Chapter one: A History of Elam

 

 

 Introduction 

It is regrettable that Herodotus, often considered the "Father of History," did not begin his monumental work with the history of Elam. As a result, Elam remained largely absent from the foundational narratives constructed by Western historians concerning the ancient history of Iran. When European scholars eventually turned their attention to Elam, their interpretations were deeply colored by orientalist biases and inherited prejudices, resulting in a distorted and often dismissive portrayal of one of the most powerful and enduring civilizations of the ancient Iranian plateau.

The historical record of Elam is particularly vulnerable to misrepresentation, as many of the original Elamite sources have been lost. What survives comes primarily from inscriptions found in rival civilizations—Babylon, Assyria, and Akkad—whose political and military conflicts with Elam inevitably shaped their depictions of it. A notable example of such distortion can be seen in the period following the rise of Darius I of the Achaemenid dynasty, whose confrontation with Bardiya (also known as Smerdis), son of Cyrus the Great and ruler of Elam (Anshan), led to the deliberate erasure and recasting of Elamite history. This historical rupture further marginalized Elam’s contributions and obscured its political and cultural complexities.

However, in recent decades, systematic archaeological research and a careful reexamination of inscriptions—Babylonian, Assyrian, and Elamite alike—have begun to restore Elam to its rightful place in the historical record. These sources, inscribed on a variety of mediums such as clay tablets, cones, bricks, rock reliefs, statues, ceremonial objects, and vessels, have provided invaluable insights. Of particular importance are the Elamite-language cuneiform texts, including those from the Achaemenid period, which document administrative and economic transactions and reveal the continuing use and prestige of the Elamite script well into the first Persian Empire.

Through these materials, it is now possible to reconstruct the history of Elam with far greater accuracy than was ever before achievable. This reconstruction not only sheds light on the achievements of Elam itself but also situates it within the broader development of Iranian civilization.

The Elamites, alongside the Medes, Persians, and Parthians—four contiguous and interconnected peoples of ancient Iran—played an essential role in shaping the national identity and political evolution of the Iranian plateau. Their contributions to early forms of statecraft, urbanization, diplomacy, and cultural exchange were significant in the development of global civilization. Understanding the ways in which their enemies portrayed them—and why—offers critical insight into the biases that have long distorted the historical narrative. Correcting these misconceptions is essential for a more balanced and comprehensive account of Iran’s ancient heritage.

  The Empire of Elam 

Vincent Scheil, the pioneering historian of the Susa excavations, famously declared at the dawn of the twentieth century, “Now begins the history of Elam.” Yet, reconstructing Elam’s story has proven exceptionally challenging. Absent are narrative chronicles; instead, historians must piece together clay tablets, art objects, tools, and seals. Early twentieth-century accounts portrayed Elamite civilization as an offshoot of Sumer and Mesopotamia—at times even tinged with notions of barbarism. However, archaeological discoveries in the 1960s and ’70s, particularly in Fars, Kerman, and Sistan, fundamentally overturned this dismissive view.

Elamite territory stretched from the alluvial plains of Khuzestan eastward to the highlands of Pars and northward into the Zagros foothills. As early as 2600 BC, Sumerian texts refer to this region with the sign   NIM , meaning “high” or “elevated.” In Akkadian,  NIM (𒉏𒈠𒆠) became synonymous with  Elamtu , itself linked to  elum  (“upper”) and likely derived from the native Elamite term  hal(l)tamt  (𒁹𒄬𒆷𒁶𒋾), perhaps meaning “blessed land” or simply “highland.” Western scholarship later encountered  Elam  in the Hebrew Bible as  Ilam  transmitted through the Greek  Ελάμ . Yet Elam’s history extends even further back—to the founding of Susa on the Shushan Plain around 4200 BC.

Geographically, Elam encompassed both fertile alluvial zones—such as Abadan and Parnava—and the verdant heights of the Zagros. Its abundant natural resources—hardwoods, rare stones, precious metals—fueled sophisticated crafts in metallurgy, textile production, and ceramics. This wealth underpinned Elam’s economic power and its cultural imprint on the broader Iranian plateau.

Despite these rich materials, two principal obstacles impede a full reconstruction of Elamite history. First, Elamite language remains a linguistic isolate; with no known relatives, its decipherment poses an enduring challenge even to seasoned epigraphers. Second, many of Elam’s archaeological treasures were unearthed during late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century excavations—undertaken with rudimentary methods and incomplete documentation. The illicit antiquities trade further complicates scholarship, as nineteenth-century scholars such as Joachim Menant and Marcel Dieulafoy lamented the proliferation of forgeries.

A deeper barrier, however, has been intellectual bias. For generations, Western historians subordinated Elam to Sumer—celebrated as the “cradle of civilization” and credited with inventing writing. In emphasizing Sumerian and later Aryan legacies—idealized in Achaemenid and Sasanian “Iranshahr” ideologies—scholars systematically marginalized the indigenous Elamites and their artistic, administrative, and religious innovations. Even Cyrus the Great, whose ascent was profoundly shaped by Elamite institutions, was retrospectively assimilated into Darius’s lineage, erasing Elam’s central role in the rise of the first Persian Empire.

Only by acknowledging and overcoming these scholarly prejudices can modern research illuminate Elam’s true legacy—one of political sophistication, artistic creativity, and enduring influence on the civilizations of ancient Iran.

The Rediscovery of Elam: Archaeology, Identity, and Trade Networks

Since the late 20th century, archaeological discoveries have progressively unveiled the sophistication, complexity, and historical depth of Elamite civilization. While scholarly interest in Elam can be traced back to 1897, with the establishment of the Délégation scientifique française en Perse (French Scientific Mission in Persia) and the beginning of formal excavations at Susa, the broader field of Elamological studies remained constrained by limited access, interpretive biases, and the dominance of Sumerian and later Persian narratives.

Yet even before the formal French expeditions, Iranian scholars had begun to take notice of Elam’s material legacy. Hassan Fasaei’s 1896 Farsnameh-ye Nasiri included references to ancient ruins at Tal-e Malyan—an area whose significance would only be fully recognized decades later. The first formal archaeological excavations at Malyan were led by Fereydoun Tavalloly in 1960, and the site's importance was definitively established in 1972 when Dr. John Hansman identified the ruins as belonging to Anshan—one of the two principal capitals of Elam. In the same year, W.G. Lambert discovered inscribed brick fragments referencing the temple of Inshushinak, the Elamite deity of Susa. These finds, along with further discoveries, enabled Erica Reiner in 1973 to definitively associate Tal-e Malyan with the ancient city of Anshan, thus confirming its central place in Elamite political and cultural life.

The French monopoly over excavations in Elamite territory had far-reaching consequences. On the one hand, it allowed the Louvre to amass an unparalleled collection of Elamite artifacts—many removed during the colonial era under questionable legal and ethical conditions. On the other, the detailed documentation and catalogs generated through these collections have become essential tools for reconstructing Elamite history, despite the problematic provenance of many of the items. These artifacts—including cylinder seals, tablets, statuary, and ritual objects—offer a rare window into Elam's religious life, administrative sophistication, and aesthetic sensibility.

Complicating the historiography of Elam is the entanglement of its identity with that of Susa, a city whose cultural legacy straddles both Elamite and Mesopotamian worlds. Recent scholarship, however, has increasingly clarified that while Susa and Elam were deeply interconnected—through trade, political alliances, and religious symbolism—they constituted distinct cultural systems. The Elamite identity, once obscured by the overwhelming focus on Sumer and later Persia, is now emerging more clearly through the material record: from intricate metalwork and ceremonial gold filigree to utilitarian vessels, administrative tablets, and economic records written in Elamite cuneiform. Together, these discoveries testify to a vibrant, literate, and artistically advanced civilization, long before the rise of the Achaemenid Empire.

Elam’s connection to the broader cultural and economic networks of the ancient Near East is also well attested in Sumerian mythology. Poetic narratives such as Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, Enmerkar and Ensuhkeshdanna, Lugalbanda and the Anzud Bird, and Lugalbanda in the Mountain Cave all allude to a powerful highland kingdom—frequently associated with Elam or Anshan—that maintained robust commercial and political relations with Sumer. In these tales, Aratta (often considered a poetic representation of Elamite cities) is depicted as a land of luxury, rich in precious metals, lapis lazuli, and fine craftsmanship, sought after by Sumerian rulers.

Although some scholars have suggested that Aratta may have been located in the Armenian highlands between Lake Van and Lake Urmia—based primarily on linguistic similarities between "Aratta" and "Ararat"—this view is increasingly considered speculative. A more convincing interpretation, supported by archaeological and economic parallels, situates Aratta within the cultural sphere of Elam. The goods mentioned in the myths—agate, turquoise, lapis lazuli, gold, silver, and bronze—were commonly exported from regions such as Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Markhashi (modern Kerman) to Anshan and Elam, and then traded onward to Mesopotamian city-states including Uruk, Akkad, Mari, Babylon, and Assyria. In return, Elam imported agricultural staples, particularly wheat and barley, indicating a robust reciprocal trade relationship that spanned the Iranian plateau and Mesopotamia.

Thus, far from being a marginal or derivative culture, Elam emerges as a central player in the early urban and economic development of the ancient Near East. Its rediscovery not only revises our understanding of Iran’s deep antiquity but also forces a re-evaluation of the historical models that have long privileged Mesopotamian and Indo-European lineages at the expense of indigenous Iranian civilizations.

Susa, Elam, and the Shifting Centers of Power

In light of recent archaeological discoveries, it can now be more accurately stated that, over the course of its long and complex history, Susa was gradually absorbed into the political and cultural domain of Elam. By the late third millennium BCE, the inhabitants of Susa—then known as the Shushanians—had fallen under the control of Mesopotamian powers, first the Akkadian Empire and subsequently the Third Dynasty of Ur. For a brief interlude, Susa regained a measure of autonomy as part of the Elamite confederation of Avan and Simashki—a political entity that included shifting alliances and possibly even a Simashkian-Akkadian Assyrian segment, though these designations remain debated among scholars.

At the beginning of the second millennium BCE, from the perspective of Mesopotamian city-states, Susa retained a strong cultural affinity with Mesopotamia—evident in its continued use of the Akkadian language in administrative contexts. However, Elam itself, centered in the highlands of the Zagros Mountains, was seen as distinct, even foreign—both culturally and linguistically. Elam represented an Iranian cultural sphere, rooted in indigenous traditions and languages that diverged from the lowland Mesopotamian order.

Over time, particularly by the end of the second millennium BCE, Anshan (modern Tal-e Malyan) emerged as a dominant force within Elam. So much so that, during the early first millennium BCE, both Babylonian and Assyrian sources began referring to Susa and its surrounding regions simply as Elam, indicating the extent of Anshan’s political and economic influence. This shift illustrates how Elam’s political gravity had moved decisively from the Mesopotamian periphery to the Iranian plateau.

Cyrus the Great, known as the founder of the Achaemenid Empire, famously referred to the entire Iranian realm as Anshan—a clear indication of the symbolic and ancestral importance of Elamite identity within early Persian statecraft. However, beginning with Darius I, Anshan was redefined as a subordinate province within the larger imperial structure, with Susa designated as its capital. As Henri Amiet (1986) demonstrated, the cultural influence of Elam extended far beyond Iran, reaching as far as Central Asia, Afghanistan, and even the Indus Valley (modern Pakistan), underscoring Elam’s regional importance long before the rise of the Achaemenids.

A major turning point in Elamite political ascendancy came in 2004 BCE, when the Elamites—alongside their Shushanian allies—defeated the Ur III dynasty in the region of Hammurabi, thereby incorporating Susa permanently into the Elamite sphere. This victory marked the beginning of the Epartid or Sukkalmah Dynasty, established by the ninth king of Simashki. It signaled not only a political consolidation but also a cultural integration that would deeply shape the future identity of the Iranian plateau.

With the rise of Darius I, who claimed legitimacy as a member of the Achaemenid line descended from Cyrus, imperial power passed from the Elamite nobility to the Persians. However, it is crucial to recognize that under Cyrus the Great, Elamites, Persians, Medes, and Parthians all identified themselves as part of a shared Iranian imperial community. It was Darius—through his administrative genius and military campaigns, especially against Greece—who began to articulate a more defined Iranian imperial identity. This process relied on constructing the Greek world as a civilizational “Other,” thus fostering a clearer sense of collective self among the peoples of the empire. During his reign, Elam became institutionalized as the province of Shushan—a name that appears prominently in the records of Ashurbanipal, in Darius’s own inscriptions, and in the Hebrew Bible as Elam.

Despite these political transformations, Susa remained the principal cultural and economic hub of the empire during both the reigns of Cyrus and Darius. In fact, during the Achaemenid period, Susa held precedence over other major capitals such as Anshan, Pasargadae, Persepolis, and Ecbatana. The Persepolis Fortification Tablets, as analyzed by R. T. Hallock, show that Elamite remained the primary language of diplomacy and administration throughout much of the empire. Though imperial edicts were also translated into Old Persian and Akkadian, Elamite functioned as the de facto bureaucratic language of the court.

Susa was not only the administrative heart of the empire but also the departure point for diplomatic missions across the known world—to Egypt, India, and the Hellenic territories. Envoys dispatched from Susa conducted their affairs in the name of the Great King and returned to the city to report their outcomes, further cementing its role as the nexus of imperial coordination and communication.

The Late Elamite Period (ca. 3500–3100 BCE)

Reconstructing the earliest history of Elam is particularly challenging, not least because most written records from the Elamite tradition were either destroyed or lost following the reign of Darius the Great and the administrative integration of Elam into the Achaemenid Empire. As a result, our understanding of the Elamite world in the first half of the fourth millennium BCE must rely almost entirely on archaeological evidence—specifically from major excavation sites investigated during the 1960s and 1970s. Key sites include Godin Tepe, Tepe Yahya, Tal-e Malyan, Shahdad, Tell Iblis, Shahr-e Sukhteh, and Chogha Mish—each revealing vibrant urban settlements characterized by advanced technologies, extensive craft production, and wide-ranging trade networks. These findings challenge long-held assumptions about Elam’s peripheral status in relation to Mesopotamian civilization.

Contrary to conventional narratives, the urban trajectories of Sumer and Elam appear far more parallel than previously acknowledged. The dominant interpretation of the so-called “Uruk Expansion”—in which early southern Mesopotamian peoples are said to have migrated outward and established colonies in neighboring regions—rests on an unsteady foundation. This model assumes a unidirectional flow of urban influence from Uruk to peripheral regions, including Elam. Yet the material culture of Elam, especially in sites like Tepe Yahya, suggests a far more autonomous and sophisticated civilizational development.

