 6), so that both the graphic and semantic correspondences of proto-Elamite (Symbol 4) to proto-cuneiform (Symbol 7), meaning "male slave/laborer" (Vaiman, 1989b), seem clear.
Bibliography: B. Andreé and M. Salvini, "Reéflexions sur Puzur-InŠuŠinak," Iranica Antiqua 24, 1989, pp. 53-72. W. Brice, "The Writing System of the Proto-Elamite Account Tablets of Susa," Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 45, 1962-63, pp. 15-69. Idem, "A Comparison of the Account Tablets of Susa in the Proto-Elamite Script with Those of Hagia Triada in Linear A," Kadmos 2, 1963, pp. 27-38. E. Carter and M. Stolper, Elam. Surveys of Political History and Archaeology, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1984. P. Damerow and R. K. Englund, "Die Zahlzeichensysteme der archńischen Texte aus Uruk," in M. Green and H. Nissen, eds., Zeichenliste der Archńischen Texte aus Uruk, Berlin, 1987, pp. 117-66. Idem, The Proto-Elamite Texts from Tepe Yahya, American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 39, Cambridge, Mass., 1989. R. Dittmann, Betrachtungen zur FrŘhzeit des SŘdwest-Iran, Berlin, 1986a. Idem, "Susa in the ProtoľElamite Period and Annotations on the Painted Pottery of Proto-Elamite Khuzestan," in U. Finkbeiner and W. R÷llig, eds., GŽamdat Nasßr. Period or Regional Style? Wies-baden, 1986b, pp. 332-66. J. Friberg, The Early Roots of Babylonian Mathematics, 2 vols., G÷teborg, 1978-79. I. Gelb, A Study of Writing, Chicago, 1952. Idem, "Methods of Decipherment," JRAS, 1975, pp. 95-104. W. Hinz, "Persia ca. 2400-1800 B.C.," in I. Edwards, C. Gadd, and N. Hammond, eds., The Cambridge Ancient History I/2, Cambridge, 1971, pp. 644-80. Idem, "Problems of Linear Elamite," JRAS 1975, pp. 106-15. C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, "Third Millennium Structure and Process. From the Euphrates to the Indus and the Oxus to the Indian Ocean," Oriens Antiquus 25, 1986, pp. 189-219. S. Langdon, Pictographic Inscriptions from Jemdet Nasr, Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts 7, Oxford, 1928. A. Le Brun, "Recherches stratigraphiques aÓ l'Acropole de Suse, 1969-1971," CDAFI 1, 1971, pp. 163-216. R. de. Mecquenem, ╔pigraphie proto-eélamite, Meémoires de la Deéleégation en Perse 31, Paris, 1949. P. Meriggi, "Altsumerische und proto-elamische Bilderschrift," ZDMG Suppl. 1, 1969, pp. 156-63. Idem, La scrittura proto-elamica, 3 vols., Rome, 1971-74. Idem, "Comparaisons des systeÓmes ideéo-graphiques mino-myceénien et proto-eélamique," in M. Ruipeérez, ed., Acta Mycenaea II, Minos 12, 1972, pp. 9-17. Idem, "Der Stand der Erforschung des Proto-elamischen," JRAS, 1975, p. 105. I. Nicholas, "Investigating an Ancient Suburb," Expedition 23, 1981, pp. 39-47. H. Nissen, P. Damerow, and R. Englund, FrŘhe Schrift und Techniken der Wirtschaftsverwaltung im alten Vorderen Orient, 2nd ed., Bad Salzdetfurth, Germany, 1991. E. Porada, "Iranian Art and Archaeology. A Report of the Fifth International Congress, 1968," Archaeology 22, 1969, pp. 54-65. E. Reiner, "The Elamite Language," in B. Spuler, ed., Altkleinasiatische Sprachen, Leiden, 1969, pp. 54-118. V. Scheil, Textes eélamites-seémitiques, Meémoires de la Deéleégation en Perse 2, Paris, 1900. Idem, Documents en eécriture proto-eélamite, Meémoires de la Deéleégation en Perse 6, Paris, 1905. Idem, Textes de comptabiliteé proto-eélamites, Meémoires de la Deéleégation en Perse 17, Paris, 1923. Idem, Textes de comptabiliteé proto-eélamites, Meémoires de la Deéleégation en Perse 26, Paris, 1935. M. Stolper, "Proto-Elamite Texts from Tall-i Malyan," Kadmos 24, 1985, pp. 1-12. W. Sumner, "Excavations at Tall-i [email protected] (Anshan) 1974," Iran 14, 1976, pp. 103-15. F. Thureau-Dangin, "Tablettes aÓ signes picturaux," RA 24, 1927, pp. 23-29. A. Vaiman, "Die Bezeichnung von Sklaven und Sklavinnen in der protosumerischen Schrift," tr. T. G÷tzett, in Baghdader Mitteilungen 20, 1989a, pp. 121-33. Idem, "▄ber die Beziehungen der protoelamischen zur protosumeriscnen Schrift," tr. I Damerow, in Baghdader Mitteilungen 20, 1989b, pp. 101-14. H. Weiss and T. C. Young, Jr., "The Merchants of Susa. Godin V and Plateau-Lowland Relations in the Late Fourth Millennium B.C.," Iran 13, 1975, pp. 1-17.
(R. K. ENGLUND)
Linear Elamite was a system of writing used at the end of the 3rd millennium B.C.E. by Puzur-InŠuŠinak, the last of the twelve "kings of Awan," according to a king list found at Susa (Scheil; Gelb and Kienast, pp. 321 ff.; see i, above). He ruled ca. 2150 B.C.E. and was a contemporary of Ur-Nammu, the first ruler of the Ur III dynasty in Mesopotamia, and Gudea, ensi of Lagash (Wilcke, p. 110). Linear Elamite (Meriggi, pp. 184-220, tables I-IV: "script B") may have been derived from Proto-Elamite script ("script A"; see iii, above), with which it has some signs in common; it may not have survived Puzur-InŠuŠinak. It was written either from left to right or from right to left.
There are only twenty-two known documents in Linear Elamite; they are identified by letters A-V (Hinz, 1969, pp. 11-44; Hinz 1971; Andreé and Salvini, 1989, pp. 58-61); nineteen of them are on stone and clay objects excavated in the Acropole at Susa and are now in the Louvre, Paris (cf. Andreé-Salvini, 1992). There is also a fine silver vase with a line of perfectly executed text (Q) preserved in the Tehran Museum; its proverance is unknown (Hinz, 1969, pp. 11-28). Six linear signs, three of which are without parallel (hapax legomena) in known Linear Elamite writing, are engraved on the rim of a vase (S) from Shahdad (ł[email protected]) in [email protected] (Hinz, 1971). Finally, on a marble stamp seal (V) of unknown origin there is a representation of a bull surmounted by three linear signs (two of them unattested variants), which probably hide a personal name (Glock, Auction Drouot, no. 466). A tablet bearing the only Susa Linear Elamite text (O) that does not come from the Acropole includes signs analogous to but different from those on the other objects and must be considered to represent a different and probably older system of writing.
The most important longer texts, appear in monumental contexts, and are partly bilingual. They are engraved on large stone sculptures, including a statue of the goddess Narunte (I), the "table au lion" (A; Figure 1), and large votive boulders (B, D), as well as on a series of steps (not steles! cf. Scheil, MDP X, pp. 9-11, pl. 3; F, G, H, U) from a monumental stone stairway, where they alternated with steps bearing texts with Puzur-InŠuŠinak Akkadian titles (cf. Andreé and Salvini, 1989). There are also a few texts on baked-clay cones (J, K, L), a clay disk (M), and clay tablets (N, O, R). Some objects include both Linear Elamite and Akkadian cuneiform inscriptions: A, I, C (on an alabaster statue), the monumental stairway as a whole, and B (votive boulder Sb 6 joined with Sb 177) have bilingual and bigraphic inscriptions (Andreé and Salvini, 1989), which inspired the first attempts at decipherment of Linear Elamite (Bork, 1905; idem, 1924; Frank).
No decisive progress seems to have been made in more recent times. Walther Hinz's reading and translation of the documents (1962; 1969, pp. 11-44) and his list of sign values must be considered overoptimistic. His list (1969, p. 44) includes fifty-six signs, which are not numbered; he proposed logographic values for four of them, phonetic (syllabic) values for the rest. The signs are ordered on the questionable principle of the alphabetical order of the transcription. Piero Meriggi's approach is more appropriate, in that he has ordered and numbered sixty-two signs, excluding hapax legomena and including some variants, according to form (a criterion already used successfully in deciphering cuneiform writing). Beéatrice Andreé-Salvini and the present author are now preparing a new list, taking into consideration also the frequency of signs, an important element in testing proposed values for those signs. The most frequent sign, attested forty-three times, is a lozenge (Symbol 8), (Symbol 9), to which Meriggi attributed the value ri, though formerly it was read ki.
All attempts at deciphering and reading Linear Elamite have been based on the likelihood that the texts are in the Elamite language (see v, below), which is known for certain only from an older cuneiform text (a treaty between the Akkadian king Naram-Sin and a king of Awan) and from later texts in cuneiform script (see vi, below). Only Ferdinand Bork attempted, in 1924, to link the signs of linear Elamite with cuneiform signs both morphologically and semantically, but his attempt was not successful. Linear Elamite is now generally considered to be unrelated to cuneiform writing in the morphology of the signs. Scholars agree that Linear Elamite is primarily syllabic, with a few logograms. Meriggi attributed open consonant-vowel (CV) values to seventeen signs and vowel-consonant (VC) values to six signs. He also identified two probable vocalic signs (V) and six complex consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) or ideographic signs: those for "sky," "son," "god," "country," and "king" and the purely phonetic sign hal. Meriggi and Hinz agreed on fifteen phonetic and ideographic values. About ten of them had already been proposed by Carl Frank or Bork and are derived, on the basis of the corresponding Akkadian texts, from the name of the sovereign Puzur(Hinz: Kutik)-InŠuŠinak, from his patronym (son of Simbi-iŠhuk), and from the toponym Susa. Frank's sequence in-Šu-Ši-na-ak, su-se-en-ki (1912) corresponds to Hinz's in-Šu-Ši-na-ik, Šu-Ši-im-ki (1969, text A ll. 1, 3; Figure 1). The variant in-Šu-uŠ-na-ak (on step F l. 1), read by Meriggi, appears to confirm the correctness of the earlier readings. The sign unanimously read as nap (Symbol 10) "god" had already been identified by Bork in 1905 as a divine determinative, but personal names plus this determinative are not alone sufficient to verify the assumption that the underlying language is Elamite, although the historical context suggests that it was.
In addition to his sixty-two "principal" signs, Meriggi included numbers 63-103, which are hapax legomena. Some of the latter can be considered variants of the basic signs, but others must be recognized as distinct, as they recur only in tablet O, for which an independent list must be drawn up. On the other hand, certain signs not present in either Hinz's or Meriggi's list, including those that are incomplete because of damage to the documents but are certainly different in form from the recorded signs, must be taken into account. The total number of signs in Linear Elamite must therefore be estimated at more than 100.