Unlike southern Mesopotamia, where urban economies were largely agrarian, Elam possessed superior advantages in trade due to its proximity to a wealth of natural resources—metals, semi-precious stones, and fine clays—and its access to overland and maritime trade routes. For instance, elaborately carved chlorite vessels recovered from greenstone quarries near Zahedan and the Zagros Mountains, including those at Tepe Yahya, indicate the region’s centrality in a transcontinental trade system. Some of these vessels bear proto-cuneiform inscriptions and have been found as far afield as Uzbekistan, the Indus Valley (Mohenjo-Daro), Susa, and various Sumerian cities—evidence of Elam's integration into a truly international economy. Such findings complicate the notion that Uruk was the sole or even primary node of early state expansion.

Indeed, it is no longer tenable to claim that urban development flowed outward from Uruk to Susa, Godin Tepe, and other Elamite centers. Even through the lens of Guillermo Algaze’s adaptation of Immanuel Wallerstein’s world-systems theory, Elam appears better positioned to serve as a regional core. Its cities were strategically located at the crossroads of trade routes linking the Iranian plateau to the Indus Valley, the Persian Gulf to Oman and India, and even further afield to Central Asia and China. Supporting this view are the archaeological findings from former Soviet excavations in southern Turkmenistan, at sites such as Altyn Tepe and Namazga Tepe. These sites exhibit striking urban features—craft specialization, standardized architecture, administrative infrastructure—that closely parallel those found in early Elamite city-states.

Carbon dating now confirms that the Namazga cultural horizon in Turkmenistan was contemporaneous with the emergence of urban centers in Elam and Sumer. This synchronicity further challenges the outdated core-periphery model of Mesopotamian dominance, and suggests instead a broader, decentralized process of early urbanization in which Elam played a central role.

The decipherment of Proto-Elamite tablets—particularly those discovered at Susa—remains one of the most tantalizing puzzles in the archaeology of writing. Though the script has not yet been fully decoded, its wide geographic spread across sites such as Tal-e Malyan (Fars), Tepe Sialk (Isfahan), Tepe Yahya (Kerman), Shahr-e Sukhteh (Sistan), and Tepe Ozbaki (near Tehran) reveals the extent of Elam’s administrative and cultural reach. These texts attest to a sophisticated bureaucratic and economic system in Elam during the fourth millennium BCE—predating or paralleling similar developments in Mesopotamia.

Some archaeologists have speculated that the Proto-Elamite writing system was a "reaction" to Mesopotamian administrative practices. Yet this interpretation fails to account for the profound structural differences between the Elamite and Sumerian systems, and the evidence that the so-called "Uruk Expansion" was, in reality, a temporary and limited phenomenon. Its sudden collapse and disappearance from the archaeological record further support the argument that this “expansion” was less a civilizational export and more likely a reflection of shifting trade patterns in which Elam played a pivotal, autonomous role.

Ultimately, the emergence of urban life in Elam during the Late Chalcolithic period should be seen not as a derivative of Sumer but as a co-evolutionary process rooted in Iran’s unique geography, resource wealth, and cultural innovation. Elam was not the periphery of Uruk—it was an early civilizational core in its own right.

The Early Dynastic Period (ca. 2350–2300 BCE)

As previously discussed, Elam maintained extensive trade connections with both the Iranian plateau and the cities of Mesopotamia. Fortunately, Babylonian texts—especially those from the city of Lagash—preserve valuable testimony to Elam’s role in these early economic networks. These records reveal the significance of both land and maritime trade routes connecting Elam with Mesopotamian city-states, facilitated in large part by the Karun River, the Persian Gulf, and the Tigris.

Elamite maritime activity, explicitly mentioned in the Lagash archives, provides clear evidence that Elam engaged in sea-based commerce with the southern shores of the Persian Gulf, the western maritime routes toward Mesopotamia, and eastern routes likely extending as far as the Indian subcontinent. Goods flowed westward from the mouth of the Karun River toward Lagash and beyond, while overland routes connected Elam to central and eastern Iran.

Two principal maritime routes connected Elam with Mesopotamia. One began at the Elamite port of Pashime (possibly Mishime), which, according to Piotr Steinkeller, was located near present-day Bushehr. From there, goods were shipped northward along the Persian Gulf to the mouth of the Karun River and up to Gu’abba (also known as E-Ninmar)—Lagash’s principal port on the Tigris. The second major route extended from Makan (on the Oman Peninsula, corresponding to present-day Abu Dhabi) through Dilmun (a commercial hub encompassing modern Failaka Island, Tarut Island, and Bahrain), and from there via the ancient waterway Id-Nimin ki-še-du (“the river that becomes Nimin”) to Gu’abba. Along this corridor, the Tigris linked cities such as Lagash, Girsu, Nimin, and Sirara, integrating Elam into a maritime circuit that was vital to the economic life of southern Mesopotamia.

Exports from Elam via the Karun–Gu’abba–Lagash corridor included a wide range of goods:

• Alkali compounds, evidenced by shipments recorded at one and a half to two tons, likely used as agricultural fertilizer;

• Medicinal and aromatic spices, possibly sourced from India or locally cultivated in Elam;

• Timber and linen, particularly from the Elamite city of Arawa, as mentioned in records from the reign of Lugalanda, ruler of Lagash;

• Bitumen and related petroleum products, abundant in Khuzestan and essential for waterproofing and ritual use;

• Livestock and cattle, documented in the Nikolsky Tablet 214-1.

In return, Elam imported agricultural products, most notably barley. According to Nikolsky Tablets 310-1 and 85-1, the volume of barley traded from Lagash to Elam was substantial. One text notes 14 separate shipments sent by Lagash merchants to their Elamite counterparts, including figures named Budashir, Kakaritah, and Ururi-Meshk. Other imported goods included fragrant oils, flour, wool, silver, brass, and boar fat. One particularly revealing tablet describes a chief merchant under Lugalanda who sold approximately seven tons of barley to another merchant acting on behalf of Lugalanda’s wife, who then arranged for its transport to Elam—evidence of a formalized commercial bureaucracy between the two regions.

The earliest known political references to Elamite power appear in the Sumerian King List, which records that Enmebaragesi, king of Kish (c. 2700 BCE), plundered the wealth of Elam—an event likely intended to assert Mesopotamian dominance but which nonetheless affirms Elam’s significance. A later episode in the King List notes that the king of Awan (a major Elamite polity) defeated the kingdom of Ur, bringing its population to Elam. This victory was reversed when the king of Kish later defeated Awan and returned its people to Sumer. While some scholars interpret these records as later Babylonian propaganda, they nonetheless reflect recurring anxieties over Elam’s power and influence.

Documentary and archaeological evidence converge to confirm that Elam had established a ruling dynasty by 2500 BCE, beginning with a monarch named Peli. While this marks the first Elamite dynasty for which we have direct historical evidence, commercial interactions between Elam and neighboring regions of Iran and Mesopotamia had clearly begun much earlier.

For instance, an inscription found on a greenstone vessel from the city of Adab references Me-Silim, a king of Kish—implying formal trade with Elamite elites. Similarly, a cylinder seal discovered at Kunar Sandal in the Halil Rud Valley of Kerman displays iconographic motifs closely resembling those of early Ur dynasties, further substantiating cross-cultural exchange. Such artifacts attest not only to Elam's participation in long-distance trade but also to the shared symbolic and administrative practices that linked Iranian and Mesopotamian civilizations during this formative period.

The Rise and Conflicts of the Peli Dynasty (ca. 2500–2250 BCE)

The earliest historically documented Elamite dynasty appears to have been founded by King Peli  around 2500 BCE. Although trade between Elam and other parts of the Iranian plateau and Mesopotamia predates this political formation—as attested by earlier inscriptions and artifacts—Peli represents the first monarch whose existence is supported by textual evidence. One such example is an inscription on a greenstone vessel discovered at Adab, referencing the Kishite ruler Meh-Silim and indicating active commercial exchange between Elam and Mesopotamian polities.

Additional archaeological corroboration comes from a cylinder seal unearthed at Kunar-Sandal in the Halil Rud valley of Kerman. The artistic motifs on this seal bear striking resemblance to those of the early dynastic period of Ur, further reinforcing the hypothesis that Elam was part of a complex trade network that extended deep into Mesopotamia and across the Iranian plateau.

By circa 2400 BCE, Elam had not only emerged as a regional trade hub but also as a military actor in Mesopotamian geopolitics. Babylonian sources from the reign of E-Anatum of Lagash recount two Elamite incursions into southern Mesopotamia. Lagash, located northeast of Uruk in the land between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, was a powerful city-state and a frequent target of rival powers. According to Douglas Frayne, one of these confrontations appears to have been part of a broader conflict in which Elam and its allies—Akshak, Kish, Mari, Shubur, and Arawa—formed a coalition against Lagash. One major battle took place in the district of Asuhur, where forces from Shubur and Arawa, aligned with Elam, are documented.

E-Anatum boasts in his inscriptions that he "drove the Elamites back to their land," which has led some scholars to conclude that the campaign was defensive in nature and initiated by Elam. However, these sources are clearly written from a Lagashite perspective, likely intended to glorify the ruler’s military prowess. E-Anatum further claims to have plundered several Elamite cities in Khuzestan—among them Susa, Arawa (or Arua), Pashime (or Mishime), and Uru'az—offering the spoils of “the land of Elam” to the god Ningirsu. Nevertheless, the consistent geographic limitations of these campaigns suggest that Lagash’s reach extended only into the Elamite lowlands and did not threaten the Elamite highlands in the Zagros, where the true centers of power resided.

A subsequent Elamite attack further demonstrates Elam’s naval capabilities and its control over maritime routes. During the reign of En-Entarzi—possibly a grandson of E-Anatum—a contingent of 600 Elamite soldiers reportedly raided Lagash through a sea-based assault. They are believed to have departed from Susa via the Karun River, entered the Persian Gulf, and launched their attack from the coast near Gu’abba (E-Ninmar), a major port city. Although part of the plunder was recovered by Gu’abba’s naval forces, the expedition confirms the strategic importance of Elam’s maritime power and its use of naval forces for both trade and military operations.

Outside of these conflicts with Lagash, another reference to warfare with Elam appears in the writings of Ennael, king of Kish, who also claims to have defeated Elam. The frequency with which smaller Mesopotamian states—particularly Kish—claimed victory over Elam is telling. As a regional power with a strong economic and military presence, Elam played a stabilizing role in Mesopotamian trade routes. It consistently sought to secure these routes amid the endemic inter-city rivalries that plagued Mesopotamian political life. When these states—Akkad, Babylon, Assyria, Kish, Ur—expanded, their interests frequently collided with Elam's, resulting in periodic military confrontations.

The Peli Dynasty appears to have endured for several generations until it encountered the rise of the Akkadian Empire under Sargon of Akkad (r. 2334–2279 BCE). Sargon launched a campaign eastward, sacking several Elamite cities including Susa and Avan. His son Rimush continued the conflict, targeting the same regions. It was under Sargon’s grandson, Naram-Sin (r. 2254–2218 BCE), that a formal peace was finally negotiated. A treaty—known as the Treaty of Hamandi—was signed between Naram-Sin and Khita, the ninth king of Avan. Although Elamite records of these wars have not survived, the long duration and eventual treaty imply a more evenly matched struggle than Akkadian propaganda suggests. The resilience of Elamite forces and the need for a diplomatic settlement suggest that Elam’s victories may have been comparable to those of Akkad.

The fall of the Peli Dynasty culminated with the deposition of Kutik-Inshushinak (also spelled Kuhtal-Enushinak), the last known successor to King Khita. This marked the end of an era in Elamite political history.

Importantly, the Sumerian King List—a key Mesopotamian chronicle—references three kings of the Avan (Aban) dynasty, a polity in Elam that ruled between the First Dynasty of Ur and the Second Dynasty of Kish. Although the names of these monarchs are lost, the list credits them with a reign lasting 356 years. This inclusion is a powerful testament to Elam’s prestige and legitimacy in the Mesopotamian worldview. Surprisingly, however, this dynastic sequence has been dismissed by some modern scholars. The Encyclopaedia Iranica, for instance, questions the historicity of the Avan Dynasty due to its absence from other sources, even rejecting Vincent Scheil’s reference to it in a practice tablet from Susa in his seminal article "Dynasties élamites". Such rejection appears overly skeptical and perhaps ideologically driven. The consistent marginalization of Elam in certain historical compilations raises legitimate concerns about scholarly bias, the motivations for which remain unclear.

Finally, one must also consider how Elam figures into Mesopotamian mytho-historical imagination. The Sumerian King List includes Lugal-Anemundu, a ruler of the Adab Dynasty, who is credited—according to Güterbock’s reading of Babylonian hymns—with founding an empire that stretched from the Mediterranean to the Iranian plateau and included Elam and Markashi (modern-day Kerman). Such claims are best understood as political mythology. There is no credible archaeological or documentary evidence to support the existence of such an expansive empire. As with legendary Iranian kings like Keyumars or Tahmuras, Lugal-Anemundu must be viewed as a symbolic figure rather than a historical one.

Elam in the Age of Sargon (ca. 2350–2200 BCE)

The rise of the expansionist Akkadian Empire under Sargon the Great (r. 2334–2279 BCE) marked a new chapter in Elamite history. With the consolidation of Sargon’s rule, the geopolitical landscape of the ancient Near East shifted dramatically, placing Elam in direct contact—and often conflict—with Mesopotamia’s first transregional empire. This period provides, for the first time, relatively detailed information about Elamite kings and their interactions with the wider world, thanks to Akkadian imperial records and archaeological discoveries.

Elam at this time was composed of numerous autonomous or semi-autonomous mountain polities, including Awan (modern Lorestan, encompassing Kermanshah, Kurdistan, and parts of Hamadan, with its capital near modern Surkhgan hill), Anshan, Sabum, Zahara, Gar-ne-ne, and Shre-Hom. Eastern Elam bordered Markhashi (thought to be in present-day Kerman), and further east lay Makan (possibly in the Oman Peninsula), Kopin (Baluchistan/Pakistan), and Meluhha (the Indus Valley Civilization).

The "List of Kings of Awan," compiled in Susa during the Old Babylonian period, names rulers from Elam who were contemporaneous with Sargon. Combined with the "List of Kings of Simashki," these sources reconstruct the lineages of Elamite rulers from the late third millennium to approximately 1850 BCE. While the Awan list has been subject to scholarly skepticism, the Simashki list is widely regarded as credible and foundational for Elamite chronology.

Sargon claimed thirty-four military victories in his inscriptions, including the defeat of Lugalzagesi, king of Uruk, who had unified much of Sumer. His empire extended from Elam in the east to the cedar forests of Lebanon and the shores of the Mediterranean in the west, incorporating the cities of Uruk, Umma, Lagash, and Ur. Among his most prized conquests was Elam, whose fortified landscapes, protected by marshes and mountains, had long resisted Mesopotamian intrusion. The conquest of Elam provided Akkad with vital access to natural resources—metals, diorite, fine woods, textiles, and livestock. A stele discovered in Elam portrays Sargon among his courtiers. The deliberate defacement of this monument—its inscriptions and reliefs damaged by hammers and saws—suggests an intentional act by later Elamite patriots to erase a symbol of foreign domination.

Sargon’s military campaign extended into the Persian Gulf via the Karun River, leading to the seizure of Gu’abba (E-Ninmar), Susa, Arwa, and Sabum. Upon his death after a reign of fifty-six years, his son Rimush inherited the throne.

Rimush faced immediate uprisings in Sumer, which he violently suppressed. In his own inscriptions, he boasted of killing over 23,000 and enslaving nearly 40,000 people. Thousands were forcibly displaced and subjected to forced labor. Evidence from sites like Umma indicates that citizens and enslaved individuals labored side-by-side in stone quarries across Elamite territories. Rimush redistributed 134,000 hectares of arable land seized from the gentry of Lagash and Umma, creating a new landed aristocracy loyal to the Akkadian state—an act that profoundly reshaped the socioeconomic foundations of Mesopotamia.

In response to this aggression, a formidable coalition emerged under Abalgamash, king of Markhashi (also known as Para-Khashum), whose name itself may derive from Iranian linguistic roots—mar (life or vitality) and khashi (ruler), akin to the Pahlavi khashara and the Sanskrit kshatriya, meaning "ruling class." Markhashi's strategic position between Fars and Ilam gave it control over key trade corridors, including the Halil Rud valley and the Strait of Hormuz. Its commercial reach extended to Bampur in Baluchistan and to Kopin and Meluhha in South Asia. As Piotr Steinkeller notes, Markhashi was a vital hub in transcontinental trade, importing lapis lazuli, tin, gold, and agate from Afghanistan and exporting luxury goods and raw materials to Mesopotamia.

Abalgamash’s forces, led by the general Shidgau, allied with Emah-shiNi, king of Elam; Shargapi, general of Zahara; and contingents from Zahara, Meluhha, and Kopin. According to Rimush’s victory inscriptions, he defeated this coalition at Parakshum, killing 16,212 and enslaving 4,216. He proclaimed that he had destroyed the foundations of Parakshum, thereby securing Akkadian control over Elam. His inscriptions declare this conquest to be divinely sanctioned by Enlil, the supreme deity of the Akkadian pantheon.

The spoils of war were immense. From Parakshum alone, Rimush dedicated offerings of 15 kg of gold, 1,800 kg of silver, and 300 enslaved individuals to the temple at Nippur. Artifacts from these plundered goods—including stone bowls, vases, mace heads, and seashell inlays—have been found at various religious sites across Mesopotamia, including Kish, Sippar, Ur, Shuruppak, and Tutub, attesting to both the scale of the campaign and the prestige conferred by its outcome.

Recent archaeological studies reinforce the cultural cohesion of Elam with its eastern Iranian and Central Asian neighbors. Cylinder seals from the city-states along the Amu Darya, as well as seals found at Tepe Yahya, Shahdad, and Jiroft (near Sandal and Shahr-i Sokhta), exhibit shared iconography and material cultures. These findings suggest a sphere of Elamo-Iranian civilization that rivaled Mesopotamian urbanism in its sophistication and connectivity. As Salvatori (2008) and Ascalone (2008) have argued, the canon of material culture emerging from sites like Jiroft illustrates the deep-rooted commercial, religious, and artistic interrelations between Elam, Marhashi, Bactria, and even the city-states of Mesopotamia.

The Decline of Akkadian Power and Elamite Resurgence (ca. 2200–2100 BCE)

According to the Bārûtu (“Prediction of Omens”) tablet, Rimush, son of Sargon and second king of the Akkadian Empire, met a violent end. After a reign of nine years, he was reportedly strangled by his own courtiers using a necklace from which his royal cylinder seal hung—a symbol of imperial authority ironically turned against him. Rimush was succeeded by his elder brother, Manishtushu, who continued Akkadian expansion into the Iranian plateau and the Persian Gulf.

Manishtushu's reign, lasting fifteen years, was marked by renewed military campaigns in Elamite territory. According to his inscriptions, he successfully conquered Anshan (modern Tell Maliyan in Fars province) and Shirihum, located east of Susa along the Persian Gulf coast. He boasted of having destroyed thirty-two cities along this maritime corridor, from which he acquired valuable diorite-marked flintstones. These hard stones were used to carve statues of Akkadian kings and came to symbolize imperial might during his reign.

Like his brother, Manishtushu was also assassinated by his court officials. He was succeeded by his son, Naram-Sin (r. ca. 2254–2218 BCE), under whom the Akkadian Empire reached the apex of its territorial and ideological power. A formidable military leader and the first Mesopotamian king to claim divine status (styled as “King of the Four Quarters” and “god of Akkad”), Naram-Sin extended his empire from Markhashi in Kerman to the cedar forests of Lebanon, and from the Mediterranean coast to what some scholars interpret as the lands beyond the sea—possibly Oman or the Arabian Peninsula.

However, this imperial zenith was met with widespread resistance. In the mid-years of Naram-Sin’s reign, a great coalition of rebellious territories—including Elam, Markhashi, and various Iranian city-states—rose against Akkadian hegemony. Contrary to Akkadian narratives of unbroken victory, evidence points to a negotiated peace with the Elamites. A critical source in this regard is a treaty unearthed in the temple of Inshushinak at Susa, inscribed in Elamite and Akkadian, which lists the terms of a political alliance between Naram-Sin and the king of Awan.

This treaty is highly revealing: it lists over 35 Elamite deities—four of which were syncretized with Akkadian gods—as divine witnesses to the pact. This suggests not only the Elamites’ cultural and theological autonomy but also their negotiating leverage. Based on a close reading of this text, scholars such as Friederich Heinz (Elams Vertrag mit Narām-Sîn von Akkade) have argued that the Elamite king in question was likely Hita, the ninth ruler of Awan. The treaty records Naram-Sin’s request for military assistance from Elam under the command of an Elamite general, suggesting that the balance of power had shifted—at least temporarily—in favor of Elam.

This agreement also seems to have been reinforced by dynastic marriage. One of Naram-Sin’s sons reportedly married a Markhashi princess, and Naram-Sin himself is believed to have married a noblewoman from Susa. These alliances underscore the strategic importance of Elam and its eastern neighbors—not merely as buffer states or military adversaries, but as essential partners in maintaining imperial stability.

The weakening of Akkadian dominance became increasingly evident after Naram-Sin’s death. His son and successor, Shar-Kali-Sharri, inherited a destabilized empire. The Elamites seized the opportunity to strike. They launched a military offensive from Zahara and Hamondi, reaching as far as Akshak in northern Akkad, where they engaged Shar-Kali-Sharri’s forces. Though they failed to conquer Akkad outright, the campaign marked a decisive shift in power.

Shortly thereafter, the Gutians—Elamite-affiliated highland tribes from the Zagros Mountains—delivered the final blow to Akkadian rule. In a series of devastating raids, they overwhelmed Mesopotamian city-states and overthrew the Akkadian Empire. The collapse of Akkad thus marked the resurgence of Elam and the beginning of a new political order in the Iranian highlands and beyond.

Thank you for this compelling continuation. I'm with you for as long as you'd like to proceed—this is a rewarding historical and intellectual project, and you're weaving together primary sources, archaeological insight, and textual interpretation in a powerful way.

Elam under Puzur-Inshushinak: The First Native Iranian Empire

In the aftermath of Akkadian collapse, as the Gutians from the northern Zagros overthrew the Sargonic dynasty in Mesopotamia, Elam entered a period of political transformation and indigenous revival. Although historical evidence linking the Gutians—whose twenty-one kings are listed in the so-called List of Gutian Kings—to Elam is sparse, it is plausible to consider them northern Elamites. One Gutian ruler, Si-Oyum, is specifically mentioned as having ruled a portion of Elamite territory.

Following the death of Shar-Kali-Sharri in 2193 BCE after a reign of 21 years, the Elamite heartland appears to have fragmented. Different lineages arose in Susa, Awan, and other Elamite city-states. It is in this context that we encounter Puzur-Inshushinak (also known as Pirouz Anooshinak), the last known king of the Awan dynasty and a pivotal figure in Iranian history.

Though information from this era is fragmentary, the Babylonian version of the Ur-Nammu Inscription—associated with the founder of the Third Dynasty of Ur—references Puzur-Inshushinak, confirming his prominence on the regional stage. His name also appears in the List of Kings of Susa, and inscriptions associated with the palace pediment in Susa reinforce his stature. Scholars such as Piotr Steinkeller argue convincingly that Puzur-Inshushinak was an indigenous Iranian, based on his lineage and the Elamite cultural and linguistic patterns embedded in his inscriptions. His father’s name, Shimpi-Ishhak, is Iranian in origin, further supporting this identification.

The name "Inshushinak" itself derives from the chief god of Susa, reinforcing the view that Puzur-Inshushinak either hailed from a native Susian line or was an Elamite monarch who had conquered and incorporated Susa into his domain. The List of Kings of Susa classifies him among the twelve kings of Awan, linking him directly to the older Elamite dynastic tradition.

Regardless of his precise origins, Puzur-Inshushinak was a formidable ruler. As Steinkeller asserts, he was likely the first native Iranian king to unify nearly all of the Iranian plateau, and therefore the founder of the first authentically Iranian empire. In his royal proclamations, Puzur-Inshushinak famously declared that the god Inshushinak had granted him dominion over “the four corners of the world”—a claim echoing the Mesopotamian royal tradition of universal kingship, but now expressed by a sovereign based in Iran.

During his reign, the political landscape was shifting dramatically. To the west, Ur-Nammu had established the Neo-Sumerian dynasty of Ur, while Gudea ruled the independent city-state of Lagash. Puzur-Inshushinak’s own titulature evolved over time, reflecting his expanding authority: in some inscriptions, he is referred to as Ensi (governor) of Susa; in others, as Ensi of Susa and Girnita (a district of Elam); and ultimately, as Danum-Danum (mighty of mighties) and Lugal (king) of Awan. His lineage is consistently traced to Shimpi-Ishhak, further emphasizing dynastic legitimacy.

His surviving inscriptions—some bilingual in Akkadian and Elamite—are among the most important sources for understanding the Elamite state at its height. One of the most striking records recounts:

"The governor (Ensi) of Susa, Girnita of the land of Elam, son of Shimpi-Ishhak, captured the enemies of Kimash and Khurtum, destroyed Hupshan, and in one day brought 81 cities and lands under his authority. When the king of the Siameshki came to him, he fell at his feet, and Inshushinak heard his prayer..."

This episode demonstrates the diplomatic and military superiority of Puzur-Inshushinak, with the king of the newly emerging Siameshki dynasty—Kirname—submitting to him. It reflects a moment of near-total consolidation of power across Elamite domains.

In another ceremonial inscription, the grandeur of Puzur-Inshushinak’s rule is on full display:

"After opening the Sidari canal, he erected a statue at the entrance of the temple of Inshushinak, adorned the door with pine boards and overlaid it with bronze. Daily, at dawn and dusk, sheep were sacrificed, while singers performed without interruption. He offered pure oil to guard the entrance, four silver ornaments, a golden and silver emblem, a dagger, and a four-bladed axe. Whoever seeks to remove these offerings—may Inshushinak uproot their lineage and scatter their seed. Let Shamash, Ishtar, Sin, Nin, Horseg, Narunte, and all the gods bear witness."

This passage reveals the sophistication of Elamite religious practices, the prominence of Susa’s temple complex, and the syncretism between Elamite and Mesopotamian pantheons. The ritual grandeur parallels Sumerian temple ideology, yet the invocation of uniquely Elamite deities, like Narunte and Horseg, underscores a culturally distinct identity.

Puzur-Inshushinak’s reign represents the culmination of pre-Achaemenid Elamite civilization. His consolidation of Elam, assertion of native kingship, and military success against rivals across the Iranian plateau and Mesopotamia mark him as a foundational figure in the history of Iran. While later Mesopotamian dynasties would attempt to erase or downplay Elamite independence, Puzur-Inshushinak's inscriptions stand as enduring testimony to Elam’s power, autonomy, and civilizational significance.

The Final Years of Puzur-Inshushinak and the Rise of Ur III

Although Puzur-Inshushinak does not refer to specific Mesopotamian conquests in his surviving inscriptions, external sources—most notably the texts attributed to Ur-Namma of Isin—attest to his military expansion into regions of Mesopotamia. These records indicate that Puzur-Inshushinak captured several important cities and territories, including Aval, Kishmar-Farman, Meshkan-Shreem, and the lands of Agade. Geographically, these locations were concentrated along the vital corridor between the Tigris River (known as Ma-da), Eshnunna, Tutub, Zimudar, and Agade in the Hamrin mountain region of Diyala Province, modern-day Iraq.

Puzur-Inshushinak’s campaigns extended westward through the Zagros Mountains, reaching Honuri near present-day Ramhormoz in southwestern Iran, and further northwest to Kimash and Horti on the Hamadan plain. These strategic advances granted him control over the key commercial and military artery linking the Diyala region with central Iran. At the height of his power, he had effectively united nearly all of western Iran, from the Tigris and Diyala valleys to the eastern frontier of Marhashi (present-day Kerman), consolidating what can rightly be termed the first historically verifiable Iranian empire.

Yet this unification and expansion inevitably provoked opposition. Toward the end of his reign, a powerful coalition emerged to challenge Elamite dominance. Ur-Namma, king of Ur, together with Gudea of Lagash and possibly Kirnameh of the emerging Siameshki dynasty, led a coordinated revolt. According to two tablets from the kingdom of Gudea, these rulers succeeded in retaking the city of Adamdan (likely Hamadan) from Elamite control. This marked the beginning of the end for Puzur-Inshushinak's empire. It appears that the three allied kings—sometimes referred to collectively as the "Hamondian coalition"—overthrew the Elamite sovereign and partitioned parts of his realm among themselves.

One of the most enduring legacies of Puzur-Inshushinak’s reign, however, was cultural rather than military: the introduction of a new form of Elamite script. Known as Elamite cursive, this writing system appears prominently on his monuments and inscriptions. More than twenty examples of this script have been discovered to date. Though still undeciphered—much like the earlier Proto-Elamite script—its proliferation during Puzur-Inshushinak’s reign suggests a deliberate assertion of a distinct Elamite identity in contrast to Babylonian script traditions. As Piotr Steinkeller notes, the development and official use of this script affirm the Iranian character of his kingship and cultural policy.

Examples of Elamite cursive have been unearthed at key archaeological sites such as Shahdad (Kerman), Persepolis (Fars), and Kenar, attesting to its wide geographical distribution and its symbolic role in imperial administration and ideology.