One fundamental problem in defining the corpus of texts and consequently what is to be considered Linear Elamite is the necessity of identifying two or three analogous but different Linear Elamite scripts and of investigating their genesis and the relations among them.
Bibliography: B. Andreé and M. Salvini, "Reéflexions sur Puzur-InŠuŠinak," Iranica Antiqua 24, 1989, pp. 53-72. Idem, "B. Andreé-Salvini," in P. O. Harper, J. Aruz, and F. Tallon, eds., The Royal City of Susa. Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre I, New York, 1992, pp. 87-91, 261-64. Auction Drouot, Paris, 16 December 1992. F. Bork, "Zur protoelamischen Schrift," OLZ 8, 1905, pp. 323-30. Idem, Die Strichinschriften von Susa, K÷nigsberg, 1924. C. Frank, Zur Entzifferung der altelamischen Inschriften, Berlin, 1912. I. J. Gelb and B. Kienast, Die altakkadischen K÷nigsinschriften des dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr., Freiburger altorientalische Studien 7, Stuttgart, 1990. A. Glock, ed., Minuscule Monuments of Ancient Art. Catalogue of Near Eastern Stamp and Cylinder Seals Collected by Virginia E. Bailey . . ., Madison, N.J., 1988.
W. Hinz, "Zur Entzifferung der elamischen Strichinschrift," Iranica Antiqua 2, 1962, pp. 1-21. Idem, Altiranische Funde und Forschungen, Berlin, 1969. Idem, "Eine alt-elamische Tonkrug-Aufschrift vom Rande der Lut," AMI, N.S. 4, 1971, pp. 21-24. P. Meriggi, La scrittura proto-elamica, pt. 1, Rome, 1971. V. Scheil, in Textes eélamites-seémitiques IV. Documents archa´ques en eécriture proto-eélamite, Meémoires de la Deéleégation en Perse 10, Paris, 1911, pp. 9-11, pl.3. Idem, "Dynasties eélamites d'Awan et de SimaŠ," RA 28, 1931, pp. 1-8. C. Wilcke, "Die Inschriftenfunder der 7. und 8. Kampagnen (1983 und 1984)," in B. Hrouda, Isin. IŠ[email protected]^[email protected] III. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1983-1984, Abh. Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Kl., N.F. 94, Munich, 1987, pp. 83-120.
The Elamite language is known from texts in cuneiform script (q.v.), most of them found at Susa but some from other sites in western and southwestern Iran and, in the east, in [email protected] and ranging in date from the 24th to the 4th century B.C.E. This span can be divided into four main periods, Old, Middle, and Neo-Elamite and Late Elamite or Achaemenid; most of the surviving material comes from the last three periods, during which the language changed considerably, especially in syntactic structure. There are also indications that the language did not represent one single dialect. The genetic relationship of Elamite to other languages has not so far been established with certainty, though attempts have been made to connect it with Dravidian (McAlpin). A few lexical items are known from non-Elamite texts, chiefly from Mesopotamia.
Script and phonology.
Beginning at the end of the 4th millennium B.C.E. two other writing systems are known from ancient Iran: Proto-Elamite (see iii, above) and Linear Elamite (see iv, above), but they have not yet been deciphered. The Akkadian syllabic system, probably adoped in the 23rd century B.C.E., was used until the 4th century B.C.E. It had signs for syllables consisting of vowels (V) and various combinations of consonants and vowels CV, VC, and CVC, as well as signs for whole words (logograms) and signs serving as semantic classifiers (markers of logograms and indicators of such noun categories as divine names, male or female names, place names, and grain or wood products). Elamite phonology, however, was quite different from that of Akkadian; for instance, it may have included vowels other than the Akkadian a, i, u, and e and consonant groups unknown to Akkadian, including combinations of three consonants or two consonants at the ends of words. To express groups of two or three consonants scribes therefore had to use some VC or CV signs simply for C (e.g., kuŠihŠ, written ku-Ši-ih-Š(i), and kuŠihŠta, written ku-Ši-ih-(i)Š-ta/ku-Ši-ih-Š(i)-ta). The additional vowel was generally i.
Because the syllabary was so unsuited for the Elamite language, it is almost impossible to establish the phonemic system. Nevertheless, the ways in which the scribes used the signs at their disposal reveal numerous features of Elamite phonology, including sandhi and vowel harmony, as well as, in the later period, the loss of h in initial and final position, before consonants, and sometimes also between vowels. The shift of final u to i, which was particularly common in the late period, was sometimes accompanied by vowel assimilation (e.g., puktu > pukti > pikti "help," turu > turi > tiri "to take"). There may have been a stress accent on the first syllable, which would account for the frequent elision of vowels in the second syllable (e.g., kuti-ka, written ku-ti-ka/ku-ut-ka, pulu-hu, written pu-ul-hu) and the occasional writing of first syllables as if they had long vowels or double consonants. The elongation of the vowel of the first syllable was marked by a supplementary vowel, an h, or reduplication of the following consonant (e.g., mari/mauri/marri "to take," muŠa/muhŠa/muŠŠa "to account (for)."
Word formation. Elamite was an agglutinative language. A word usually consisted of a "base" (stem) plus one or more suffixes. The base ended in a vowel and was either identical with a root ending in a vowel or was formed by adding a vowel to a root ending in a consonant. The added vowel could cause the final consonant of the root to be doubled (see below). The root could be monosyllabic or disyllabic. Roots without suffixes and bases with only vocalic extensions could function as words. Word classes included nouns, pronouns, and verbs.
Root words were very common and were of the forms V, VC, VCV, VCC, VCCV, CV, CVC, CVCV, CVCC, CVCCV, and CVCVC. Most of them were nouns, either animate or inanimate (e.g., el "look," me "rear," te "favor," hih "power," hiŠ "name," gil "order," kik "sky," kuk "protection," nap "god," igi "brother," uhi "stone," ulhi "dwelling," husa "wood," kiri "goddess," lani "silver," halti "gate," kassu "horn," hinap "door socket"). Others were pronouns (e.g., i "this," ap "they"). Some roots may have expressed a general range of meaning, however.
The base might be nominal (taking only noun suffixes), verbal (taking verb suffixes and certain noun suffixes; cf. English agent nouns), or nomino-verbal (taking both noun and verb suffixes). The base normally ended in a vowel, being either a root ending in a vowel (examples of nominal bases derived from root words: me- < me "rear," ukku- < ukku "top," akti- < akti "enamel," amma- < amma "mother"; examples of verbal bases: na- "to say," ni- "to be," sa- "to walk," ta- "to place," uzzu- "to arrive," pera- "to read," sinnu- "to come," tingi- "to bring"; example of a nomino-verbal base derived from a root word: giri- [a nominal stem yielding the derived noun and the verbal stem] "to show gratitude, pay homage" < giri "gratitude, homage") or a root ending in a consonant with a vocalic extension. It may be that many roots ending in consonants have so far been found only with vocalic extensions and not as single root words. Bases containing the extension -i were nominal (e.g., stems yielding only derived nouns: kiki- < kik "sky," muri- or muru- [with vowel harmony] < mur "ground") or nomino-verbal (e.g., gili- [nominal stem and verbal stem] "to give orders" < gil "order," meni- [nominal stem and verbal stem] "to rule" < men "crown," mer(r)i- [nominal stem and verbal stem] "to govern" < mer "scepter," peti- [nominal stem and verbal stem] "to [make] fight, rebellion" < pet "fight," ruhi- or ruhu- [with vowel harmony; nominal stem and verbal stem] "to engender, sire" < ruh "man"). Bases with extension -a, sometimes -u, were always verbal (e.g., kaz(z)a- "to strike" < kaz "blow," tah(h) a- "to agree" < tah "pact," tik(k)a- "to plan" < tik "project, plan," situ- "to make happy" < sit "happiness"). The same root could receive different vocalic extensions, for instance, -i or -a/u-, thus yielding either a nominal or a verbal base (e.g., kaz "blow" > nominal stem kaz(z)i- or verbal stem kaz(z)a-, sit "happiness" > nominal stem siti- or verbal stem situ-).
Both nouns and verbs could be formed by reduplication (e.g., the noun patpat < pat "low"; verbal bases [iterative] lili- < li- "to give," tatallu- < tallu- "to write," hahpu- < hapu- "to understand"). Compound nouns were used (e.g., kikmurun "world" < kik "sky + murun "earth"), and verbal bases could also be formed by attaching a verb to a substantive (e.g., hunsa "to equalize, exchange, reward" < hun "equal/same" + sa "to go").
Nominal suffixes. So-called "classifiers" were added to a nominal base to form words. Such nominal suffixes defined the noun as the speaker (first person), the person spoken to (second person), or the person or thing spoken of (third person). The suffixes were, for the first person, -k; for the second, -t; for the third, animate singular, -r, animate plural, -p, and inanimate -me (including abstract and collective nouns), -t, and -n (neutral). Inanimate nouns of the -me class could be identical with nominal and pronominal bases or verbal bases and participial forms (verbal nouns). Nominal suffixes were also attached to the locative particle aha- "there," to the negative particle in-, to the numerals, and to country names to form ethnic nouns; attached to the pronominal base i- (< i, invariable demonstrative pronoun), they also served to form anaphoric and personal pronouns. Indeed, anaphoric pronouns i-r, i-p (respectively third-person singular and plural), i (me class), and i-n (-n class), as well as personal pronouns, both animate u, nuku (first-person singular and plural), nu, num (second-person singular and plural), and i-r, ap (third-person singular and plural) and inanimate i (me class) and i-n (n class), included forms with nominal suffixes. There was an accusative form for personal pronouns, marked with nominal suffix -n. Personal pronouns (archaizing or dialectal forms) added to words were used as possessive adjectives.
Verbal suffixes. Personal suffixes of the verbal conjugation, two participial suffixes, and animate third-person singular and plural suffixes could be added to the verbal base. The infinitive could be derived from the verbal base without suffix. The personal suffixes of the verbal conjugation expressed the perfective aspect and indicated person and number (first-person singular -h, second-person singular -t, third-person singular -Š; first-person plural -hu, second-person plural -ht, third-person plural -hŠ).
The verbal bases were used to produce the participial form with suffix -n (passive or reflexive, imperfective or durative aspect) and the participial form with suffix -k (passive, perfective aspect). To express the subject or agent the two participles and the agent noun received animate nominal suffixes (e.g., hutta-n "(is/was being/will be) done," hutta-n-r "he on whom the process hutta-n depends" = "he is/was/will be doing"; hutta-k "(it was) done," hutta-k-r "he on whom the process hutta-k depended" = he did/has done"). The verbal base was also used to produce agent nouns with nominal third-person suffixes -r and -p (active, interminate aspect; e.g., hutta-r/p "he is/they are a doer/doers").
The optative particle -ni followed the perfective forms, whereas the prohibitive particle ani/u was followed by the imperfective forms.