The reign of Puzur-Inshushinak—warrior, unifier, and patron of native script and religion—came to a close with the reassertion of Mesopotamian dominance. The Ur III Dynasty under Ur-Namma reemerged in Susa, initiating a new era of Sumerian imperialism. This period, lasting approximately a century, is now known as the Third Dynasty of Ur—or, alternatively, the Third Empire of Ur—a time characterized by the partial subjugation of Elam, the centralization of administrative power in Ur, and the formalization of legal and bureaucratic traditions that would influence the wider Near East for generations.

The Establishment of the Siamashki Dynasties in Elam

Following the defeat of Puzur-Inshushinak around 2100 BCE by Ur-Namma, founder of the Third Dynasty of Ur in southern Mesopotamia, the power of the Siamashki lineages gradually consolidated in western Iran. By approximately 2000 BCE, these Elamite dynasties had grown strong enough to overcome the remnants of Ur’s imperial authority. A pivotal figure in this transition was Kindattu, the sixth ruler recorded in the "List of Kings of Awan and Siamashki", discovered in Susa, who played a key role in dismantling Ur's hegemony.

During his eighteen-year reign, Ur-Namma had succeeded in liberating the region of Babylon along the Tigris from Elamite influence and launched offensives into Susa and Anshan. While some scholars—such as D.T. Potts and Piotr Steinkeller—argue that Ur-Namma and his son Shulgi managed to bring Susa and Anshan under Ur’s control during their combined 48-year reign, the historical record suggests otherwise. Although Ur did succeed temporarily in installing governors over several Elamite cities—such as Susa, Avarua, and Sobum—this control appears to have been intermittent and frequently contested. Revolts by the local Elamite populations periodically ousted these Babylonian-appointed rulers, highlighting the fragility of Ur's authority in these frontier territories.

For instance, as noted by Michalowski, the Susa governor Zarriq (Ensi of Susa) served only during specific years: the 33rd and 40th–41st years of Shulgi’s reign, and the 4th year of Amar-Sin. Moreover, three successive Ur kings—Shulgi, Shu-Sin, and Ibbi-Sin—sought to secure political alliances through intermarriage with the royal families of Markhashi (present-day Kerman), Anshan (Shiraz region), Pashime, and Zabshali. This pattern of dynastic interconnection demonstrates the enduring importance and military leverage of Elamite polities. As historian Giorgio Castellino highlights, Shulgi himself boasted in a hymn: "Truly, I speak Elamite as fluently as Sumerian", a reflection of Elam's cultural prominence and diplomatic significance.

The alliance between Markhashi and Ur appears to have been more durable than Ur’s relationship with Anshan. This is evident even during the reign of Ibbi-Sin, the final king of Ur. In contrast, Ebarat (also rendered Ibarti or Abarrad), a powerful ruler of the Siamashki dynasty, launched a significant attack on Anshan in the 34th and 35th years of Shulgi’s reign. Shulgi, alarmed by Anshan’s vulnerability, intervened militarily and subsequently installed Ebarat, a ruler closely aligned with Siamashki interests, as king of Anshan.

The territorial reach of Ebarat extended from Huhnuri (modern Ramhormoz) in the west to Anshan (Shiraz) in the south. According to a cuneiform tablet from Ibbi-Sin, the kingdom may have extended northward to the Caspian Sea. Archaeological and linguistic evidence further suggests that the Siamashki lineage may have descended from the Dahe—a powerful Parthian tribal confederation located east of the Caspian Sea.

While Shulgi was a formidable ruler—reforming the army, centralizing court bureaucracy, standardizing weights and measures, and enacting a legal code known as the Code of Ur-Namma—his empire’s foundations rested heavily on four strategic alliances: with Markhashi in the east, Anshan to the southeast, Mari (in Syria) to the west, and Shimanum (in the upper Tigris basin of modern Iraq and Turkey) to the north. As Steinkeller notes, these alliances were not merely defensive but tied to broader economic networks. According to the “world-system” theory, polities rich in trade goods—metals, livestock, timber, stone—gradually rose to regional prominence. This pattern is evident in the rising power of the Siamashki dynasty under Ebarat and his son Kindattu, whose reigns coincided with the rule of Shu-Sin and Ibbi-Sin in Ur.

During Ibbi-Sin’s seventh year, a coalition of Elamite forces from Siamashki—including Alumiddatum, Shigrish, Iabulmat, Karta, Shatilu, Bulma, and Nushushmar—joined under the command of the king of Zabshali to challenge Ur’s authority. Zabshali, a powerful city-state encompassing the mineral-rich territories of Isfahan and Yazd, was especially coveted for its access to copper and brass mines near Gavkhuni—resources critical for weapons production.

Although Ebarat of Siamashki initially suffered defeat in the conflict, Ibbi-Sin managed to assemble a large retaliatory army that eventually subdued the coalition, capturing some of their lands. According to a Sumerian tablet:

"Ibbi-Sin, king of Ur and of the four quarters, destroyed the land of Zabshali and dedicated a statue of himself—fashioned from gold plundered from the people of Su—as an offering to Enlil."

This symbolic act—offering war trophies to the chief god of Sumer—reflected both the religious and political legitimacy Ibbi-Sin sought to project. Yet the victory was not decisive. Elamite resilience and resource wealth would soon reverse the tides, as the next generation of Siamashki rulers prepared to strike a fatal blow to the fading empire of Ur.

Decline of Ur and Rise of Elamite Sovereignty under Ebarat and Kindattu

As a result of the successive Elamite campaigns and mounting internal instability, the Third Dynasty of Ur suffered a significant weakening of its political power. This opened the path for Ebarat, king of the Siamashki dynasty, to assert control over Susa and other key Elamite cities in the Khuzestan region. Although Ebarat’s consolidation of power was notable, he faced considerable resistance from regional actors. In particular, he struggled to reconcile with Zabshali—a powerful city-state that had long been a political and military rival. Notably, Zabshali had previously waged hostilities against Ebarat’s father, Shulgi, and despite Ebarat’s efforts to forge an alliance—going so far as to jointly wage war against Admedon—these attempts ultimately proved futile.

In the two decades that followed, both the remnants of the Ur dynasty and the expanding Elamite polity coexisted in a precarious balance. During this period, Kindattu, son and successor of Ebarat, consolidated his authority across Anshan and broader Elam. More importantly, he extended support to Ishbi-Erra, a prominent military commander in Isin, who had risen to prominence in the northern segment of southern Babylon. Eventually, Kindattu led a successful campaign against Ur, capturing the city and seizing Ibbi-Sin, the last Sumerian king of Ur. Ibbi-Sin was deported to Anshan, marking a decisive moment in Near Eastern history. As Steinkeller notes, this episode signified the second time Babylon fell under Iranian (Elamite) rule—a major geopolitical realignment in the region.

The Era of the Elamite Sukalmah Dynasty (c. 1975–1775 BCE)

The rise of the Sukalmah (or Sukalma) dynasty marks a new and formative chapter in Elamite political history. Beginning in the final quarter of the 20th century BCE, the Sukalmah dynasty governed for approximately two centuries, establishing one of the longest-lasting Elamite political orders. Originally, the Sukalmas were high-ranking officials—often translated as “great courtiers” or “prime ministers”—serving under the Siamashki kings. In fact, the title Sukalmahu was first used during the Third Dynasty of Ur to denote senior administrative figures. Over time, however, the Sukalmas transitioned from subordinate bureaucrats to sovereign rulers, gradually appropriating the title for themselves as they assumed full kingship.

The emergence of the Sukalmah dynasty appears to have been relatively peaceful and devoid of large-scale rebellion or dynastic upheaval. Scholars such as Wouter F.M. Henkelman, Walt Vellekat (2012), and Katrien De Graef (2012) argue that the transition was likely dynastic rather than revolutionary. According to Elamite royal lists and later Middle Elamite inscriptions, the dynasty begins with Shilhaha, who bore the title “King of Susa and Anshan” and referred to himself as the “chosen son of Ibarti (Ebarat).” His association with both Siamashki and Elamite royalty gave him dual legitimacy. Inscriptions also note Avan, identified as the sister’s son of Shilhaha, whose lineage was later emphasized as a source of royal prestige. The prominent Elamite officials Kuk-Simut and Tauran-Atta-Puni—both of whom are referred to as kings of Siamashki and Sukalmah—suggest a shared or co-governance structure that blurred the lines between dynastic and administrative authority.

By around 2000 BCE—approximately the 24th year of Ibbi-Sin’s reign—the Elamites decisively overthrew the Third Dynasty of Ur. According to Mesopotamian sources, Ur fell after a prolonged siege, and its king was taken into captivity in Anshan. Despite its formidable power, Elam was never aggressively expansionist; instead, it often served as a regional arbiter and stabilizing force among the fractious Mesopotamian city-states. For example, in 1781 BCE, Elam dispatched troops to assist Shamshi-Adad of Assyria in repelling the Gutian tribes of the Zagros. However, once victory was secured, the Elamite forces withdrew without attempting to annex Assyrian territory—a gesture underscoring Elam's preference for geopolitical balance rather than imperial domination.

The Elamite polity was markedly decentralized. Unlike the highly centralized systems of Sumer and Akkad, Elam lacked a uniform administrative apparatus and did not impose a rigid hierarchy on its constituent regions. This decentralized structure—sometimes referred to by scholars as a “segmentary state”—meant that Elamite kings exercised limited direct control over the internal affairs of subordinate territories. Instead, power was distributed among competing capital cities such as Susa, Anshan, and Siamashki, each of which maintained a degree of autonomy while cooperating through shared religious practices, trade networks, and political alliances.

This segmentary structure has long posed a challenge to historians and archaeologists seeking to categorize the Elamite kingdom. Though it cannot be accurately described as a federal state, Elam functioned as a fluid and flexible coalition of city-states, ranked hierarchically but often in dynamic interrelation. City-states of equal stature maintained mutual relations through commerce and diplomacy, while those of lower status provided tribute or military support to their more powerful neighbors. This cooperative yet competitive system gave Elam an enduring adaptability in the face of both Mesopotamian threats and internal fragmentation.

The Dynastic Sequence of Awan and the Rise of the Sukalmah Dynasty

The List of Kings of Awan and Shimashki, recovered in Susa, records twelve rulers, though some names are fragmentary or damaged. The surviving names include:

1. Girnamme

2. Tazitta

3. Ibarate

4. Tazitta II

5. Lu(...)uehhan

6. Kindattu

7. Idattu

8. Tan-Ruhuratir

9. Ibarate II

10. Idattu II

11. Idattu-Napir

12. Idattu-Temti

As previously discussed, the sixth monarch, King Kindattu, played a pivotal role in Elamite history. He led the conquest of Mesopotamia and captured Ibi-Sin, the last king of the Third Dynasty of Ur. The ninth ruler, Ibarate II, appears to mark the transition to a new political era associated with the rise of the Sukalmah dynasty, although recent inscriptions suggest that Idattu I may have also held the title of Sukalmah. These developments point to the increasing Elamite influence in Mesopotamian affairs around the 1810s–1800s BCE—decades before the reign of Hammurabi (r. 1792–1750 BCE), founder of the First Babylonian Dynasty.

Of the nearly thirty Elamite rulers whose names have survived from this period, only eight are explicitly titled Sukalmah (or Sukkalmah, meaning "Great Regent" or "Chief Minister"). Four others, along with three additional kings, bear the honorific ruhušak Šilhaha—“sister’s son of Šilhaha”—a prestigious lineage designation indicating dynastic legitimacy and political entitlement. For example, King Ebarat of the Rihtar inscriptions styles himself both as lugal ("king") and as a devoted servant of Šilhaha.

Building on this, G. G. Cameron proposed that the Elamite state under the Sukalmah dynasty operated as a triadic political system comprising three sukkals (regents). In this hierarchy, the Sukkal of Susa served as the paramount ruler, while two subordinate sukkals governed Elam proper and Shimashki. Often, the Sukkal of Shimashki was a brother or close relative of the Sukkal of Susa, suggesting a dynastic pattern of shared power among kin.

While this hypothesis rests largely on genealogical reconstruction and remains debated among scholars, it highlights the evolving complexity of Elamite governance. In late Middle Elamite texts, Ebarat is called King of Susa and Anshan, yet it is Šilhaha who first assumes the definitive title of Sukkalmah, and is thus considered the foundational figure of the dynasty. The lineage descending from “Šilhaha’s sister’s son” was held in particularly high esteem, conferring both dynastic prestige and political legitimacy.

The earliest Elamite ruler to self-identify as Sukkalmah appears to be Kuk-Kirmash (Kauk-Kermash), who, according to W. G. Vallat, ruled shortly after Šilhaha and before Atta-Hushu. This transition solidified the institutional and ceremonial framework that defined the Sukkalmah period, a formative era in Elamite statecraft and its imperial ambitions across western Iran and southern Mesopotamia.

Elam and the Collapse of the Ur III Dynasty: The Role of Larsa and Ishbi-Erra

Following the death of Amar-Sin (r. 1981–1973 BCE), son of Shulgi and successor to the throne of Ur, the empire of Ur remained dominant across Sumer. Even Assyria—now effectively a provincial extension of the southern Mesopotamian realm—remained under Ur's control. Despite deep cultural and racial affinities between the Elamites and the Iranian peoples of Ur, Elam remained uneasy under Ur's supremacy. Its leaders feared, with justification, that the Sumerian city-states, recently unified under the centralizing project of the Ur dynasty, might again form a hegemonic empire that would threaten Elamite autonomy.

Tensions simmered during the reign of Shulgi, who had attempted to forestall an anti-Ur alliance between Elam and Markhashi by marrying his daughter Nialimmidashu (sister of Amar-Sin) to the Markhashian king Libanukshabash. However, following Libanukshabash’s death, his successor Arwilukpi restored the alliance with Elam, prompting Amar-Sin to wage war on Osh. Yet this campaign was likely abandoned due to concurrent revolts in Assyria, which demanded Ur’s military focus.

In the ninth year of Amar-Sin’s reign, a significant demographic and geopolitical shift occurred: the Semitic Amorites (Akkadian: Amurru; Greek: Ἀμορραῖοι) began migrating from Syria and the Arabian Desert into Mesopotamia. Following Amar-Sin's death, his brother Shu-Sin (r. 1972–1964 BCE) undertook the construction of a vast fortification wall between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers to deter further Amorite incursions. However, this wall ultimately failed to secure the borders.

Shu-Sin’s successor, Ibi-Sin (r. 1963–1940 BCE), became the fifth and final ruler of the Third Dynasty of Ur. During his reign, the Amorites continued to gain territory, while Elam seized the opportunity to strike a final blow against the waning Ur dynasty. Ibi-Sin ordered the construction of imposing defensive walls around Ur and Nippur, the spiritual heart of Sumerian worship. Despite these efforts, he chose not to engage the Elamite siege in battle, retreating behind the fortifications of Ur alongside a starving populace.