The syntax of written Elamite clearly contained elements from various dialects and was therefore unstable. Furthermore, in the course of time sentence structure shifted from being based on nouns and the use of anaphoric pronouns with animate classifiers indicating person to a system centered on verbs.
Generally speaking, the sentence consisted of a noun followed by various complements (qualifiers, determiners). The verb was always placed at the end of a clause, and in simple statements the most common word order was subject-object-verb/agent-patient-verb. The relations among the elements of nominal chains were indicated by nominal suffixes and word order. For example, when a noun qualified a preceding noun or pronoun (cf. English apposition) its formative suffix, if present, agreed with the nominal class of the word it qualified (e.g., u sunki-k "I king(-k)," the animate first-person singular suffix -k showing that "king" refers to "I"; nap pahi-r "god protector(-r)," the animate third-person singular suffix -r showing that "protector" refers to an animate third-person singular noun; sunki-r peti-r ak tari-r "king(-r) enemy(-r) and/or ally(-r)" = "king, enemy, and/or ally").
When a noun or pronoun (whether or not formed with a suffix) was the determining complement of a preceding noun, it was marked with the suffix of the nominal class of the word it completed (e.g., pahi-r sunki-p-r "protector(-r) king(-p)-r" = "protector of the kings," the first -r showing that the word is animate third-person singular, the suffix -p indicating the animate third-person plural, the second -r showing that the second word is dependent upon pahi-r; takki-me u-me "life(-me) I-me" = "life of me" or "my life," the second -me showing that "I" is dependent upon takki-me; igi-Šutu u-p "brother-sister I-p" = "brothers and sisters of me" or "my brothers and sisters," the third-person plural suffix -p indicating a relationship between "I" and "brothers and sisters"; cf. English genitive).
In more complex nominal chains a determining noun could itself be determined by its own determining noun (e.g., takki-me igi-Šutu u-p-me "life(-me) my brothers-and-sisters-me" = "life of my brothers and sisters," the suffix -me forming the abstract takki-me and the second -me indicating that "my brothers and sisters" is dependent upon takki-me).
Words could be subordinated to one another by means of nominal constructions, simple or complex. In these constructions the anticipated subordinating word was in turn represented by an anaphoric pronoun, followed by a determining word indicating the nature of the subordination (manner, place, or time). The anaphoric pronoun and the determining word formed a syntactic unit. In the complex construction a personal pronoun was subordinated to the determined anaphoric pronoun. This personal pronoun was marked with the suffix of the nominal class of the subordinating word. For example, in the sentence peti-r i-r pat-r u-r "enemy(-r) he(-r) below-r I-r" = "(should thou place) the enemy under me" the suffix -r of the anaphoric pronoun shows that the anticipated subordinating word is animate third-person singular, and the last -r shows that "I" is dependent upon the determined anaphoric pronoun "he." In the simple construction the word immediately preceding the syntactic unit was subordinated to the determined anaphoric pronoun referring to it (e.g., kiti-n . . . zalmu u-me i-n ukku-n "the divine rule(-n) . . . statue I-me it(-n) above-n" = "the divine rule . . . (should be placed) above my statue," the suffix -n of the anaphoric pronoun indicating that the subordinating word is inanimate of the n class. The same syntactic unit could complete an anticipated word (e.g., suhmutu . . . i giri-me tah "stele (me class) it gratitude-me I have placed" = "I have placed . . . the stele in gratitude," the anaphoric prounoun i of the syntactic unit indicating that the completed word is inanimate of the me class. As the focus of Elamite syntax gradually shifted from nouns to verbs, anaphoric pronouns were used less to introduce syntactic units, and in the late period they came to be understood as simple postpositions or adverbs, used with or without nominal suffixes.
A verb could be used to modify a following verb, in which case the personal suffix could be omitted from the first verb (e.g., pepŠi(-h) hutta-h "(I-)renewed I-made" = "I did again").
A complex statement could contain several clauses, either coordinated or linked by subordination. Subordination was hierarchical and obeyed the word order sub-subordinate, subordinate, main clause. The mark of subordination (last in a chain of suffixes) could be a nominal suffix, the suffix -a, or both for relative clauses, whether or not introduced by relative pronouns (animate akka, inanimate appa), and the suffix -a (as, whereas, because) after other subordinate clauses. It was attached to what would be the verb of the subordinate clause in English. In addition, the suffix -a was attached to suffixes of determining words placed at the ends of subordinated noun clauses.
When the main verb at the end of a clause was preceded by pronouns referring to nouns in an earlier clause the syntactic functions of those nouns were reflected in the order of the pronouns: beneficiary/indirect object, subject/agent, direct object/patient (usually followed by -n).
Direct and indirect speech were identified by the verb ma- placed at the end of the quotation.
Examples. siyan d.Upurkupak-me "temple (siyan, me class) GOD.Upurkupak-me" sunki-p uri-p u-p "kings(-p) predecessors(-p) I-p" łuŠun in-me (> im-me) "(in) Susa not(-me) (i.e., siyan, me class) kuŠi-hŠ-me-a (> ma) "they-have-built-me-that" u kuŠi-h "I I-have-built" = "The temple of Upurkupak that the kings my predecessors had not built in Susa I have built."
d.Nahhunte "GOD.Nahhunte" kulla-n-k-a "(I am) implor-ing(-k)-which" kula-i (> kula-a) "prayer-this" u i-r (> ur) "for me he" tumpa-n-r-a "fulfill-ing(-r)-he-whereas" ak "and" turu-n-k-a "(I am) express-ing(-r)-which" hutta-n-r-a "realiz-ing(-r)-whereas" siyan-kuk siyan "siyankuk temple" i-me "he-me" (i.e., siyan, me class) upat hussi-p-me "bricks (upat, plural animate) colored(-p)-me" kuŠih "I-have-built" = "For Nahhunte, (who) fulfills for me this prayer that I implore and (who) realizes (it) as I express (it), I have built his siyan-kuk temple of colored bricks."
tetin-i "column-this" hiŠ u-me-ni ak hiŠ "name of-mine and the names" appa aha tallu-h-a "that there I-have-written-that" akka melka-n-r-a "who(ever) (will be) destroy-ing(-r)-who" ak suku-n-r-a "and will be suppress-ing(-r)-who" ak hiŠ duhi-e "and name own-his" aha-r tatallu-n-r-a "there(-r) reinscrib-ing(-r)-who" d.InŠuŠinak i-r si-r-a "GOD.InŠuŠinak he(-r) before-r-who" ani uzzu-n "let-not be walk-ing" = "Whoever would destroy and suppress name of mine and names that I have written on this column and (then) would reinscribe his own name, may he not walk before InŠuŠinak!"
kukunnum "the kukunnum" sunki-p uri-p u-p "kings(-p) predecessors(-p) I(-p)" in-me (> im-me) "not(-me)" (i.e., kukunnum, me class) kuŠi-hŠ-a "they-have-built-which" u kuŠi-h "I I-have-built" d.NapiriŠa ak d.InŠuŠinak "GOD.NapiriŠa and GOD.InŠuŠinak" siyan-kuk-p-a "siyan-kuk-p-who" duni-h "I-have-attributed" hutta-k hali-k u-me "done labored I-me" (i-n) li-n-a "(it) present-n-that" ap u i-n (> apun) "to-them by-me it" tela-k-ni "address-ed-let-be" = "The kukunnum that the kings my predecessors had not built I built. I have attributed (it) to NapiriŠa and InŠuŠinak, (who are) of siyan-kuk. May my 'work' be addressed as a present by me to them!"
m.Kutir-d.Nahhunte "PERSON.Kutir-GOD.-Nahhunte" zalmu erintum-ia "statues baked-bricks-of" huhta-Š "he-has-built" ak siyan d.InŠuŠinak-me "and the temple (siyan, me class) GOD.InŠuŠinak-me" aha-n "there(-n) (n class = neutral) kuŠi-n-k "(I am) build-ing(-k) ma-r "(is) speaker" ak in-me (> im-me) "and not(-me) (i.e., siyan, me class) kuŠi-Š "he-has-built" = "Kutir-Nahhunte has made statues of baked bricks and says 'I have built the temple of InŠuŠinak there,' and he has not built (it)."
Bibliography: F. Bork, "Die elamische Klam-mer," Archiv fŘr Orientforschung 9, 1934, pp. 292-300. I. M. Diakonoff, "Die elamische Sprache," Die Sprachen des alten Vorderasien, Moscow, 1967, pp. 85-112. J. Friedrich, "Altpersisches und Elamisches," Orientalia, N.S. 17, 1949, pp. 1-29. G. B. Gragg, "Less-Understood Languages of Ancient Western Asia," in J. Sasson, ed., Civilizations of the Ancient Near East IV, New York, 1995, pp. 2161-79. F. Grillot-Susini, ╔leéments de grammaire eélamite, Paris, 1987. Idem, "Une nouvelle approche de la morphologie eélamite. Racines, bases et familles de mots," JA 282, 1994, pp. 1-18. R. T. Hallock, Persepolis Fortification Tablets, Oriental Institute Publications 92, Chicago, 1969. W. Hinz, "Problems of Linear Elamite," JRAS, 1975, pp. 106-15. Idem and H. Koch, Elamisches W÷rter-buch, 2 vols., AMI N.S. 17, 1987. W. F. K÷nig, Die elamischen K÷nigsinschriften, Archiv fŘr Orient-forschung 16, 1965. R. Labat, "Structure de la langue eélamite," Confeérences de l'Institut de Linguistique de l'Universiteé de Paris 10, 1957, pp. 23-42. D. W. McAlpin, Proto-Elamite-Dravidian. The Evidence and Its Implications, Philadelphia, 1981. P. Meriggi, La scrittura proto-elamica, 3 vols., Rome, 1971-74. H. H. Paper, The Phonology and Morphology of Royal Achaemenid Elamite, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1955. E. Reiner, The Elamite Language, HO I2/1-2, pp. 54-118. Idem, "Elamite," in International Encyclopaedia of Linguistics I, New York, 1992, pp. 406-09.
The information furnished by archeological excavations in Persia and by cuneiform documents permit a summary description of some aspects of Elamite religion from the end of the 3rd millennium B.C.E. until the Achaemenid period. As most of this material comes from Susiana (mainly Susa, ┘[email protected]@ Zanb^l [q.v.], and Haft Tepe), a region under strong Mesopotamian influence, it is difficult to extrapolate specifically Elamite features. Some such features can be identified from finds on the Persian plateau, however, particularly at [email protected]@[email protected], NaqŠ-e Rostam, and Tal-e Mal^[email protected] in [email protected]; [email protected]^r in KĘ[email protected]@n; and ł[email protected] in [email protected]; and at Liyan ([email protected]Šehr) on the Persian Gulf. Furthermore, certain details can be drawn from Mesopotamian documents, both written and iconographic. Analysis of the Elamite religion thus requires isolation in the Susian documentation of elements that are not Mesopotamian and that can be compared with what is otherwise known from the Persian plateau and adjacent areas.