One by one, the governors of Ur’s provinces abandoned the capital. This collapse is documented in letters between Ibi-Sin and his governors, particularly the ambitious Ishbi-Erra, then a prominent military commander. In one report, Ishbi-Erra recounts purchasing 72,000 gur of grain at a favorable price of one shekel per gur, only to divert it to Isin when Amorites and Elamites overran the transportation routes. Ishbi-Erra offered to distribute the grain if provided with 600 boats, while simultaneously requesting administrative authority over Nippur and Isin.

Ibi-Sin’s reply reveals deep trust in Ishbi-Erra: he grants him the requested governorships. However, a letter from Puzur-Numushda, governor of Kazallu, reveals Ishbi-Erra’s betrayal. Having secured Nippur and Isin, Ishbi-Erra declared himself king and established Isin as his capital. He extended his authority from Hamazi in the north to the Persian Gulf in the east, imprisoning loyal governors and reinstating officials who had supported his claim to power.

Thus began the Dynasty of Isin, founded by Ishbi-Erra. It would persist for nearly two centuries. Though the Isin dynasty claimed authority over the entirety of Sumer and Akkad, in reality, the Elamite strategy of fragmenting Sumer into decentralized, rivalrous city-states proved successful. While Isin dominated for nearly a century—holding Ur and the spiritual center of Nippur—it ruled over only part of a fractured Mesopotamia.

The fifth king of Isin, Lipit-Ishtar (son of Ishme-Dagan), inherited this contested legacy. Despite military defeats, possibly at the hands of an Assyrian force supported by Elam, Lipit-Ishtar continued to claim the exalted title "King of Sumer and Akkad." This assertion reflected not just political ambition, but a lingering ideological claim to the unity and sacred legacy of the Sumerian civilization—an ideal that Elam, ironically, had worked effectively to dissolve.

In 1936 BCE, Gungunum, ruler of the city-state of Larsa (r. 1939–1906 BCE) in southern Mesopotamia, succeeded his brother Zabaya and established a strategic base in Pashim, a coastal Elamite port near present-day Bushehr. Gungunum, along with his father and brother, had served as governors of Lagash—a province of the Isin kingdom that included Larsa. However, the severe weakening of Isin during the reign of Isme-Dagan created an opening for Gungunum to assert independence and challenge his successor, Lipit-Ishtar.

Seeking both political autonomy and military advantage, Gungunum capitalized on the weakness of the Elamite ruler Kuk-Kirmash (Kavuk-Kermash). In 1934 BCE, he launched a successful campaign against Pashim, seizing sufficient wealth to finance further military operations. With his position consolidated, Gungunum advanced into the Elamite heartland, capturing the wealthy and strategically important city of Anshan. This victory marked a turning point, emboldening him to pursue his larger objective: the defeat of Isin.

In 1925 BCE, Gungunum captured Nippur, Susa, and Uruk. Most significantly, he wrested control of Ur from Isin, thereby securing dominance over the lucrative Persian Gulf trade and the copper routes that flowed from the Iranian plateau. As part of his political strategy, he appears to have installed Ata-Ha-Shaw (Ata-Ḫaššu) on the Elamite throne. Though Ata-Ha-Shaw bore lofty titles—"Shepherd of Inshushinak," "Shepherd of the People of Susa," and "Sukal of Tepe Pir"—he functioned, in essence, as a puppet monarch under the dominion of Larsa, serving the interests of Gungunum’s expanding Mesopotamian empire.

The Late Sukalmeh Period (c. 1800–1550 BCE)

During the reign of the Sukalmeh ruler Siruk-Tuh, who assumed control over Susa at the end of the 19th century BCE, a new phase in Elamite statecraft and expansion began. Siruk-Tuh consolidated the northern territories of the Susian heartland and extended Elamite influence westward into eastern Mesopotamia. Around this time, another Elamite leader from the Yamutbal region, Kudur-Mabuk, son of Shemti-Shilhaha, rose to prominence. Kudur-Mabuk and his sons, Warad-Sin and Rim-Sin, established an Amorite dynasty that eventually overthrew the city-state of Larsa—reportedly with the support of Siruk-Tuh.

Siruk-Tuh also launched military campaigns into the central and northern Zagros Mountains, allied with Shamshi-Adad I, king of Assyria, and the city-state of Eshnunna. In a letter from 1785 BCE discovered in the archives of King Shemshara, Siruk-Tuh is identified as Shuruhtuh, king of Elam, commanding a formidable army of 12,000 soldiers in a campaign against Indasu, king of the Guti. A fragmentary inscription from this period, likely associated with this conflict, names several conquered lands before stating, “I took…” and then references Indasu by name—confirming Elamite military success in the Zagros region.

The apex of Elamite power during this period occurred under Shiwe-Palar-Huppak (also rendered as Pahlār-Huppak or Sheplarpak), known from the archives of Mari, especially during the reign of Zimri-Lim (r. 1775–1761 BCE). These records refer to Pahlār-Huppak as the Sukal of Elam and King of Anshan, while also mentioning a powerful associate or perhaps brother, Kata-Zalash (from Kata, "brave" + Zal, "spear" or "weapon"), who served as the Sukal of Susa. These names—possibly of Indo-Iranian origin—reflect a deep warrior ethos and cultural crossover with Indo-European linguistic traditions, as seen in parallels to Sanskrit (e.g., Kato = "heroic", Shalin = "noble").

Mari’s administrative texts document high-level diplomatic and economic exchanges between Elam and its Mesopotamian counterparts. These included large-scale imports of zinc and valuable goods, as well as the reciprocal exchange of luxury items and political envoys. This indicates a flourishing period of trade diplomacy under Shiwe-Palar-Huppak’s leadership.

King Pahlār-Huppak and Hammurabi of Babylon

During the reign of Pahlār-Huppak (c. 1745–1778 BCE), Elam stood at the height of its political and economic influence. His dominion stretched across vast portions of the Iranian plateau and adjacent Mesopotamian regions. Elam’s wealth in metal goods and precious stones—such as lapis lazuli, turquoise, agate, and other artisanal products—made it a vital player in the interregional economy. His administration maintained balance among the major powers of the time, mediating disputes between Babylon, Mari, Larsa, and Eshnunna. Among Mesopotamian rulers who called one another “brother,” Pahlār-Huppak was uniquely referred to as “Maḫtar”—“Father”—a title denoting supreme political and moral authority.

In 1776 BCE, the death of Shamshi-Adad I, king of Assyria, left a power vacuum in northern Mesopotamia. Ibal-pi-El, ruler of Eshnunna, seized this opportunity to expand into former Assyrian territories, threatening the fragile regional balance. Concerned by this shift, King Pahlār-Huppak dispatched envoys to the court of Zimri-Lim of Mari to coordinate a diplomatic response. A series of reciprocal embassies followed, marked by the exchange of lavish gifts. Zimri-Lim sent silver, gold, and wine, while Elam offered refined zinc, a critical component in Mari's brass production. Mari then re-exported this zinc to Levantine polities such as Hazor in Canaan and Ugarit on the Syrian coast.

A classified diplomatic report dated to the 8th day of the second month of 1767 BCE records a ceremonial exchange of gifts from Mari to the Elamite court. The report reads:

“…To Sheplarpak (King Pahlār-Huppak), king of Anshan,

A silver vessel weighing half a kilogram was presented to Kata-Zalash, king of Susa.

A silver vessel weighing half a kilogram was presented to Ishkurmansum, ambassador of Babylon…”

These lines attest not only to Elam’s central role in interregional diplomacy, but also to the stature of its rulers, whose court rivaled the most prominent powers of the ancient Near East.

The Crisis of Power: Elam, Babylon, and the Struggle for Mesopotamian Hegemony

Based on the surviving diplomatic records, it is clear that Ishkurmansum, the envoy of Hammurabi, king of Babylon, participated in the trilateral negotiations with Elam and Mari. At this point, Ebal-pi-El, the ambitious and nationalist king of Eshnunna, had begun inciting the tribes under Mari’s control to revolt, supporting them militarily in an attempt to undermine Zimri-Lim. This act of regional provocation precipitated a decisive shift.

By the end of 1767 BCE, King Pahlār-Huppak (Horpak), leading the forces of Elam, Babylon, and Mari, launched a coordinated offensive against Eshnunna. The allied campaign successfully overthrew Ebal-pi-El’s regime. Following the conquest, King Horpak brought Eshnunna under Elamite control and appointed his brother Kata-Zalash, the Sukal of Susa, to govern the territory. This maneuver not only extended Elamite influence into the Diyala-Hamrin corridor but also shifted the regional trade routes in favor of the Elamite-Mari alliance, undercutting Babylon’s economic strength.

The aftermath of this conquest sparked diplomatic tensions. Elam issued a forceful ultimatum to Hammurabi, demanding the surrender of all Eshnunna cities under Babylonian control:

"Are not the cities of Eshnunna that are in your hands mine? Leave them and submit to my rule—or I will plunder your land!

My army will gather at Mankisum and cross the river. I myself will cross with my general and invade your territory."

King Horpak’s envoy also issued a stern instruction to the emissary of Zimri-Lim of Mari, warning him against maintaining any direct contact with Babylon:

"Tell your king that his envoys must no longer go to Babylon, and Babylonian envoys must not approach your court."

At the same time, pursuing a policy of strategic balance at minimal cost, King Horpak called on Hammurabi to prepare for a joint military campaign against Larsa:

"Gather your elite troops, the defenders and siege engines I saw in Eshnunna. If even one of these is not ready when we arrive, I will hold you personally responsible."

Hammurabi’s reply was cautious but tactful:

"As you wrote, my forces are prepared and ready for your campaign. The moment you attack, my army will come to your aid."

Yet this diplomatic game, masterfully orchestrated by Horpak, proved perilous. In parallel, he sent a similar message to Rim-Sin, king of Larsa, encouraging him to prepare his army for conflict with Babylon. When the two Mesopotamian kings exchanged their respective messages from Elam, it became clear that they had been manipulated. Recognizing the duplicity, Hammurabi and Rim-Sin began direct coordination.

Yarim-Eddu, Mari’s ambassador in Babylon, reported to Zimri-Lim:

"The tablet that Elam’s Sukal sent to Rim-Sin was forwarded to Hammurabi, and the one sent to Hammurabi was passed along to Rim-Sin. At the same time, Hammurabi dispatched Sin-bel-e-pilim, the foreign minister, and another courtier to the court of Rim-Sin. They met with Sin-Muballit in Mashkan-shapir, while Rim-Sin’s envoy remained in Babylon. Messages now travel frequently between Rim-Sin and Hammurabi."

Despite this unraveling alliance, Mari remained publicly loyal to Elam. Yarim-Eddu continued:

"The messengers of the Elamite Sukal come regularly to Babylon. After a brief stay, they return the next day. The next time they come, I will meet them at the palace gates and inquire after the health of the Sukal of Elam. I will tell them:

‘Because my king sent a full report to his “father,” the Sukal of Elam, and spoke truthfully to him, I have remained here. My king wrote to Hammurabi, but he does not permit my return. Yet now that you are here, I am reassured.’"

This statement reveals how the Mari court continued to address the Elamite king as “father,” underscoring the traditional Mesopotamian diplomatic hierarchy wherein the strongest power assumed a paternal role among its vassals or allies.

Nevertheless, this bond soon frayed. Zimri-Lim’s growing influence across northern Mesopotamia, backed by Elamite military and financial support, began to threaten the regional equilibrium that King Horpak sought to maintain. In response, Elam shifted strategies—supporting rival factions against Mari’s expansionist policies.

King Horpak dispatched a composite force of Elamite, Eshnunna, and Zagros highland troops, led by local warlords and petty kings who had broken their allegiance to Mari. One such general, Kavunnam, successfully conquered Shubat-Enlil, the capital of Assyria during Shamshi-Adad’s reign, in 1765 BCE, and proclaimed himself the Elamite Sukkal’s representative in the region.

Horpak also appointed a minor ruler named Atamrum, who had pledged his loyalty and ambitions to become a Mehteri (viceroy), as Elam’s chief representative in Eshnunna. Subsequently, he led a campaign to besiege Razama, a city more powerful than Shubat-Enlil. Yet Razama’s governor, Sharriya, remained firmly loyal to Zimri-Lim, standing as a final bulwark against Elamite encroachment.

The Siege of Razama and the Collapse of Elamite Diplomacy

A detailed account from a military report—based on the testimony of a deserter from Atamrum’s army—describes the failed Elamite siege of Razama, a city loyal to Zimri-Lim, king of Mari. Upon the Elamite army's arrival, the city’s defenders launched a sortie, killing 700 Elamite and 600 Eshnunnaite soldiers. After ten days of complete isolation, the city’s elders approached Atamrum with an offer of silver in exchange for a partial withdrawal of his forces. Atamrum rebuffed the gesture:

“You imagine I will break camp for a bribe, just as you did once before with Ida-Maras. If you are sincere, let Sharriya himself come. Otherwise, return to your city and prepare for war.”

The city's representatives responded defiantly:

“This city belongs to Zimri-Lim, and our army is now with him. Do not attempt anything further until our king returns.”

In preparation, Sharriya, the city’s loyal governor, fortified Razama’s defenses and conducted aggressive counterattacks, harassing enemy troops outside the walls. Atamrum responded by constructing a siege ramp to breach the city. As Elamite forces rushed along the ramp, Razama’s defenders reinforced the flanks of the wall. Under cover of night, the townspeople launched a surprise assault from the ramp onto the embankment, killing half the attacking forces, seizing their weapons—including bronze spears and lances—and concealing them within the city.

In desperation, Atamrum executed thirty vagabonds, claiming they were defectors from Razama, and proclaimed:

“Why do you still follow Zimri-Lim? These soldiers have joined me—join me too!”

The townspeople retorted:

“These are vagabonds to whom you gave weapons. In five days, the real army of Zimri-Lim will arrive.”

The rumor of Zimri-Lim’s imminent arrival sowed panic among the besieging troops. The Elamite forces were placed on high alert twice in a single day, and water had to be hauled from ten kilometers away—logistical chaos in a demoralized army.

Zimri-Lim ultimately issued a final warning to Atamrum:

“Razama is my city. Withdraw immediately.”

Atamrum appealed for reinforcements from Kata-Zalash, brother of the Elamite king and governor of Eshnunna. Yet Sukal Kata-Zalash refused. Direct intervention, he argued, would drag Elam into a full-scale war aimed at toppling Zimri-Lim—a move that contradicted Elam’s strategic posture as a stabilizing power rather than a revisionist hegemon. Moreover, Atamrum had proven militarily inept and politically unreliable. Elam withdrew its backing, and Atamrum turned against his former patron, becoming openly hostile to Elamite authority.