In texts from Susa written in Sumerian, Akkadian, or Elamite (see vii, below) and in Mesopotamian documents relating to Elam more than 200 divinities are mentioned as having been honored in Susiana and on the Persian plateau. This total results from several factors.
It is essential first to differentiate the divinities by origin. As Susa remained in the Mesopotamian orbit for a very long time, several Sumerian and Akkadian deities (Inanna, Ea, Sin, Belet-ali, IM, łala) had temples in Susa or in Elam or enjoyed a degree of popular acceptance, as is clear from the many personal names that include as elements the divine names Adad, Ea, Enlil, Erra, Sin, and łamaŠ, to cite only the most common. Most oaths were taken in the name of łamaŠ (often associated with InŠuŠinak or IŠnikarab), though no temple was dedicated to him. Some gods, particularly InŠuŠinak (whose name in Sumerian means "lord of Susa"), seem to have been specifically attached to Susa or Susiana; they include IŠnikarab (IŠmekarab, a god, not a goddess; W. G. Lambert, 1976-80), Lagamal (Lagamar; for variant signs, see Hinz and Koch), and Manzat (W. G. Lambert, 1989).
Several divinities from the plateau can be connected to the pantheons of the principal geopolitical entities that constituted Elam (see i, above), for example, Pinikir, Nahhunte, Hutran, Humban, and KirmaŠir in Awan; HiŠmitik and Ruhurater in łimaŠki; and NapiriŠa (reading of dGAL established by Hinz, 1965), KiririŠa, Simut, Kilah-Šupir, Silir-qatru, and Upurkupak in Anshan and its hinterland. It is difficult, however, to assign other Elamite divinities to specific local pantheons.
It is therefore also useful to distinguish the deities in this heterogeneous ensemble by period. Although certain gods and goddesses were honored throughout the history of Elam (e.g., InŠuŠinak, Pinigir, Humban, and Nahhunte), many were worshiped only in certain periods. For example, there was a cult for Ea and Enzag (the great god of Dilmun), who shared a temple with InŠuŠinak, only in the sukkalmah period, under Temti-Agun (Scheil, 1939, p. 10; see Table **). Anunitum was worshiped only in the time of Atta-huŠu (Scheil, 1939, p. 9).
Finally, the gods can be differentiated by the nature of the sources. In royal inscriptions official divinities are mentioned, those who had temples or played a role in religious rites, whereas economic texts reveal through onomastics the names of those who enjoyed genuine popularity (Zadok; Scheil, 1930; idem, 1932; idem, 1933; idem, 1939). From such evidence it can be observed that, historically, personal names changed from predominantly Meso-potamian to almost exclusively Elamite.
Discontinuities in the archeological record nevertheless complicate reconstruction of the pantheons. Almost half the Elamite gods attested in Sumerian and Akkadian sources are unknown from Elamite texts; for example, of five Elamite gods assimilated to Ninurta (King, pl. 12 ll. 1-5) only InŠuŠinak is otherwise known, and of the seven brothers of Narundi (King, pl. 24) only Nahhunte and IgiŠti are otherwise known, the latter exclusively through inclusion of his name in personal names. Of nineteen Elamite divinities enumerated by AŠŠurbanipal (q.v.) in the 7th century B.C.E. (Aynard, pp. 54-55) five are otherwise unknown. It is surprising, furthermore, that Enlil, whose name figures prominently in onomastics, never had an official cult, whereas łilhak-InŠuŠinak built, probably at Susa, a temple dedicated to a certain łak-ammar-haniŠta, known only from a single inscribed brick (Walker, p. 135).
The Old Elamite period. During the Awan phase Susa was under the domination of the Sargonids, who nevertheless left few traces of their presence. Nothing is left from Sargon or RimuŠ, and their successor, ManiŠtusu (ca. 2269-55 B.C.E.), appears to have been the first king to build there; the two bricks surviving from his temple are too fragmentary to reveal the name of the god to whom it was dedicated, however. EŠpurm, governor of Susa for ManiŠtusu, dedicated a statue to the goddess Narundi (Scheil, 1908, p. 1), and a scribe dedicated a statue to NIN.NE'.UNU (Scheil, 1905 no. 2) for the life of Naram-Sin (2254-18 B.C.E.). In fact, an initial impression of the Elamite pantheon is furnished by the treaty of Naram-Sin, which survives in the Elamite language and begins with an enumeration of about forty divinities, of whom the names of thirty-three are preserved (K÷nig, no. 2). As the treaty was actually concluded between Naram-Sin's Susan vassal and the contemporary ruler, perhaps Hita, of Awan, these gods were probably either Suso-Mesopotamian or Awanite. Half of them appear only in this document; of the others a dozen had cults in Susa or in Elam in one or another period or through all periods: Pinigir, Huban, Nahiti (earlier spelling of Nahhunte), InŠuŠinak, Simut, Hutran, SiaŠum, Manzat, Narida (Narundi), Narzina, and KirmaŠir, mentioned in that order.
The last dynast of Awan, Puzur-InŠuŠinak, conquered Susa but did not impose his own pantheon. With the exception of the goddess Narundi, whose origin is debatable, and of ługu, a god otherwise unknown, it was the Suso-Mesopotamian divinities to whom he was devoted. He built various monuments for InŠuŠinak, the local god. Two statuettes were dedicated to Belat-Terraban and Narundi respectively; in curses on those who might mutilate these monuments he invoked InŠuŠinak and łamaŠ, Enlil and Enki, IŠtar and Sin, Nin-hursag and Narundi, and sometimes Nergal. Furthermore, from the economic texts (Legrain) it seems that the majority of personal names were of Mesopotamian origin and that the divine names from which they were composed were almost always the names of Meso-potamian deities, especially Ea, łamaŠ, Erra, Adad, IŠtar, and Innana but sometimes Amal, Enzu, Nabium, Nisaba, Enki, Ningirsu, Nindar, łulpae, and others. Aside from Narundi and Manzat, few Elamite divine names are attested in such contexts.
In the Ur III period in Mesopotamia Susa fell under the domination of the Sumerians, and łulgi (2094-47 B.C.E.) built a temple to InŠuŠinak and another to Ninhursag of Susa (M. Lambert, 1970). He also inscribed a carnelian bead to Ningal (Scheil, 1905, p. 22). A maritime trader dedicated a mace to Ninuruamudu for the life of łulgi. łulgi's successor, Amar-Sin, left no trace on the Acropolis at Susa, but one of his officials dedicated for him a bronze tablet addressed to Nungal. Finally, Amar-Sin's successor, łu-Sin, left several bricks with his name and titles but no mention of a specific temple or god; they may have come from a public building, rather than a religious one. It is no surprise that InŠuŠinak was surrounded by exclusively Mesopotamian deities, but it is surprising that the first łimaŠkians who ruled at Susa before the fall of Ur imposed no divinity from the plateau. Kindattu and his successor, Idadu I, built or restored several sanctuaries dedicated to InŠuŠinak, as can be seen from inscriptions of łilhak-InŠuŠinak (K÷nig, nos. 48, 48a, 48b, 39). In the curse on a ritual basin dedicated to the temple of InŠuŠinak (Scheil, 1905, pp. 16-19) Idadu invoked only Mesopotamian divinities: SamaŠ, IŠtar, and Sin. During the troubled period that followed, the various łimaŠkian rulers of Susa, notably Tan-Ruhurater and his spouse, Mekubi, continued to build temples for InŠuŠinak and for his consort at that time, Innana (Scheil, 1913, pp. 24-26).
Direct evidence from the long sukkalmah period, broadly confirmed by the inscriptions of łilhak-InŠuŠinak, shows that InŠuŠinak continued to dominate the Acropolis at Susa, where he was surrounded by a majority of Suso-Mesopotamian gods. Ebarat, Silhaha, and Atta-huŠu built and restored the temple of Nanna. Atta-huŠu also built temples to such Mesopotamian deities as Ninegal and Annunitum, as well as to Narundi. Under Kutir-Nahhunte and Temti-Agun, InŠuŠinak shared a temple with Ea and Enzag, and another was dedicated to IŠnikarab. Most rulers, however, devoted their efforts to restoring the various monuments dedicated to InŠuŠinak.
The Middle Elamite period. At the end of the sukkalmah period the Elamite gods made a timid appearance in onomastics (Steve, personal communication), but it was with the Kidinuids that they gained official recognition in Susiana. Kidinu and Tepti-ahar styled themselves "servant of KirmaŠir" (Steve, Gasche, and De Meyer, p. 92; Herrero, 1976, p. 104), and in oath formulas Ruhurater was sometimes substituted for łamaŠ.
The real change, however, can be seen in the works of the great king UntaŠ-NapiriŠa. With the construction of [email protected]Š (┘[email protected]@ Zanb^l) he broke with the past. First, the inscribed bricks found at the site (Steve, 1967) show that many Elamite divinities were introduced into Susiana at that time. Half the twenty-six gods mentioned came from the Suso-Mesopotamian pantheon; the other half were Elamite. This equal division was reflected in the titles of the sovereign, who always called himself "king of Anshan and of Susa" (or "of Susa and Anshan" in Akkadian inscriptions). The reforms that he undertook went much farther than the simple introduction of Elamite gods into the official cult in Susiana, however.
In fact, the religious complex at ┘[email protected]@ Zanb^l is dominated by the ziggurat, the two phases of which illustrate the change in the king's political and religious orientation. The first phase consisted of a structure with a square courtyard in which rose a small ziggurat; the high temple (kikunnum) on the ziggurat was of glazed bricks and dedicated only to InŠuŠinak, lord of the province. This first ziggurat was destroyed, however, and the buildings around the courtyard incorporated into the first story of the great ziggurat that has survived. It was then dedicated jointly to NapiriŠa, the great god of Elam, and InŠuŠinak, the great god of Susa (Ghirshman, 1966; Roche, 1986). In granting primacy to NapiriŠa over InŠuŠinak in this second building phase the king intended to show the primacy of Anshan over Susa.
Furthermore, UntaŠ-NapiriŠa introduced gods from the high plateau into other cities of Susiana. At Susa he built a temple to Upurkuppak, stating explicitly that previously this Elamite goddess had not possessed one (K÷nig, no. 14). She was also worshiped at ┘[email protected]@ Pahn (in the archeological literature distinguished from another site of the same name by the designation K(huzistan) S(urvey)-102; Wright and Stolper, 1990) and Gotwand (Steve, 1987, no. 5). MaŠti and Tepti had a temple at Deylam (Vallat, 1983). UntaŠ-NapiriŠa also continued to dedicate temples to various Suso-Mesopotamian divinities at Susa (A.╔.A. EłłANA, IM, Nabu, NUN.EłłANA, etc.), where the clergy must have been disturbed by the intrusion of gods from the high plateau.
This elamization of the Susian pantheon progressed under the łutrukids. InŠuŠinak remained the principal divinity, receiving the largest number of dedications, but NapiriŠa and sometimes KiririŠa took precedence over him. For example, the eighteen known names of members of the royal family include as elements divine names, those of the three principal Susan divinities (InŠuŠinak, IŠnikarab, and Lagamal) but otherwise only of Elamite divinities. On one stele (K÷nig, no. 54) łilhak-InŠuŠinak mentioned a dozen deities, of whom only Nannar was of Mesopotamian origin.