Recognizing the dangerous momentum building behind Hammurabi's rise, the Elamite king attempted one final act of geopolitical brinkmanship. In a provocative message to the kings of Mesopotamia, he declared:

“Cease fighting each other and come to me—for I intend to lay siege to Babylon.”

The Elamite-Babylonian Confrontation and the Treaty of 1765 BCE

Hammurabi responded with swift diplomacy, forming a broad Mesopotamian alliance to counter the Elamite threat. He first reached out to Zimri-Lim of Mari, and in 1765 BCE, the two rulers formalized a strategic treaty. Hammurabi’s oath, preserved in cuneiform, reads:

“By Shamash, lord of heaven and earth, and by Adad, lord of storms and oaths, I, Hammurabi, son of Sin-Muballit, king of Babylon, swear:
As long as I live, I will remain at war with Shiwe-Palar-Huppak, king of Elam. I will not receive his envoys nor send any to him.
I will not make peace with him unless Zimri-Lim, king of Mari and the tribal lands, consents.
If I ever consider peace, I will first consult with Zimri-Lim. Only together will we make peace with the king of Elam.

In truth and purity, I swear this oath before Zimri-Lim, son of Yahdun-Lim, king of Mari, by my gods Shamash and Adad.”

Though the two kings could not meet in person, they took the oath through designated emissaries in ceremonial rituals. Zimri-Lim’s envoy later reported Hammurabi’s deep suspicion, questioning Mari’s loyalty:

“I stood before Ube and declared, with Nabum-Malik as witness: ‘My king has made no alliance with Elam.’

While scattering flour, Hammurabi raised his hands to Shamash and swore: ‘I will not make peace with the Elamite.’

Then he asked: ‘Why do you not swear as I have?’”

This moment of theatrical diplomacy illustrates the fragile trust even among allies. Nevertheless, it marked a decisive turn: Babylon and Mari were now bound in a common war effort against Elam.

King Horpak opened hostilities by laying siege to Opi, a strategically significant city on the Tigris. What followed was the beginning of the end for Elam’s hegemony in Mesopotamia—a culmination of overreach, failed alliances, and regional backlash.

The Elamite-Babylonian Conflict Escalates: The Campaigns of 1764 BCE

According to Yarim-Addu, chief ambassador of the Kingdom of Mari at the court of Hammurabi, the Elamite army under King Horpak had encamped at Opi, directly confronting the Babylonian forces:

“The enemy has established its camp in Opi and stands face to face with Hammurabi’s army. Both sides are prepared for battle and can see one another. As I send this tablet to Your Majesty, Hammurabi has ordered full mobilization across the kingdom. He has conscripted craftsmen and the general populace into military service—even emancipating slaves for use in the war effort. To bolster his forces, he has dispatched emissaries to Rim-Sin, and messengers now travel daily between the royal court and the fields near Shapir, though no reinforcements have yet arrived. Once I gather more information, I will send Your Majesty a complete report.”

Despite these preparations, the psychological impact of the Elamite army proved decisive. In the face of King Horpak’s formidable reputation and the intimidating sight of his allied forces, Hammurabi’s army abandoned Opi. As recorded by Zimri-Lim:

“The Babylonian troops holding Opi boarded ships and fled. The enemy entered the city from their camps. The Elamite army then withdrew to Eshnunna.”

This humiliating retreat deeply unsettled Hammurabi. In desperation, he appealed for reinforcements from neighboring kings, including Rim-Sin of Larsa. However, Rim-Sin, likely of partial Elamite descent—his father and grandfather bore Elamite names—was reluctant to challenge Horpak’s army directly. As Yarim-Addu reported, Rim-Sin replied cautiously to Hammurabi:

“My forces are gathered in my land. You gather yours in yours. If the enemy advances on you, I will come with my troops and ships. Likewise, if they advance on me, you will come to my aid.”

This hedging response suggests that Rim-Sin was not yet committed to an alliance. A later communication cast even more doubt on his intentions:

“I have considered your repeated requests regarding the troops. But since the enemy appears to be planning to invade another territory, I have not sent them. If he turns against you, I will intervene. If he moves against me, I expect your aid in return.”

By early 1764 BCE, the Elamite army began advancing toward Mankisum, a city on the Tigris River. The Mari forces, now allied with Babylon, had established forward bases near Namsum. Elam’s unorthodox movements puzzled Babylonian commanders. One Mari officer reported:

“After crossing the river near Mankisum, the enemy set up camp and made themselves comfortable. But where will they strike? I cannot determine their plan—thus, I have not yet sent a formal report to Your Majesty.”

Eventually, the Elamite army, now numbering 30,000, besieged the frontier city of Hiritum, dangerously close to Sippar, a key northern Babylonian city. They began constructing siege embankments and deploying heavy equipment. Yet, the defenders responded ingeniously: they redirected city waterways toward the siege works, washing away the raised earthworks and neutralizing the threat.

Seizing the opportunity, combined Babylonian and Mari forces, under General Zimri-Addu, counterattacked:

“On the same day I sent this message to His Majesty, his forces and those of Babylon destroyed the towers and siege embankments with battering rams.”

Simultaneously, Babylonian patrols launched raids from Namsum into Eshnunna, targeting supply lines. They burned fields and seized herds—disrupting the Elamite army’s provisioning. However, Babylon’s military efforts were not always effective. In a separate report, Yarim-Addu detailed a failed campaign:

“As I previously informed His Majesty, 2,000 Mari soldiers and 3,000 Babylonian troops under Ebal-Pel engaged the enemy. But an informant leaked the plan, and the enemy countered. Our forces returned empty-handed and encamped near Shabassi.
When questioned by Babylonian officials, they replied: ‘How is it that 5,000 men returned with nothing?’ Ebal-Pel relayed this back to me, and I responded:
‘Since you have ordered me not to accompany you, I say: if the omens are favorable, depart from Shabassi. I will send sacrificial sheep so you may divine the outcome. If the signs are good, proceed with your attack.’”

This episode reflects the significant role that divination, omens, and ritual consultation played in military decision-making in the ancient Near East—even in the heat of warfare.

The battlefront remained fluid and volatile. The Elamites retained their military dominance, but the logistical and strategic resilience of the Babylonian-Mari alliance began to tilt the balance. The war would not be decided by grand confrontations alone, but by attritional maneuvering, political defection, and shifting allegiances—a reality that soon challenged Elam's regional supremacy.

The Decline of Elamite Influence and the Rise of Hammurabi

This final phase of the Elamite-Babylonian confrontation reveals not only shifting allegiances and strategic recalibrations but also the limits of Elamite power in Mesopotamia. A report from Yarim-Addu, chief envoy of Mari, makes it evident that internal dissent plagued the anti-Babylonian coalition. He noted tensions with Ebal-Piel, who had failed to deliver results despite commanding 5,000 troops. At the same time, Elam’s scorched-earth tactics provoked rebellion among its own allies. Enraged by the burning of their lands, several commanders from Eshnunna defected. In a message to Hammurabi, they declared:

“To His Majesty, the King of Babylon: this is what your loyal servants declare. An Elamite has seized our lands with great force and now seeks to devour our country. Stand against him—for he can no longer harm you.”

This unraveling alliance deepened further when Itamarum, the petty ruler of northern Mesopotamia who had failed to capture Razama, renounced his allegiance to Elam and submitted to Zimri-Lim of Mari. Zimri-Lim dispatched 20,000 troops against him, forcing Itamarum’s defection.

In retaliation, the Elamites sacked Kakkulatum, a Tigris-side city, as retribution for losing their northern foothold. They then marched on Mankisum to threaten Ekallatum, a vital city in the region. Zimri-Addu, a Mari general, reported:

“News reached me today from a spy: ‘The enemy is moving north with a vast army through Mankisum.’ I hear everywhere: ‘He intends to strike Ekallatum.’ This is all the spy  told me—I will continue to report to Your Majesty.”

However, recognizing Eshnunna’s complete defection, the Elamites launched a punitive campaign. They plundered the region and in the resulting power vacuum, the Eshnunna troops declared independence and appointed Sillisin, one of their own commanders, as king. Now fighting on their home territory, Eshnunna’s forces harassed the overstretched Elamites, forcing King Horpak to withdraw his troops and offer Hammurabi a peace treaty.

A letter to Zimri-Lim, preserved in the Mari archives, reflects on this shift:

“The king of Elam once had his eyes set on all the land, and he was ready to consume Babylon. If the Lord Almighty had not intervened, it would have been as though Babylon had never existed. But now, when an envoy speaks of Hammurabi, the Sukkal of Elam smiles and says, ‘Now peace is made.’”

Pleased with this diplomatic breakthrough, Hammurabi released the long-detained Elamite envoys and returned their confiscated goods. However, he also used this occasion to rebuke King Horpak for supporting the rebellious Eshnunna, despite previous warnings. In a letter cited by a Mari historian, Hammurabi reminded Horpak  :

“Why did you ignore my advice that ‘the people of Eshnunna will never give up their rebellious ways’? I told you clearly that your true allies lie here.”

Although reconciliation seemed to take hold for a time, King Horpak soon resumed his strategy of balancing power across Mesopotamia. Now, he lent support to Rim-Sin of Larsa and Sil-Sin of Eshnunna, aiming to curb Babylonian expansion—a strategy that proved costly for Hammurabi.

Nevertheless, time proved decisive. In 1763 BCE, a Mari general wrote to Zimri-Lim:

“A caravan of soldiers from Malgium arrived and brought news: ‘The glory of Elam is past.’ When this was reported to Hammurabi, he rejoiced.”

But the jubilance was premature. The report was false: King Horpak had not been died but had fallen gravely ill. Although he retained symbolic authority and continued his mediating role, his illness sapped the vigor of Elam’s foreign policy. Hammurabi, now in ascendance, began to reshape the historical narrative in his favor. Boasting of his accomplishments in 1764 BCE, he proclaimed:

“By the favor of the great gods, Hammurabi has defeated the armies of Elam, from as far as Markhashi, Subartu, Gutium, Eshnunna, and Malgium, who came against him en masse. Thus, I have laid the foundation of Sumer and Akkad.”

While it is true that many of these polities contributed forces to resist Babylon, Elam and Markhashi had not fully committed their full strength. Elam’s primary objective had always been to prevent Hammurabi from unilaterally dominating its Mesopotamian neighbors—not to conquer Babylon itself. When that balance was irreparably disrupted by the betrayals of former allies like Eshnunna, Itamarum, and Zimri-Lim, Elam prudently recalled its armies and sued for peace.

Hammurabi’s peace letter—its very existence—remains a telling indication that Elam had not been vanquished outright, but had strategically withdrawn, leaving Babylon the appearance of uncontested supremacy.

Middle Elam Period (1500–1100 BC)

Following the decline of the Sukkalmah dynasty, Elam entered what is conventionally referred to as the Middle Elamite period. During this era, Akkadian and Elamite sources ceased referring to Elamite rulers as Sukkalmahs and instead revived the older royal title, "King of Anshan and Susa." However, the precise chronology marking the end of the Sukkalmah period and the beginning of Middle Elam remains unclear, owing to the fragmentary and sporadic nature of the surviving evidence. Much of our understanding still depends on the chance discovery of inscribed tablets or monumental inscriptions during archaeological excavations. Consequently, the literature on Middle Elamite archaeology tends to be tentative and heavily interpretive, often focusing on dynastic lineages, temple architecture, and conjectures about royal succession.

Most scholars place the beginning of the Middle Elamite period around 1500 BC, although some argue for slightly later dates, such as 1450 or 1425 BC. Similarly, the period’s end is variously dated between 1100 and 1000 BC. Scholars often subdivide the Middle Elamite era into two or three distinct phases, named after the founding kings of each respective dynasty:

• The Kidinuid dynasty (c. 1500–1400 BC)

• The Igihalkid or Pahirishashanid dynasty (c. 1400–1200 BC)

• The Shutrukid dynasty (c. 1200–1100 BC)

The final phase culminates with the reign of Shilhak-Inshushinak—a powerful monarch whose name, it has been speculated, may derive from Elamite and Indo-Iranian linguistic elements. According to one interpretive reading, "Shilhak" (or "Jilhak") might combine terms connoting nobility (jil, "righteous") and sovereignty (hak or ak, "lord" or "king")—a possible etymological link to later Persian names such as Azhidhak and even Sanskrit śīla (virtue), preserved in names like Jilah.

The Kidinuid Dynasty (c. 1500–1400 BC)

The Kidinuid dynasty inaugurates the Middle Elamite period, beginning with Kidinu. Archaeological excavations at Susa, as well as the significant site of Haft Tepe (ancient Kabnak), have yielded crucial evidence regarding this early phase, particularly concerning the reign of Tepti-Ahar, one of Kidinu's successors. This dynasty comprises six kings:

• Kidinu

• Igi-hatet

• Tan-Ruhuratir II

• Shalla

• Inshushinak-shar-ilani

• Tepti-Ahar

Findings from Haft Tepe—including funerary architecture, inscribed bricks, and administrative tablets—provide insight into the political and religious life of this formative period.

The Igihalkid (or Pahirishashanid) Dynasty (c. 1400–1200 BC)

The second phase of Middle Elam is often identified with the Igihalkid dynasty, though recent research suggests the name Igi-halki may have resulted from a misreading of Igi-hatet, linking him more accurately with the earlier Kidinuid phase. Thus, this middle segment is increasingly referred to as the Pahirishashanid dynasty, beginning with Pahir-Ishshan (sometimes interpreted as "Pahler Shah Shahan," i.e., "king of kings").

This dynasty maintained close ties with the Kassite dynasty of Babylon through inter-dynastic marriages, reflecting a period of relative regional stability and cultural exchange. The kings of this period include:

• Pahir-Ishshan (eldest son of Igi-halki)

• Attar-Kittah (younger son of Igi-halki)

• Humban-Numena (son of Attar-Kittah)

• Untash-Napirisha (son of Humban-Numena)

• Unpahash-Napirisha (son of Pahir-Ishshan)

• Kidin-Hutran (son of Pahir-Ishshan)

This period is particularly notable for an ambitious program of temple construction and urban development, evidenced by finds from Susa, Deh-e Now, and Bushehr. Among these kings, Untash-Napirisha stands out as a major builder. He commissioned the monumental ziggurat complex at Chogha Zanbil (ancient Al-Untash-Napirisha), located near the Dez River.

This temple complex, a masterpiece of Elamite religious architecture, was composed of three concentric mud-brick terraces forming a ziggurat. The first and second enclosures housed royal palaces and burial chambers; between the second and third lay a sophisticated water purification system supplied by a canal from the Karkheh River. At the center stood the high temple, dedicated to the Elamite pantheon.

An inscribed brick from the site reads:

I am Untash, son of Humban-Numena, king of Anshan and Susa. Having secured the necessary materials, I founded the city of Untash and established this sacred temple. I protected it with an outer and inner wall and erected a great high temple unlike those of earlier kings. I dedicated it to the holy god Inshushinak. May my construction and my devotion become his dwelling, and may the love and grace of Inshushinak remain here forever.

The Shutrukid Dynasty (c. 1200–1100 BC)

The final and most politically dynamic phase of the Middle Elamite period is associated with the Shutrukid dynasty, beginning with Shutruk-Nahhunte. One of the most formidable kings in Elamite history, Shutruk-Nahhunte decisively overthrew the Kassite dynasty in Babylon in 1158 BC. His reign was marked by both architectural patronage and military conquest.

Like modern colonial-era museum looters in London and Paris, Shutruk-Nahhunte transported to Susa a vast collection of Mesopotamian cultural artifacts—stelae, statues, and inscriptions—captured during his campaigns. These items, often re-inscribed with his own name and titles, serve as both trophies of war and evidence of the Elamites’ appreciation for Mesopotamian high culture. His inscriptions typically begin with a formulaic introduction:

I am Shutruk-Nahhunte, son of Hallutush-Inshushinak, beloved of Inshushinak, king of Anshan and Susa, expander of my realm, protector and prince of Elam...

Subsequent lines often invoke divine sanction—particularly from the god Inshushinak—for military action, followed by a catalog of conquered cities such as Karaindash (Babylon), Sippar, and Eshnunna, and a list of cultural spoils, including:

• The stela of Naram-Sin

• The statue of Menishtushu

• The stela of Melishipak

A particularly illuminating artifact is a letter—preserved today in the Berlin Museum—in which Shutruk-Nahhunte laments his exclusion from the Babylonian throne, despite his maternal descent from a Kassite princess and his marriage to the daughter of Melishipak (the thirty-third Kassite king). In this letter, he expresses frustration at Babylon’s failure to recognize his dynastic legitimacy or respond to his peaceful overtures:

"Although my mother was of royal Kassite blood and I have married your daughter, I have been denied what is rightfully mine. You refuse my goodwill, and therefore I shall raze your cities, destroy your fortresses, dry your rivers, and cut down your orchards..."

True to his threat, Shutruk-Nahhunte marched on Babylon and deposed Zababa-shuma-iddin, the thirty-fifth and last effective ruler of the Kassite dynasty.

The Reign of Kawtir-Nahhunte

Kawtir-Nahhunte, the son and successor of the powerful Shutruk-Nahhunte, ruled Elam during a volatile period of Mesopotamian history marked by intense conflict and dynastic upheaval. While direct Elamite sources for his reign are limited, significant references survive in Neo-Assyrian texts, particularly from the library of Ashurbanipal. These inscriptions, despite their ideological and poetic embellishment, provide critical insight into the Elamite occupation of Babylon and the subsequent struggles for power.

Two important inscriptions, often associated with Nebuchadnezzar I—the fourth king of the Second Sealand Dynasty (r. 1125–1104 BC)—document the liberation of Babylon from Elamite control. According to these texts, Shutruk-Nahhunte had deposed the Kassite king Zababa-shuma-iddin and installed his own son, referred to as Kadaver-Nahhunte (likely a variant of Kawtir-Nahhunte), as the ruler of Babylon. This reflects a brief period in which Elam exercised direct dominion over Babylonia through a client monarchy.

However, resistance soon emerged. A Kassite prince named Enlil-nadin-ahi is said to have led a rebellion and seized control of parts of Babylon, ruling for three years before being defeated. One inscription attributed to Nebuchadnezzar I notes:

"The Babylonians rose up under the command of Enlil-nadin-ahi, the king before me."

This Babylonian uprising appears to underpin the later legendary narratives surrounding a figure known as Kedorlaomer, a name mentioned in Genesis 14. Although widely regarded as speculative, some researchers have tentatively associated Kawtir-Nahhunte with this semi-mythical Elamite king. In one text linked to this tradition, a letter purportedly from Kawtir-Nahhunte warns the Babylonians that the god Marduk had decreed the removal of Babylon’s treasures—implying divine sanction for renewed Elamite aggression. Kawtir-Nahhunte is said to have launched a military campaign into Mesopotamia, recaptured the rebellious prince, and carried him—along with the wealth of Sumer and Akkad—back to Elam.

A particularly vivid inscription describes these events with epic imagery:

"He rushed like a flood upon the people of Akkad. He razed all the temples to the ground... He took the treasures of Sumer and Akkad with him to Elam. He took Enlil-nadin-ahi captive and brought him to Elam."

Another inscription attributed to Nebuchadnezzar I expresses deep moral outrage at Kawtir-Nahhunte’s desecration of Babylon’s sacred spaces. It declares that he committed a transgression greater than those of his ancestors by seizing the cult statue of Marduk—the most revered deity in Babylon—and transporting it to Susa. This act, tantamount to a spiritual decapitation of the Babylonian state, was portrayed as a provocation of divine wrath.

The inscription continues with an account of his assault on Nippur, the religious heart of Mesopotamia and the city of the god Enlil:

"He spread this rumor to all his troops: ‘Plunder Ekur (the temple of Enlil in Nippur), and take its treasures! Disrupt his plan; cut off his mouth.’”

Kawtir-Nahhunte’s campaign reportedly extended further into the north. He desecrated the temple of Ishara—believed by some scholars to refer to a prominent Assyrian sanctuary—and looted its sacred symbols. The text accuses him of unleashing “savage raiders” upon the land of Enlil, continuing his destruction as far as Borsippa, where he:

“...burned the sanctuary, plundered the temple, and carried off its possessions to Elam.”

Despite the hostile tone of these sources, archaeological evidence from Susa suggests that Kawtir-Nahhunte was also a significant builder and restorer of Elamite religious infrastructure. Over fifty inscribed tablets and brick fragments associated with his reign have been recovered. These include records of construction activities, such as replacing sun-dried bricks with kiln-fired ones in the temple façade of Inshushinak, the principal god of Susa. Other inscriptions commemorate the reconstruction of the gate of Lagamal, the deity who—alongside Inshushinak—was believed to escort the dead to judgment in the afterlife.

Taken together, the archaeological and textual evidence depicts Kawtir-Nahhunte as a formidable and polarizing figure: both temple plunderer and temple builder, conqueror and restorer. His reign illustrates the complex interplay between religious symbolism, imperial legitimacy, and interregional rivalry at the twilight of the Middle Elamite period.

The Reign of Shilhak-Inshushinak (c. 1150–1120 BC)

Following the reign of Kawtir-Nahhunte, the Elamite throne passed to his brother, Shilhak-Inshushinak, who is consistently identified in numerous inscriptions as the son of Shutruk-Nahhunte. In one inscription, he further describes himself as “the chosen brother of Kawtir-Nahhunte,” underlining both dynastic continuity and divine favor.

Shilhak-Inshushinak's reign is distinguished by an extensive and ambitious building program, documented through a wealth of brick inscriptions discovered not only in Susa—the Elamite capital—but also at a variety of other religious and administrative centers across Elamite territory. Inscriptions have been found in:

• Bushehr, at the temple of Kirisha

• Deh-e Now, at temples dedicated to Manzat and Nin

• Choghapan-e Bakhtar

• Tal-e Sepid, near Fahlavan in modern-day Fars province, at the temple of Kileh Shopir

These inscriptions testify to Shilhak-Inshushinak’s efforts to construct, renovate, and consecrate temples across Elam, reaffirming his piety and reinforcing the integration of distant regions into the religious and political sphere of Susa.

One particularly revealing inscription, found on a petroglyph at Susa, opens with a solemn invocation of numerous deities:

“Gods of Minoan, gods of Elam, gods of Susa…”

He petitions these gods for blessings over his own life, the wellbeing of his wife Nahunte-Otu, and the health and future of his nine children, whom he names individually:

1. Hautila-Otawsh Inshushinak

2. Ishini-Karabat

3. Orawtawk-El-Halahu

4. Shilhina-Hamru-Lagamar

5. Kawtir-Houmban

6. Utaw-Ehiye-He-Pingir

7. Timti-Tawarkatesh

8. Lil-Irta-Tesh

9. Bar-Oli

Following these invocations, Shilhak-Inshushinak lists the offerings he has made to the gods and calls upon the divine powers of Elam, Anshan, and Susa to grant peace and prosperity to his family, the princes of Elam, the nobles of Susa, and the religious elite.

The inscription then transitions into a record of his political and military achievements. Among these, he reports the addition of twenty-two new provinces to the Elamite kingdom, the establishment of provincial divans (administrative councils), and the restoration of governorship across these territories. These conquests, believed by several scholars to include parts of Babylonia and Assyria, occurred during a period of regional instability: the Second Dynasty of Isin had only recently come to power in Babylon, and Assyria was under the aging rule of Ashur-dan I.

Archaeological traces of these campaigns have been found in Dezful, Shushtar, and Tepe Pop, where remnants of inscriptions and architectural features corroborate the military and political expansion reported by Shilhak-Inshushinak.

Notably, some of the toponyms mentioned in his inscriptions bear resemblance to place names found in later Assyrian records, particularly those of Shamshi-Adad V. This raises intriguing questions about Elam’s relationship with the peoples of the Zagros region. Shilhak-Inshushinak's own inscriptions suggest that his campaigns extended eastward from the region of Nuzi—west of modern-day Kermanshah—into the Zagros highlands.

A fragmentary rock inscription, damaged in places but attributed to Shilhak-Inshushinak, refers to a mysterious group called the Balahute:

“The Balahute plundered the bowls of religion and [...] of Inshushinak, but I returned them. Han ai Inshushinak, godman, therefore I ask you [...] my camp, and [...] me and Susa [...] Anshan [...] Ulan.”

Although the precise identity and location of the Balahute remain unknown, they are also mentioned in a later Neo-Elamite inscription of Tepti-Houmban-Inshushinak. The scholar George Cameron speculated that they may have been a tribal people of the Zagros mountains. The inscription suggests they had looted a temple dedicated to Inshushinak, but the specific location of this temple remains uncertain.

Another inscription fragment recounts the kidnapping of a flock at Hausi, a city believed to be near Opis, north of Babylon. The text also references the Tigris, Euphrates, and Nippur, indicating that Elamite military activity extended deep into northern Mesopotamia. Based on this evidence, some scholars argue that the kings of the Second Dynasty of Isin were little more than vassals or client rulers under the dominion of Elam during this period.

Shilhak-Inshushinak’s inscriptions thus offer a rare and valuable window into the complex and expansive nature of Elamite hegemony at its height. Through his religious devotion, administrative reforms, and military conquests, he stands as one of the most powerful and culturally significant monarchs of the Middle Elamite era—presiding over an Elam that was not merely reacting to Mesopotamian power, but actively shaping the political and religious landscape of the ancient Near East. 

The Reign of Hutelutush-Inshushinak (c. 1120–1110 BC)

According to clay inscriptions attributed to Shilhak-Inshushinak, his eldest son and successor was Hutelutush-Inshushinak, who ascended the Elamite throne around 1120 BC. His mother, Nahunte-Otu, bears the same name as the sister and wife of both Kawtir-Nahhunte and Shilhak-Inshushinak, leading some scholars to speculate—perhaps mistakenly—that she may have been one and the same individual in all three relationships. Whether fact or legend, such familial entanglements illustrate the dynastic complexity of the Elamite royal house.

Upon his accession, Hutelutush-Inshushinak adopted the title "King of Elam and the Shusians," and emphasized his descent from the prestigious Sukkalmah line of Shilhaha. He undertook notable temple restorations across Elamite cities, rededicating sacred sites to principal deities such as Kirirsha, Napirisha, Inshushinak, and Shimaut. These renovations reaffirmed his legitimacy and religious devotion. Interestingly, inscriptions from his reign—such as those discovered at Tell Malyan—record that he dedicated these works not for the lives of his wife and children, but rather for the well-being of his extended royal family: his brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, and kin.

Inscriptions also reveal that Hutelutush-Inshushinak had two children—a daughter named Utauk Hawt Kassen and a son, Temti-Pitet. Yet his personal inscriptions notably omit direct references to them in the usual blessing formulae, further underscoring the dynastic-political framing of his reign over a strictly familial one.

The End of the Middle Elamite Period

The twilight of Middle Elam is deeply entwined with Elam’s prolonged rivalry with Babylon. Ever since Kutir-Nahhunte's conquest of Babylon and his seizure of the revered statue of Marduk from the Esagila temple (c. 1155 BC), Elam had wielded immense symbolic and political influence over Mesopotamia. The victories of Shilhak-Inshushinak only solidified this power, provoking Babylonian resentment and setting the stage for military retaliation.

Several Babylonian inscriptions—particularly those attributed to Nebuchadnezzar I (r. 1125–1104 BC), the fourth king of the Second Sealand Dynasty—detail the struggle to recover the statue of Marduk and reassert Babylonian prestige. A bilingual inscription laments the consequences of Babylon's previous defeat:

“At that time, during the reign of a previous king, the omens turned. Good departed, and evil remained. The gods grew angry and departed the land.”

In a poetic prayer, Nebuchadnezzar pleads with Marduk:

“Be merciful to me in my despair, in my downfall. Be merciful to my land, which weeps and mourns. How long, Lord of Babylon, will you remain in the land of the enemy?... Bring me from Elam to Babylon—I, Lord of Babylon, will surely give you Elam.”

Encouraged by this divine promise, Nebuchadnezzar launched a campaign against Elam. However, his first attempt to invade Susa, located along the Karkheh (ancient Ulai) River, ended in disaster. A violent epidemic struck his army, and an inscription records his despair:

“Erra, that most powerful of gods, struck down my warriors. The demon of the Tossans killed them. I feared death, and I did not go to battle. I remained in camp, heavy of heart, silent and confused, encamped at Kar-Dur-Apilsin… Elam advanced, and I retreated. I lay on a bed of misery and sighing.”

A later Babylonian military account by a Kassite commander named Shitti-Marduk, “Chief of the House of Bit-Karziabku,” describes a renewed campaign in the sweltering heat of July—what was later mythologized as the Battle of Badr-e-Iraq. The oppressive heat was described as a force of nature in itself:

“The heat was like a burning fire. The roads blazed like unruly flames. The strongest horses collapsed; the knees of mighty men trembled.”

Despite the odds, Babylonian forces pushed forward to the banks of the Karkheh River and finally engaged the Elamite army under Hutelutush-Inshushinak. The battle was fierce:

“The two kings met and a great battle ensued. The dust darkened the face of the sun, the whirlwind blew, and the storm roared.”

Ultimately, the Elamite king was defeated. According to Babylonian accounts:

“Hutelutush, King of Elam, retreated and disappeared.”

Nebuchadnezzar claimed victory, looted Elamite territories, and declared the recovery of the divine statue of Marduk. In a triumphant letter to the citizens of Babylon, he reported:

“Hutelutush-Inshushinak abandoned his fortresses and vanished.”