The Neo-Elamite period. The elamizing trend continued until the fall of Elam. After his victory at Susa AŠŠurbanipal carried off the statues of nineteen deities, which he listed by name; all had apparently Susan Elamite names. Despite the misleading spellings, the names of several deities are recognizable, including those with the most prestige: InŠuŠinak, Simut, Lagamal, Pinigir, Hutran, and KirmaŠir (Aynard, pp. 54-55).
In the Neo-Elamite period, although the principal divinities in the pantheon (InŠuŠinak, NapiriŠa, Lagamal, Pinigir, Nahhunte, etc.) continued to be honored, lesser known or previously unknown gods came to the fore, among them MaŠti and Tepti at [email protected]^r, łaŠum at Kesat, and łati and Lali (among many others) at Susa. The most popular god was Hu(m)ban, who had been mentioned second in the list of gods in the treaty of Naram-Sin. In this period his name appeared as an element in half the royal names and in many other names as well (Scheil, 1907). He did not, however, have a temple at Susa. All these gods were thus essentially Elamite; even the Mesopotamian name of the goddess DIL.BAT, to whom łilhak-InŠuŠinak dedicated a temple, could actually have been an epithet for the goddess MaŠti.
In summary, in the Old Elamite period most of the divinities honored at Susa were Suso-Mesopotamian. The only real exception was Narundi, and it could be asked whether she was not also Mesopotamian (or "Babylonian," as surmised by Genouillac, 1905, p. 14) or, rather, Susan; her cult is already documented for the period of ManiŠtusu, and she is mentioned before InŠuŠinak in the treaty of Naram-Sin. She is next attested in the curses of Puzur-InŠuŠinak. Finally, Atta-huŠu dedicated a temple to her. Nevertheless, she subsequently disappeared from Elamite documentation, only to reappear in the Mesopotamian texts, where she was identified as the sister of the seven great gods or as the wife of the Igigi. The Elamite gods ługu and Enzag are attested only once. Mesopotamian dominance ended with the Middle Elamite period, when gods from the plateau began to invade Susiana, a trend that continued to accelerate until the end of Elamite history. Although at first InŠuŠinak remained the principal deity in this pantheon, beginning with the political and religious reforms of UntaŠ-NapiriŠa he had to cede first place to NapiriŠa, the god of Anshan, and sometimes to the latter's consort, KiririŠa. Anshan predominated not only over Susiana but also over the other geopolitical entities that constituted Elam; for example, in the time of łilhak-InŠuŠinak Hutran of Awan was identified as the son of NapiriŠa and KiririŠa, the Anshanite divine couple.
The pantheon exactly reflected the political situation: The Elamite kings installed in Susiana became semitized, then, beginning with UntaŠ-NapiriŠa, progressively elamized the province, to which Elam was eventually reduced.
Nevertheless, any modern reconstruction of the Elamite pantheon must of necessity be full of errors, largely because the sources come mainly from Susiana. Anshan has furnished only a few relevant documents. It is known that Siwepalar-huppak built a temple there (Stolper, 1982), but it is not known for what god. Much later HutelutuŠ-InŠuŠinak dedicated a sanctuary jointly to NapiriŠa, KiririŠa, InŠuŠinak, and Simut (M. Lambert, 1972; Reiner, 1973). As for later economic texts (Stolper, 1984), they include names with divine elements like Huban, Hutran, Pinigir, and InŠuŠinak. The information from Liyan is equally slight: From a dedication of Simut-wartaŠ to KiririŠa and several Middle Elamite II and III bricks inscribed to NapiriŠa, KiririŠa, and the Bahahutip gods (Peézard, 1914), it seems that KiririŠa was the tutelary goddess of the place.
Places of worship.
Two broad categories of ritual site can be distinguished: open-air sanctuaries and buildings. In the first category three merit special attention: [email protected]@n, ╚za/[email protected]^r, and NaqŠ-e Rostam.
At [email protected]@n (Seidl, 1986) a relief was carved at the top of a cliff, probably in the 17th century B.C.E. The principal scene includes a god seated on a throne formed by a human-headed serpent, an animal attribute of NapiriŠa (not InŠuŠinak, pace de Miroschedji, 1981); he holds in his hands the rod and the disk, symbols of supreme power, from which gush forth the waters of life. He is surrounded by seven figures, of whom one goddess, wearing a horned tiara, is probably his consort, KiririŠa. To the left is another scene, perhaps from the Neo-Elamite period, of a procession composed of three superimposed ranks of praying figures descending toward the principal scene.
The rock reliefs at ╚za/[email protected]^r are divided into two groups, those at ł[email protected] [email protected] southwest of ╚za and those at [email protected] Farah to the northwest (Vanden Berghe, 1963; De Waele, 1981). Each includes several ritual scenes: processions, musicians, animal sacrifices, and the like. It seems that the images preceded the accompanying inscriptions (K÷nig, nos. 75-76), which are of the late Neo-Elamite period, the first half of the 6th century B.C.E.
Although very badly mutilated, the Elamite rock reliefs at NaqŠ-e Rostam (Seidl, 1986) illustrate the persistence of holy sites. To one scene carved in the Old Elamite period Neo-Elamite artists have added two figures, probably the king and the queen, but this group has been largely obliterated by a relief of the Sasanian king [email protected] II (276-93 C.E.). In between four Achaemenid sovereigns (Darius I, Xerxes, Artaxerxes I, and Darius II) had their tombs dug into the cliff, and subsequently several other Sasanian kings added reliefs to the site. NaqŠ-e Rostam thus remained an important religious site for more than two millennia.
These three examples of open-air sanctuaries show that the Elamites visited holy places in procession, in order to perform their rites. It is not impossible that ritual sites for the general population were always open. At the best-known religious complex, ┘[email protected]@ Zanb^l, the buildings are relatively small and must have been accessible only to the clergy and the royal family; on the other hand, between the second and third enclosure walls a large space was left free of all construction and could have accommodated large numbers of faithful during the most important ceremonies.
At Susa remains of religious architecture from the Elamite period are poor, probably because the relevant levels were seriously damaged by later occupations. The only material evidence that has survived is the Old Elamite temples of InŠuŠinak and Ninhursag, flanking a mass that could have been the ziggurat (de Mecquenem, 1911), and a small square temple built by łutruk-Nahhunte II (Amiet, no. 380). Nevertheless, various documents permit reconstruction of this religious complex. Aside from the Elamite dedications, there is a bronze model (inscribed sßit ŠamŠi "sunrise") of an ablution ceremony with two nude priests surrounded by various buildings and monuments (Gauthier). Two Mesopotamian documents are even more explicit: a relief from the palace of Sennacherib at Nineveh, probably representing the city of Susa (Amiet, no. 430), and a narrative of the sack of Susa by AŠŠurbanipal (Aynard, pp. 53-59). These disparate sources of information permit a schematic reconstruction for the period best documented by the texts, that of łilhak-InŠuŠinak (though the complex could not have differed fundamentally in other periods). On the acropolis (uru.an.na/alimelu) a sacred quarter (kizzum) was reserved for sanctuaries. It was dominated by the ziggurat (zagratume), a tower of several stories. At the top of the ziggurat the high temple (kukunnum) was decorated with one or two pairs of horns, and at the base of the ziggurat was the low temple (haŠtu). Nearby rose a monumental gate (hiel, sippu). The entire ziggurat complex was set in a sacred grove (husa). Although the temples (siyan) of the main gods were built close by, some, like the "exterior temple" (kumpum kiduia), were built on the Apadana (outside the kizzum). The latter building, which contained the suhter, a chapel for effigies of members of the royal family (Grillot, 1983), seems to have played a more political than religious role, however. It is probable that every important Elamite city possessed a similar complex, though probably smaller than the one at Susa.
It is curious that the word "ziggurat" (Elamite zagratume; no word borrowed from Akkadian has the suffix -me) is never attested for Susa. The only two ziggurats mentioned explicitly in Elamite texts are those at ┘[email protected]@ Zanb^l (Steve, 1967) and ┘[email protected]@ Pahn (Wright and Stolper). As for haŠtu, although the word is documented in only one inscription (K÷nig, no. 48), it is the text in which łilhak-InŠuŠinak enumerated eighteen Elamite kings, from the Old Elamite II period to his own immediate predecessors, who had built or restored the haŠtu, which demonstrates the importance of this building. It is apparent that in Elamite inscriptions a single element could designate a whole complex; for example, whenever a kukunnum is mentioned it is plausible to deduce the presence of a ziggurat. By analogy, therefore, the "temple of the grove" may have represented the entire religious complex associated with death. As łilhak-InŠuŠinak boasted of having restored about fifteen "temples of the grove" throughout the country, the cities mentioned probably possessed religious complexes similar to the one in Susa.
Most of the important elements in this schematic reconstruction have been found at ┘[email protected]@ Zanb^l, where the ziggurat dominates the sacred precinct known as siyan-kuk. All the temples, except that of Nusku, were built within the second enclosure wall, some of them abutting the first enclosure wall, which surrounds the ziggurat. The ziggurat, an essential element of the complex, was built on an earlier foundation 105 m2 and must originally have had five stories (Ghirshman, 1966), the fifth being the kukunnum, constructed of glazed bricks imitating silver, gold, obsidian, and alabaster (Steve 1967, nos. 1, 31-32). It was surrounded by a wall against which three chapels were erected on the outer south side. On the north the wall was interrupted by the temples of IŠnikarab and KiririŠa, whereas that of NapiriŠa was connected to it. In the space between this wall and a second wall the temples of several gods were built. In order from the southeast to the northeast they were the temples of Pinikir, Adad and łala, łimut and Nin-ali, the Napratep gods, and after a wide interval that of HiŠmitik and Ruhuratir. Not all these buildings were on the same plan, but all were of relatively modest dimensions.
Religious buildings originally of mud brick were gradually restored with baked brick; a few among them were partially or entirely covered with glazed brick beginning in the reign of łutruk-Nahhunte I, who even claimed (K÷nig, no. 17) to be the first to have used this luxury material. The majority of those that have been excavated contain votive inscriptions, but the statues of gods mentioned in the texts have rarely been recovered.
The essential role of the gods was to give life, to preserve it as long as possible, and finally to take it back, accompanying the dead to the other world. These different aspects of the divine prerogative can be illustrated by many examples. For example, several cylinder seals found at ┘[email protected]@ Zanb^l are inscribed "It is for the god (to give) life; it is for the king to save it" (Reiner, 1970b, p. 134). Humban-numena declared that "from the bosom of his mother NapiriŠa and InŠuŠinak created his name" (Steve, 1987, no. 3). Throughout Elamite history royal dedications show that the kings built temples to protect their own lives and sometimes those of the entire royal family. The simplest formula in such texts is "I, so-and-so, have built such-and-such a sanctuary and, for my life, I have offered it to such-and-such a god." But more specific requests were addressed to different divinities for a long and favorable and happy reign, for long life, and for a prosperous lineage (Grillot, 1982).
Nevertheless, death seems to have been the principal preoccupation of the Elamites. Most religious buildings were connected with the cult of the dead, and the principal gods were closely associated with the passage of the dead into the next world. The association of the grove with the funerary cult is certain from AŠŠurbanipal's narration of the sack of Susa: "Their secret groves, where no foreigner had penetrated, where no foreigner had trampled the underbrush, my soldiers entered and saw their secrets; they destroyed them by fire. The tombs of their kings, ancient and recent . . . I have devastated, I destroyed them, I exposed them to the sun, and I carried off their bones to the country of AŠŠur" (Aynard, 1957, pp. 56-57). Furthermore, the relief from Nineveh that probably represents the Acropolis at Susa (Amiet, no. 430) shows that the religious complex was built in a grove.
The importance of the temple in the grove is also illustrated by a stele of łilhak-InŠuŠinak (K÷nig, no. 48), in the inscription on which the king claimed to have restored about twenty temples throughout the empire, the majority of them "temples of the grove." In the same inscription he enumerated eighteen of his predecessors who had restored the haŠtu of InŠuŠinak at Susa, suggesting a relation between these two important elements of the kizzum. Although most of these temples were dedicated to InŠuŠinak, some were dedicated to Lagamal, Suhsipa, and NapiriŠa. KiririŠa and InŠuŠinak had temples in the grove at ┘[email protected]@ Zanb^l (Steve, 1967, nos. 25, 34; Grillot and Vallat, 1978, p. 83). At ┘[email protected]@ Pahn (KS-3) łilhak-InŠusinak built one for InŠuŠinak and Lagamal (Stolper, 1978), and in his account of his Elamite campaign AŠŠurbanipal mentioned a grove of Manziniri, a god unattested elsewhere (W. G. Lambert, 1989).
The gateway may have symbolized the entrance of the dead person into the next world. The one represented on the Nineveh relief is surmounted by three figures in the posture of prayer, which recalls an epithet of KiririŠa: "lady of life, who has authority over the grove, the gateway, and he who prays" (Grillot and Vallat, 1984, p. 22). The gods to whom these gateways were dedicated were those most closely associated with the netherworld: InŠuŠinak (K÷nig, nos. 35, 36, 40), IŠnikarab (K÷nig, no. 37), Lagamal (K÷nig, no. 30), and NapiriŠa and InŠuŠinak together (K÷nig, no. 79). It was also at the gateway of InŠuŠinak that Puzur-InŠuŠinak ordered the sacrifice of a sheep accompanied by chants, morning and evening (Scheil, 1902, p. 5).
Although many gods were associated with the cult of the dead, three played a particularly important role: InŠuŠinak, the weigher of souls, and his two assistants, IŠnikarab and Lagamal. A few small funerary tablets (Botteéro, pp. 393-401), though very badly preserved, give some idea of the passage into the other world: The dead person, preceded by IŠnikarab or Lagamal or both presents himself in the haŠtu (in the Akkadian texts Šuttu, a synonym for haŠtu) before InŠuŠinak, who decides his fate. This scene seems to be illustrated on a number of cylinder seals, where it is commonly identified as a "presentation scene," even though it is more probably a depiction of the last judgment (Vallat, 1989).
After judgment the dead person was buried. Different types of burial, from the simplest to the most elaborate, are attested from excavations in Susiana (de Mecquenem, 1943-44). The corpse, wrapped in matting, could be interred directly in the ground, with a few objects, particularly pottery intended to receive funerary offerings. At different periods small tombs were built of mud or baked brick and sometimes of both; they could be used for single or multiple burials, the latter collective, as at Haft Tepe, or successive, as at Susa. Sometimes a tomb, usually vaulted, was provided with a shaft, which permitted successive burials of members of a single family. In some secondary burials the long bones of the dead were collected in large beakers and the skulls deposited in vases. Sometimes tubs or coffins protected the corpses. These different types of burial probably reflected the social status of the dead. The single feature common to all burials was the presence of offerings, varying in richness with the period and social class of the dead: from simple pottery to a lavish funerary assemblage including jewels and weapons, cylinder seals, and a variety of other objects, even chariot wheels (Amiet, no. 103).
It is curious, however, that very few Elamite royal tombs have been discovered. The tomb at Haft Tepe was probably not that of Tepti-Ahar (pace Negahban, 1990; Reiner, 1973), and the various rather austere tombs at ┘[email protected]@ Zanb^l (Ghirshman, 1968) contain no element that would permit them to be ascribed to anyone. As for Susa, it may be that the baked-brick tomb in the vault of which the sßit ŠamŠi was found can be attributed to łilhak-InŠuŠinak, but, as it was robbed in antiquity, this attribution remains hypothetical. AŠŠurbanipal claimed, in the narrative of his last campaign, to have destroyed the tombs of the Elamite kings during the sack of Susa, and he may well have done so. Another element also deserves consideration in connection with funerary types: Hermann Gasche (personal communication) has pointed out that, contrary to Susan (and Meso-potamian) practice, no tomb had been dug in the great houses of the sukkalmah period, which were veritable small palaces that must have sheltered the aristocracy. This absence could thus reflect typically Elamite preference, as does the presence in certain contemporary tombs of terracotta funerary masks (Ghirshman, 1962), perhaps the descendants of the funerary busts discovered at ł[email protected] and dating from the łimaŠki period (Hakemi, 1972).
Another prerogative of the gods was to confer and protect kingship. Puzur-InŠuŠinak spoke of "the year when InŠuŠinak looked at him (and) gave to him the four regions" (Scheil, 1908, p. 9). It was also InŠuŠinak who conferred kingship upon Humban-numena and the latter's son UntaŠ-NapiriŠa (K÷nig, nos. 4, no. 13), but it was Manzat who conferred it on Igi-halki (Steve, 1987, no. 2).
In the Elamite pantheon goddesses played a more important role than elsewhere. The enumeration of forty deities in the treaty of Naram-Sin begins with Pinigir, goddess of love and procreation, who was worshiped throughout Elamite history and had an aŠtam, or temple of fertility; she was very frequently represented in art (Spycket, 1992). In addition, various local divinities were goddesses: KiririŠa at Liyan, Upurkupak at ┘[email protected]@ Pahn (KS-102) and Gotwand, MaŠti at [email protected]^r, Manzat at Deh-e Now (q.v.).
The Elamite pantheon was formed from the combination of the pantheons of the principal geopolitical entities that constituted Elam; it is not therefore astonishing that different gods played the same role or possessed the same attributes. Several gods and goddesses had the epithet "great god," which it is probably correct to understand as "the supreme god": InŠuŠinak, NapiriŠa, Humban, Nahhunte, KiririŠa, Manzat, and so on. In addition, several deities were protectors of the gods (MaŠti, Napir), of kings (InŠuŠinak, KiririŠa, Napir), or of Elam (Silir-katru). KiririŠa and MaŠti were "mothers of the gods." Several deities were particularly linked to death by the epithet lahakra (of death): InŠuŠinak, KiririŠa, Upurkupak, and perhaps Ruhuratir and Tepti.
Although the Elamite sources, which do not include any mythological texts, are not very informative on the character of the gods, a few Mesopotamian texts help to fill this gap, though they often seem schematic and artificial and are, for the most part, of late date. Sometimes they even contradict Elamite information; for example, in Elam Nahhunte was considered the sun god, but in a Mesopotamian text he is called the moon god (Civil, 1974, p. 334). Nevertheless, identification in Akkadian texts of Lagamal with Nergal (W. G. Lambert, 1980-83) and NapiriŠa with Ea (Reiner, 1958, pp. 50-51) is not without foundation. Lagamal is indeed an infernal deity, and, on the relief from [email protected]@[email protected], NapiriŠa is identifiable by his throne, formed from a human-headed serpent; he also holds as attributes of power the disk and the rod (forerunners of the orb and scepter of Western monarchies), from which gush forth the living waters. He thus seems the equivalent of Ea, Mesopotamian god of the waters. On the other hand, Iabru, who was assimilated to Anu, is unknown from the Elamite sources, and there is no evidence that Humban shared the characteristics of Enlil. Finally, no Elamite epithet permits the conclusion that any god was of warlike character, though the Mesopotamians assimilated seven Elamite divinities to Ninurta (King, pls. 12 ll. 1-5, 11 l. 37, 24 l. 17).
Bibliography: (For cited works not found in this bibliography and abbreviations found here, see "Short References.") P. Amiet, Elam, Auvers-sur-Oise, France, 1966. J. M. Aynard, Le prisme du Louvre AO 19.939, Paris, 1957. J. Botteéro, "Les inscriptions cuneéiformes funeéraires," in La mort, les morts dans les socieéteés anciennes, Actes du Colloque sur l'ideéologie funeéraire, Ischia, Cambridge, 1977, pp. 373-406. M. Civil, "Medical Commentaries from Nippur," JNES 33, 1974, pp. 329-38. E. De Waele, "Travaux archeéologiques aÓ ł[email protected] [email protected] et [email protected] Farah preÓs d'Izeh ([email protected])," Iranica Antiqua 16, 1981, pp. 45-61. J.-E. Gauthier, "Le 'sit ŠamŠi' de łilhak In łuŠinak," Recueil de Travaux Relatifs aÓ la Philologie et aÓ l'Archeéologie ╔gyptiennes et Assyriennes 31, 1909, pp. 41-49. H. de Genouillac, "Les dieux de l'Elam," Recueil de Travaux Relatifs aÓ la Philologie et aÓ l'Archeéologie ╔gyptiennes et Assyriennes 27, 1905, pp. 1-28. R. Ghirshman, "Tŕtes funeéraires en terre peinte des tombes eélamites," Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 92, 1962, pp. 149-56. Idem, Tchoga Zanbil (Dűr Untash) I. La ziggurat, Meémoires de la Mission archeéologique en Iran 39, Paris, 1966. Idem, Tchoga Zanbil (Dűr Untash) II, Teémeénos, temples, palais, tombes, Meémoires de la Mission archeéologique en Iran 40, Paris, 1968. F. Grillot, "Notes aÓ propos des formules votives eélamites," Akkadica 27, 1982, pp. 5-15. Idem, "Le 'suhter' royal de Suse," Iranica Antiqua 18, 1983, pp. 1-23. Idem and F. Vallat, "Le verbe eélamite 'pi(Š)i,'" CDAFI 8, 1978, pp. 81-84. Idem, "Deédicace de łilhak-InŠuŠinak aÓ KiririŠa," Iranica Antiqua 19, 1984, pp. 21-29. A. Hakemi, Catalogue de l'exposition Lut, Shahdad (Xabis), Tehran, 1351 ł./1972. P. Herrero, "Tablettes admini-stratives de Haft-Teépeé," CDAFI 6, 1976, pp. 93-116. W. Hinz, "The Elamite God dGAL," JNES 24, 1965, pp. 351-54. Idem, "Religion in Ancient Elam," in CAH3 I/2, pp. 662-73. Idem, The Lost World of Elam, London, 1972. Idem and H. Koch, Elamisches W÷rterbuch, AMI, Ergńnzungsbd. 17, Berlin, 1987. L. W. King, Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum XXV, London, 1909. H. Koch, Die religi÷sen Verhńltnisse der Dareioszeit, G÷ttinger Orientforschung 3/4, Wiesbaden, 1977. Idem, "Theology and Worship in Elam and Achaemenid Iran," in J. Sasson, ed., Civilizations of the Ancient Near East III, New York, 1995, pp. 1050-69. F. W. K÷nig, Die elamischen K÷nigsinschriften, Archiv fŘr Orient-forschung, Beiheft 16, Graz, 1965. M. Lambert, "Objets inscrits du museée du Louvre," RA 64, 1970, pp. 69-72. Idem, "Huteélutush-Insushnak et le pays d'Anzan," RA 66, 1972, pp. 61-76. W. G. Lambert, "IŠ[email protected]," RlA 5, 1976-80, pp. 196-97. Idem, "[email protected]@l," RlA 6, 1980-83, pp. 418-19. Idem, "Manziniri," RlA 7, 1989, p. 346. Idem, "Manzi'at/Mazzi'at/MazzÔt/Mazzŕt," RlA 7, 1989, pp. 344-46. L. Legrain, "Tablettes de comptabiliteé, etc. de l'eépoque de la dynastie d'Agadŕ," Textes eélamites-seémitiques, 5e seér., Meémoires de la Mission archeéologique de Susiane 14, Paris, 1913, pp. 62-130. R. de Mecquenem, "Vestiges de constructions eélamites," Recueil de Travaux Relatifs aÓ la Philologie et aÓ l'Archeéologie ╔gyptiennes et Assyriennes 33, 1911, pp. 2-19. Idem, "Note sur les modaliteés funeéraires susiennes et leur chronologie," Vivre et Penser, 1943-44, pp. 133-42. P. de Miroschedji, "Le dieu eélamite NapiriŠa," RA 74, 1980, pp. 129ľ43. Idem, "Le dieu eélamite au serpent et aux eaux jaillissantes," Iranica Antiqua 16, 1981, pp. 1-25. E. O. Negahban, Excavations at Haft Tepe, Iran, University Museum Monograph 70, Philadelphia, 1991. M. Peézard, Mission aÓ Bender-Bouchir, Mission archeéologique de Perse 15, Paris, 1914. E. Porada, Tchoga Zanbil (Dűr-Untash) IV. La glyptique, Meémoires de la Mission archeéologique en Iran 42, Paris, 1970. E. Reiner, łurpu. A Collection of Sumerian and Akkadian Incantations, Archiv fŘr Orientforschung, Beiheft 11, Graz, 1958; new ed., OsnabrŘck, 1970. Idem, "Leégendes des cylindres," in E. Porada, Tchoga Zanbil (Dűr-Untash) IV. La glyptique, Meémoires de la Mission archeéologique en Iran 42, 1970, pp. 133-37. Idem, "The Location of AnŠan," RA 67, 1973, pp. 57-62. Idem, "Inscription from a Royal Elamite Tomb," Archiv fŘr Orientforschung 24, 1973, pp. 87-102. C. Roche, "Les ziggurats de Tchogha Zanbil," in Contribution aÓ l'histoire de l'Iran. Meélanges offerts aÓ J. Perrot, Paris, 1990, pp. 191-97. V. Scheil, Textes eélamites-seémitiques, 2e seér., Meémoires de la Deéleégation en Perse 4, Paris, 1902. Idem, Textes eélamites-seémitiques, 3e seér., Meémoires de la Deéleégation en Perse 6, Paris, 1905. Idem, Textes eélamites-seémitiques, 3e seér., Meémoires de la Deéleégation en Perse 9, Paris, 1907. Idem, Textes eélamites-seémitiques, 4e seér., Meémoires de la Deéleégation en Perse 10, Paris, 1908. Idem, Textes eélamites-seémitiques, 5e seér., Meémoires de la Deéleégation en Perse 14, Paris, 1913. Idem, Actes juridiques susiens, Meémoires de la Deéleégation en Perse 22, Paris, 1930. Idem, Actes juridiques susiens (suite: n░ 166 aÓ n░ 327), Meémoires de la Mission archeéologique en Perse 23, Paris, 1932. Idem, Actes juridiques susiens (suite: n░ 328 aÓ n░ 395), Meémoires de la Mission archeéologique en Perse 24, Paris, 1933. Idem, Meélanges eépi-graphiques, Meémoires de la Mission archeéologique en Perse 28, Paris, 1939. U. Seidl, Die elamischen Felsreliefs von [email protected]@[email protected] und NaqŠ-e Rustam, Iranische [email protected], Lieferung 12, Reihe II, Berlin, 1986. A. Spycket, Les figurines de Suse, Meémoires de la Deéleégation archeéologique en Iran 52, Paris, 1992. M.-J. Steve, Tchoga Zanbil (Dűr-Untash) III. Textes eélamites et accadiens de Tchoga Zanbil, Meémoires de la Deéleégation archeéologique en Iran, 41, Paris, 1967. Idem, Nouveaux meélanges eépigraphiques. Inscriptions royales de Suse et de la Susiane, Meémoires de la Deéleégation archeé-ologique en Iran, 53, Nice, 1987. Idem, H. Gasche, and L. De Meyer, "La Susiane au deuxieÓme milleénaire. └ propos d'une interpreétation des fouilles de Suse," Iranica Antiqua 15, 1980, pp. 49-154. M. W. Stolper, "Inscribed Fragments from [email protected]," CDAFI 8, 1978, pp. 89-96. Idem, "On the Dynasty of łimaŠki and the Early Sukkalmahs," ZA 72, 1982, pp. 42-67. Idem, Texts from Tell-i Malyan I. Elamite Administrative Texts (1972-74), Occasional Publications of the Babylonian Fund 6, Philadelphia, 1984. F. Vallat, "Les briques eélamites de Deylam," AMI, Ergńnzungsbd. 10, 1983, pp. 11-18. Idem, "Religion et civilisation eélamites en Susiane," Dossiers Histoire et Archeéologie 138, 1989, pp. 46-49. Idem, "łutruk-Nahunte, łutur-Nahunte et l'imbroglio neéo-eélamite," Nouvelles Assyriologiques BreÓves et Utilitaires, 1995/44, pp. 37-38. L. Vanden Berghe, "Les reliefs eélamites de [email protected]^r," Iranica Antiqua 3, 1963, pp. 22-39. C. B. F. Walker, Cuneiform Brick Inscriptions in the British Museum, The Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, The City of Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery, The City of Bristol Museums and Art Gallery, London, 1981. H. T. Wright and M. W. Stolper, "Elamite Brick Fragments from Chogha Pahn East and Related Fragments," in Contribution aÓ l'histoire de l'Iran. Meélanges offerts aÓ J. Perrot, Paris, 1990, pp. 151-63. R. Zadok, The Elamite Onomasticon, AIUON Supplement 40, 1984.
Most non-Elamite texts inscribed on Elamite territories have been found in Susiana, that is, the region nearest to Mesopotamia and most exposed to Mesopotamian political and cultural influences. They include Sumerian and Akkadian literarary tablets and royal inscriptions; letters; and literary, legal, and administrative texts written in Sumerian and Akkadian by local scribes. At the end of the 3rd millennium B.C.E. Susiana was ruled successively by the kings of Akkad and Ur, and immigrants from Mesopotamia may have settled there (Lambert, p. 57). At any rate the Mesopotamian culture introduced in that period survived long after Meso-potamian political control of Susa.
During the sukkalmah period (ca. 1970-1600 B.C.E.; see i, above) Akkadian, a Semitic language, was used in Susa for letters, administrative records, and legal transactions. Both it and Sumerian were also used in royal inscriptions, chiefly on bricks, at Susa and Malyan (Mal^[email protected]; ancient Anshan, q.v.) in this period. Despite shifting relations between Elam and Mesopotamia, Akkadian never completely disappeared from Susiana, though changes did occur after the middle of the 2nd millennium (Lambert, p. 54). Akkadian was taught and used by scholars, and, aside from such trophies of war as the stele of Hammurabi, local versions of Mesopotamian religious, scholarly, magical, medical, and divination texts have been excavated, mainly at Susa and Haft Tepe (Kabnak). Beginning in the Ur III period (2112-2004), Akkadian written in Elam exhibited distinctive orthographic features (e.g., use of the sign ŠaÓ to write Ša or Šaé and of ŠÝ instead of Ši) and uncommon ideograms.
Scribal exercises in the form of lexical lists are found wherever Mesopotamian culture was introduced, and many examples, some dating from the Akkadian period (ca. 2350-2000 B.C.E.), have been found at Susa (Cavigneaux, p. 612; Tanret, p. 139). Two fragments of exercise texts have been found at Malyan (Stolper, 1982l, p. 57 n. 52). Mathematical texts (van der Meer; Bruins and Rutten) written in Akkadian include some sophisticated problems involving local, as well as "Akkadian," methods for their solution (Friberg, p. 580). Literary texts include a single bilingual religious text (in Sumerian and Akkadian), a medico-magical text, eight divination texts, and two royal letters in Sumerian with Akkadian translations, found all together at Susa and obviously written in Elam (Labat and Edzard). They have been attributed to the late 15th or early 14th centuries B.C.E. (Biggs and Stolper, p. 161). Some differ little in content from texts in the Mesopotamian tradition; others have no close parallels. Similarities in content, ductus, and orthography among the omen texts from Susa, an omen text from Chogha Pahn (┘[email protected] [email protected]) about 23 km ti the east, and an unpublished divinatory text from Haft Tepe are proof of genuine scholarship in Susiana (Biggs and Stolper, pp. 160-62). In contrast to this wholly Mesopotamian literature, the so-called "funerary texts" (Scheil, 1916; Dossin, pp. 88-91, 94) seem to represent indigenous culture, perhaps specific to Susa or perhaps rendering in Akkadian elements found more widely in Elamite territories.
Aside from a single bilingual (Akkadian and Elamite) inscription of Puzur-InŠuŠinak and trilingual (Akkadian, Elamite, Old Persian) inscriptions of the Achaemenid kings, official and royal inscriptions were written in Sumerian and Akkadian during the sukkalmah period and in Akkadian by the Middle Elamite kings InŠuŠinak-Šar-ilani (or InŠuŠinak-sunkir-nappipir, the Elamite reading of the ideographic rendering of his name) and Tepti-ahar and occasionally UntaŠ-NapiriŠa and łutruk-Nahhunte. Throughout these periods, including the Achaemenid period, the scribes copied and adapted classical Mesopotamian models and phraseology for foundation deposits, rock inscriptions, steles, votive inscriptions, and inscribed statues, bricks, and column bases found at Susa, ┘[email protected] Zanb^l (q.v.), [email protected] (q.v.), and Haft Tepe (Scheil 1900; idem, 1902; idem, 1905; idem, 1929; idem, 1933; idem, 1939; idem and Gautier; Scheil and Legrain; Weissbach; Rutten, 1953; Steve 1987; Reiner; Vallat, 1974a; idem, 1974b; idem, 1986; Malbrat-Laban, 1995). A few letters from the sukkalmah period found at Susa are known only through copies (Dossin, pp. 84-87); the remainder, as well as some legal texts, are being prepared for publication by Leéon de Meyer, the present author, and Florence Malbran-Labat. Along with orthographic and morphological features common to all Akkadian texts written in Elam, these letters reveal distinctive phraseology, a few unknown words, and names of deities unattested elsewhere.
Two fragments of Sumerian administrative texts have been found at Malyan (Stolper, 1982, p. 57 n. 52) and Ur III Sumerian administrative texts at Susa. Hundreds of administrative and legal documents in Akkadian have been excavated at Susa, Haft Tepe, and [email protected] Fandowa near Haft Tepe (Scheil 1902; idem, 1930; idem, 1932; idem, 1933; idem, 1939; idem and Gautier; Scheil and Legrain; Dossin; Herrero and Glassner 1990; idem, 1991; Beckman). In them are recorded events in the daily life of an agricultural and pastoral society; for example, the Haft Tepe texts come from the archives of a large estate over a few decades of the 14th century (Glassner, p. 115). The longer examples reflect all kinds of transactions: adoptions, inheritance, shares, grants, purchases, sales, farming leases, formation of companies, loans, and securities. They combine well-attested Sumero-Akkadian terminology with terms otherwise unknown, reflecting local custom. Jurists underscored the unusual role played by the gods, in particular the sun god, InŠuŠinak, and IŠmekarab; the importance of acting "in good health and good faith," that is, in sound body and mind; the divine wrath in store for offenders; and such penalties as the river ordeal and corporal mutilation (Cuq, 1931 pp. 48-61). Most of these documents, which cover the greater part of the sukkalmah period, originated at Susa. The so-called "[email protected]^r texts," of which about fifteen were part of legal archives from the early 14th century, probably originated from a site in Susiana, perhaps Haft Tepe (Stolper, pp. 279-80; pace Glassner, p. 117).
Bibliography: G. Beckman, "A Stray Tablet from Haft Tepe," Iranica Antiqua 26, 1991, pp. 81-83. R. Biggs and M. Stolper, "A Babylonian Omen Text from Susania," RA 77, 1983, pp. 155-62. E. M. Bruins and M. Rutten, Textes matheématiques de Suse, Meémoires de la Mission Archeéologique en Iran 34, Paris, 1961. A. Cavigneaux, "Lexikalische Listen," RlA VI, pp. 608-41. E. Cuq, "Les actes juridiques susiens," RA 28, 1931, pp. 49-71. Idem "Le droit eélamite d'apreÓs les actes juridiques de Suse," RA 29, 1932, pp. 149-82. G. Dossin, Autres textes sumeériens et accadiens, Meémoires de la Mission Archeéologique de Perse 18, Paris, 1927. E. Ebeling, Tod und Leben nach den Vorstellungen der Babylonier, Berlin and Leipzig, 1931, pp. 19-22. J. Friberg, "Mathematik," RlA VII, pp. 531-85. J.-J. Glassner, "Les textes de Haft Tepe, la Susiane et l'Elam au 2eÓme milleénaire," in L. de Meyer and H. Gasche, eds., Meésopotamie et Elam. Actes de la XXXVIeÓme Rencontre assyriologique inter-nationale, Mesopotamian History and Environment, Occasional Publications 1, Ghent, 1991, pp. 109-26. P. Herrero, "Tablettes administratives de Haft Teépeé," CDAFI 6, 1976, pp. 93-116. Idem and J.-J. Glassner, "Haft-Teépeé. Choix de textes I," Iranica Antiqua 25, 1990, pp. 1-45. Idem, "Haft-Teépeé. Choix de lettres II," Iranica Antiqua 26, 1991, pp. 39-83. J. Klima, "Donationes mortis causa nach den akkadischen Urkunden aus Susa," in R. von Kienle et al., eds., Festschrift Johannes Friedrich zum 65. Geburtstag am 27. August 1958 gewidmet, Heidelberg, 1959, pp. 229-60. Idem, "Untersuchungen zum elamischen Erbrecht," ArchÝv OrientaélnÝ 28, 1960, pp. 5-54. Idem, "Le droit eélamite au deuxieÓme milleénaire av. n.eÓ et sa position envers le droit babylonien," ArchÝv OrientaélnÝ 31, 1963, pp. 287-309. Idem, "L'ordalie par le fleuve en Elam (d'apreÓs les documents akkadiens de Suse et de Huhnur-Malamir)," RA 66, 1972, pp. 39-59. P. Koschaker, "G÷ttliches und weltliches Recht nach den Urkunden aus Susa. Zugleich ein Beitrag zu ihrer Chronologie," Orientalia, N.S. 4, 1935, pp. 38-80. Idem, "Fratriarchat, Hausgemeinschaft und Mutterspracht in Keilschriften," ZA 41, 1933, pp. 46-68. Idem, "Randnotizen zu neueren keilschriftlichen Rechtsurkunden, ž D," ZA 43, 1935, pp. 221-32. R. Labat and D. O. Edzard, Textes litteéraires de Suse, Mieémoires de la Mission Archeéologique en Iran 57, Paris 1974. S. Lackenbacher and F. Malbran, "Les beéneédictions dans les lettres de Suse," Nouvelles Assyriologiques BreÓves et Utilitaires, 1994/3, 54, p. 48. W. G. Lambert, "The Akkadianization of Susiana under the Sukkalmahs," in L. de Meyer and H. Gasche, eds., Meésopotamie et Elam. Actes de ls XXXVIeÓme Rencontre assyriologique internationale, Mesopotamian History and Environment, Occasional Publications I, Ghent, 1991, pp. 53-57. F. Malbran-Labat, ed. and tr., La version akkadienne de l'inscription trilingue de Darius aÓ Behistun, Documenta Asiana 1, Rome, 1994. Idem, Inscriptions royales de Suse. Briques de l'eépoque paleéo-eélamite aÓ l'empire neéo-eélamite, Paris, 1995. P. E. van der Meer, Textes scolaires de Suse, Meémoires de la Mission Archeéologique de Perse 27, Paris, 1935. L. de Meyer, L'accadien des contrats de Suse, Leiden, 1962. Idem and H. Gasche, eds., Meésopotamie et Elam. Actes de la XXXVIeÓme Recontre assyriologique internationale, Mesopotamian History and Environment, Occasional Publications I, Ghent, 1991. Idem and F. Vallat, eds., Fragmenta Historiae Elamicae. Meélanges offerts aÓ M.-J. Steve, Paris, 1986. E. Reiner, "Inscription from a Royal Elamite Tomb," Archiv fŘr Orientforschung 24, 1973, pp. 87-102. M. Rutten, Les documents eépigraphiques de Tchogha Zembil, Meémoires de la Deéleégation Archeéologique en Iran 32, Paris, 1953. Idem, "Tablette no 4 (fig. 11)," in R. Ghirshman, Villages perse-acheémeénide, Meémoires de la Mission Archeéologique en Iran 36, Paris, 1954, pp. 83-85. E. Salonen, Untersuchungen zur Schrift und Sprache des Altbabylonischen von Susa, Stud. Or. 27, Helsinki, 1962. V. Scheil, Textes eélamites-seémitiques, 1 seér., Meémoires de la Deéleégation en Perse 2, Paris, 1900. Idem, Textes eélamites-seémitiques, 2 seér., Meémoires de la Deéleégation en Perse 4, Paris, 1902. Idem, Textes eélamites-seémitiques, 3 seér., Meémoires de la Deéleégation en Perse 6, Paris, 1905. Idem, "Textes funeéraires," RA 13, 1916, pp. 165-74. Idem, "Quelques particulariteés du sumeérien en Elam," RA 22, 1925, pp. 45-53, 143-45, 157-62. Idem, "Raptim," RA 23, 1926, pp. 41-42. Idem, Inscriptions des Acheémeénides aÓ Suse, Meémoires de la Mission Archeéologique en Iran 21, Paris, 1929. Idem, Actes juridiques susiens, Meémoires de la Mission Archeéologique de Perse 22, Paris, 1930. Idem, Actes juridiques susiens, Meémoires de la Mission Archeéologique de Perse 23, Paris, 1932. Idem, Actes juridiques susiens. Inscriptions des Acheémeénides, Meémoires de la Mission Archeéo-logique en Perse 24, Paris, 1933. Idem, Meélanges eépigraphiques, Meémoires de la Mission Archeéo-logique de Perse 28, Paris, 1939. Idem and J.-E. Gautier, Textes eélamites-seémitiques, 4 seér., Meémoires de la Deéleégation en Perse 10, Paris, 1908. V. Scheil and L. Legrain, Textes eélamites-seémitiques, 5 seér., Meémoires de la Deéleégation en Perse 14, Paris 1913. M.-J. Steve, Textes eélamites et accadiens de Tchoga Zanbil, Meémoires de la Mission Archeéologue en Iran 41, Paris, 1967. Idem, Nouveaux meélanges eépigraphiques. Inscriptions royales de Suse et de la Susiane, Meémoires de la Deélegation Archeéologique en Iran 53, Nice, 1987. Idem, H. Gasche, and L. de Meyer, "La Susiane au deuxieÓme milleénaire a. C. └ propos d'une interpreétation des fouilles de Suse," Iranica Antiqua 15, 1980, pp. 49-154. M. Stolper, "[email protected]^r," in RlA VII, pp. 279-81. Idem, "On the Dynasty of łimaŠki and the Early Sukkalmahs," ZA 72, 1982, pp. 42-67. E. Szlechter, "Le colonat partiaire aÓ Suse et le code de Hammurapi," RA 55, 1961, pp. 113-34. M. Tanret, "Fragments de tablettes pour des fragments d'histoire," in L. de Meyer, H. Gasche, and F. Vallat, eds., Fragmenta Historiae Elamicae. Meélanges offerts aÓ M.-J. Steve, Paris, 1986, pp. 139-50. F. Vallat, "L'inscription trilingue de XerxeÓs aÓ la porte de Darius," CDAFI 4, 1974a, pp. 171-80. Idem, "Les textes cuneéiformes de la statue de Darius," CDAFI 4, 1974b, pp. 161-70. Idem, "Table accadienne de Darius Ier (DSaa)," in L. de Meyer, H. Gasche, and F. Vallat, eds., Fragmenta Historiae Elamicae. Meélanges offerts aÓ M.-J. Steve, Paris, 1986, pp. 277-87. E. N. von Voigtlander, ed. and tr., The Bisitun Inscription of Darius the Great. Babylonian Version, Corpus Inscr. Iran., pt. 1., II, London, 1978. F. H. Weissbach, Die Keilinschriften der Achńmeniden, Leipzig, 1911. R. Zadok, The Elamite Onomasticon, AIUON, Suppl. 40, Naples, 1984.