Yet, despite these grand claims, Babylon never succeeded in fully subjugating Elam. While Babylonian sources presented this as a decisive and final blow, archaeological evidence suggests otherwise.

Survival and Legacy

For a long time, the defeat of Hutelutush-Inshushinak was assumed to mark the collapse of Elamite power. Much of this perception arises from the overwhelming dominance of Babylonian, Akkadian, and Assyrian sources—Elam’s own records were largely lost or destroyed, especially during the Achaemenid period. As a result, Elamite history had to be reconstructed through the lens of its adversaries, often skewed by their triumphalist rhetoric.

However, the discovery of a brick inscription from Tell Malyan has profoundly altered this narrative. In this text, Hutelutush-Inshushinak refers to continued building activities following his defeat by Nebuchadnezzar, indicating that he not only survived the Babylonian campaign but also resumed kingship and religious projects in Anshan.

Building on this find, Maurice Lambert, in his influential work Hutelutush-Inshushinak et le pays d’Anzan, argued that the Elamite state persisted beyond this supposed collapse. The king’s continued presence in Anshan suggests a shift of political focus from Susa to the highland core of Elam, foreshadowing developments in the Neo-Elamite period.

Thus, the Middle Elamite period did not end with a catastrophic fall, but rather with a strategic contraction and realignment. Though bruised by Babylonian pressure, Elam endured—its culture, religion, and political identity flowing into the next chapter of its long and complex history.

The Neo-Elamite Period (c. 1100–539 BC)

The period between the collapse of the powerful Shutrukid (or Shatrukid) dynasty of Elam around 1100 BC and the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus the Great in 539 BC is known among scholars as the Neo-Elamite period. This era, though poorly understood in parts, marks the final flowering of Elamite political identity before its absorption into the Achaemenid Empire.

However, there remains no scholarly consensus on how to divide the Neo-Elamite period chronologically. For instance, Pierre de Miroschedji classifies it into two phases:

• Neo-Elamite I (c. 1000–725/700 BC)

• Neo-Elamite II (c. 725/700–539 BC)

Other researchers propose a threefold division:

• Neo-Elamite I (c. 1000–744 BC), a largely obscure period

• Neo-Elamite II (c. 743–646 BC), better attested through Assyrian sources

• Neo-Elamite III (c. 645–539 BC), stretching from the fall of Elam to Ashurbanipal through to the rise of Cyrus the Great

The Obscure Age of Neo-Elamite I (c. 1000–744 BC)

Following the reign of Hutelutush-Inshushinak (c. 1120–1110 BC), last monarch of the Middle Elamite period, Elamite history descends into obscurity. According to Babylonian inscriptions, Hutelutush-Inshushinak was defeated in battle near the Karkheh (ancient Ulai) River by Nebuchadnezzar I of Babylon. After his apparent disappearance, Elamite written records fall silent for nearly three centuries. Archaeological excavations in the Zagros highlands may yet shed light on this hidden chapter, but for now, the era is shrouded in darkness.

Only fragmentary information survives. A rare reference appears in the Dynastic Chronicle of Babylon, which mentions a king named Marbiti-Apla-Usur (r. c. 984–979 BC), whose name is Akkadian but who is described as “of distant Elamite descent.” Four bronze funerary plaques attributed to him have been found in Luristan and are now housed in the National Museum of Iran, each inscribed with the royal title “King of the World.” Beyond this, a century and a half elapse with no surviving record.

Meanwhile, the Assyrian state was in decline until the 9th century BC, when a revival was led by aggressive rulers such as Ashurnasirpal II (r. 883–859 BC), Shalmaneser III (r. 858–824 BC), and Shamshi-Adad V (r. 823–811 BC). These kings reasserted Assyrian dominance in northern Mesopotamia, Urartu, and as far west as Damascus under Adad-Nirari III (r. 810–783 BC). An inscription from 784 BC records the presence of an Elamite ambassador at the Assyrian court, noting that Assyrian troops had begun producing and using Elamite-style bows—suggesting a strategic alliance between Elam and Assyria to counterbalance Babylonian influence.

However, as Assyria expanded east of the Tigris and into the Zagros, targeting lands such as Alabri, Andi, Ellipi, Media, Parsua, Namar, and Zamua (all recorded in Assyrian inscriptions), Elam began to resist. Allied with the Arameans, Kassites, Chaldeans, and Babylonians, Elam participated in coordinated resistance against Assyrian encroachment.

A Babylonian chronicle from 813 BC recounts how an Elamite army, alongside these groups and under the leadership of Marduk-Balassu-Iqbi, king of Babylon, attempted to lift the siege of Dur-Papsukkal, near Der, then under attack by Shamshi-Adad V.

Roughly fifty years later, during the reign of Nabû-šuma-iškun (c. 748–760 BC), the Babylonian court twice sent gifts—men, women, and precious stones—to Elam, though the name of the Elamite king remains unknown. These gifts underscore Elam’s continued prestige in Mesopotamian geopolitics, even before the well-documented reign of Huban-Nikash I (also Ummanigash, r. 743–717 BC), the first Neo-Elamite king clearly identified in Babylonian records.

The Rise of Neo-Elamite Power (c. 743–646 BC)

The Babylonian and Assyrian chronicles begin to yield more consistent references to Elamite monarchs during this period. Huban-Nikash I is considered the founder of a restored Elamite dynasty, although the name of his father is not preserved. His probable nephew, Shutruk-Nahhunte II (r. 717–699 BC)—not to be confused with his powerful namesake of the Middle Elamite period—styled himself "Kashtrak" or Shahanshah Kashatra (Great King, Lord of Rule), reflecting his regal aspirations. In inscriptions, he calls himself the son of Huban-immena, suggesting noble, possibly matrilineal descent through a royal sister.

Following Shutruk-Nahhunte II, his brother Hallutush-Inshushinak I (r. 699–693 BC) came to power, succeeded by his son Kudurru-Nahhunte I (r. 693–692 BC)—whom Assyrian texts refer to as Kudur-Nahhundu. His reign was brief. According to Sennacherib’s royal annals (r. 705–681 BC), Kudur-Nahhunte I was overthrown and killed during an internal rebellion, the causes of which remain obscure.

Thereafter, his brother Huban-Menanu (r. 692–688 BC) assumed power. He is best known for commanding a joint Babylonian-Elamite force in the pivotal Battle of Halule against Assyria—an event of immense historical significance, marking the beginning of an increasingly direct and destructive Elamite-Assyrian confrontation.

King Huban-Nikash I of Elam (r. 743–717 BC)

The reign of Huban-Nikash I (also rendered Hurban-Nikash) marked a pivotal phase in Elamite foreign policy as it confronted the rising dominance of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. At the height of its expansion, Assyria extended from the eastern foothills of the Zagros Mountains to the Mediterranean coast and from the Taurus Mountains in the north to the Persian Gulf in the south. Its professional standing army—highly trained, disciplined, and permanently mobilized—gave it a significant strategic advantage over its neighbors. For Elam, this posed an existential threat.

Geographically situated between Assyria and Elam, Babylon became the arena where these two powers competed for influence. Despite its cultural grandeur and control over important trade routes, Babylon had become politically unstable. Internal divisions between royal factions and competing aristocratic interests rendered the kingdom vulnerable. Its military was weak and its population ethnically fragmented. While the ancient Sumerian-Akkadian urban populations inhabited cities like Babylon, Borsippa, Kish, Nippur, Uruk, and Ur, the south was dominated by three powerful Chaldean tribes, who established their own autonomous settlements. These groups were often at odds with each other, providing Elam with opportunities to exert influence by selectively supporting rebel factions.

Adding to the region’s volatility were Aramean, Babylonian, and Chaldean tribal bands scattered throughout Babylonia, many of whom survived by raiding trade caravans. Assyria, capitalizing on Babylon’s instability, gradually asserted control over some of its territories and installed puppet rulers. However, despite its military superiority, Assyria remained culturally deferential to Babylon. Royal inscriptions and state decrees continued to be composed in an archaic, stylized Babylonian dialect. Rather than annex Babylon directly, the Assyrian strategy was to preserve it as a buffer state—a protective shield against Elam—while maintaining indirect control.

This delicate balance was upended following the sudden death of Shalmaneser V in 722 BC. His death plunged Assyria into turmoil, during which Sargon II, then commander-in-chief (Tartan) of the Assyrian army, seized the throne and founded a new dynasty. Seizing the moment, a Chaldean prince from the Jakin tribe named Merodach-Baladan II (also known as Marduk-apla-iddina) proclaimed himself king of Babylon. His coup was made possible through military and diplomatic support from King Huban-Nikash I of Elam.

Elam’s decision to support Merodach-Baladan reflected a longstanding strategic doctrine: to maintain a balance of power in Mesopotamia by preventing any one state—particularly Assyria—from dominating the region. In the second year of Sargon’s reign (721 BC), Huban-Nikash I personally joined forces with Merodach-Baladan and inflicted a significant defeat on the Assyrian army at the Battle of Der, located near the modern-day Iranian-Iraqi border.

Interestingly, according to Merodach-Baladan’s own inscriptions, his forces arrived late to the battlefield—by which point the Elamites had already routed the Assyrians. In a propagandistic hymn attributed to him, he invokes divine providence:

“At that time, the great god Marduk turned his face away from Akkad in anger, and for seven years, the evil foe, the Subari (Assyrians), ruled the land. But then the time of revelation arrived, and Marduk looked once more with favor upon Akkad. He chose Merodach-Baladan, the pious prince, as shepherd of Sumer and Akkad... With the help of Marduk and the warrior god Pirigallu, he shattered the weapons of the enemy and wiped their footprints from the land of Akkad.”

Buoyed by this military success and with continued Elamite backing, Merodach-Baladan ruled Babylon for over a decade. During this period, Sargon II turned his expansionist focus northward, launching campaigns into Urartu and Syria, while also retaliating against Elam by targeting its allies in the Iranian plateau, particularly the Medes. One of these punitive expeditions reportedly reached as far as the slopes of Mount Bikni (likely the modern Mount Alborz or Mount Talesh).

Sargon spent the next ten years consolidating his forces, rebuilding Assyrian strength, and preparing for a renewed campaign to retake Babylon and eliminate Elamite influence. His enduring animosity toward Elam and its strategic alliances would ultimately escalate the conflict between Assyria and Elam into a series of destructive wars—setting the stage for the tumultuous decades that followed.

King Shutruk-Nahhunte II of Elam (r. 717–699 BC)

Upon the death of Huban-Nikash I in 717 BC, his nephew Shutruk-Nahhunte II ascended the throne of Elam. He styled himself “King of Anshan and Susa”, reflecting the dual centers of power in the Elamite kingdom. During this period, the population of Anshan was growing rapidly, due in part to the increasing migration of Persian tribes into the region. Relations between these newcomers and the Elamite state remained amicable; the Persians integrated into the Elamite city-state system with remarkable political and cultural flexibility.

In 708 BC, a succession crisis erupted in Ellipi, a buffer kingdom in the Zagros Mountains between Assyria and Media, following the death of its king, Talta. His two sons, Nibe and Ispa-Bara, contested the throne. Although Ellipi was nominally a vassal of Assyria, Nibe sought external support from Elam. Shutruk-Nahhunte, eager to extend Elamite influence over the vital mountain trade routes, responded by dispatching 4,500 elite archers to back Nibe. In retaliation, Ispa-Bara fled to the Assyrian king Sargon II, who responded swiftly.

Given the proximity of Assyrian forces and their familiarity with Ellipi’s rugged terrain, Sargon’s army defeated the Elamite-backed forces and besieged their stronghold at Maravishti, a fortress perched on a mountain ridge. Although the records are fragmentary, it appears that the Assyrians successfully stormed the fortress, marking a significant setback for Elamite regional ambitions.

The Fall of Merodach-Baladan and Sargon’s Babylonian Campaigns

By the seventh year of Shutruk-Nahhunte’s reign (710 BC), Sargon had consolidated his strength after the Ellipi campaign and moved decisively to end the reign of Merodach-Baladan II, the Chaldean king of Babylon, who had ruled with Elamite support. Recognizing the threat posed by Elam’s potential intervention, Sargon carefully avoided a reckless or premature assault. He was keen to avoid a repeat of the defeat his forces had suffered at Der, where Elamite support had been decisive.

Despite Babylon’s weakened army and internal divisions, Merodach-Baladan remained reliant on Elamite military assistance. However, true to pattern, he abandoned the battlefield at the first sign of Assyrian pressure, seeking asylum at the Elamite court. Sargon claimed that after Merodach-Baladan’s flight, he invaded western Elam and forced Shutruk-Nahhunte to retreat into the mountains. While these accounts are likely exaggerated, they reflect the propagandistic tone typical of Assyrian royal inscriptions.

In one such inscription, Sargon recounts:

“When Merodach-Baladan, king of Karduniash (Babylon), heard of the victories I had granted to Nabû and Marduk, fear overcame him in his palace. He fled by night with his warriors to the vicinity of Jadabur in Elam, seeking the protection of Shutruk-Nahhunte, to whom he sent royal treasures—silver beds, thrones, and necklaces. But the base Elamite, afraid of my strength, refused him sanctuary and turned him away.”

There is no surviving Elamite record of these events, but subsequent actions by Merodach-Baladan—such as sending further gifts to Elam—suggest the Assyrian narrative is self-serving. In reality, it seems Merodach-Baladan found temporary refuge in Iqbi-Bel, a border town, and continued to resist Assyrian encroachment with Shutruk-Nahhunte’s tacit support.

Sargon subsequently assumed the title King of Babylon and installed himself as ruler. Meanwhile, Merodach-Baladan withdrew south to his tribal stronghold in Dur-Yakin, fortifying its defenses with moats and walls. Despite these efforts, the seasoned Assyrian army breached the city, burned it to the ground, and looted the royal treasury.

Sargon’s Death and the Rise of Sennacherib

In 705 BC, five years after the fall of Dur-Yakin, Sargon II was killed during a campaign in Tabal (Asia Minor). According to scholars such as Hayim Tadmor and Lehmann-Haupt, his body was never recovered. His son, Sennacherib, succeeded him on the Assyrian throne.

Despite being one of the most powerful monarchs of the Neo-Assyrian era, Sennacherib struggled in the early years of his reign to subdue Babylon and contain Elamite influence. Although he also assumed the title King of Babylon, local resistance quickly resurfaced. In his second regnal year, the Babylonian noble Marduk-Zakir-Shumi II declared himself king. Sensing another opportunity, Shutruk-Nahhunte formed a broad coalition—including Chaldean, Aramean, and Babylonian tribal factions from cities such as Ur, Eridu, Kulab, Beit-Yakin, Beit-Amukani, Beit-Dakkuri, Nippur, Borsippa, and Kutha—and reinstalled Merodach-Baladan on the Babylonian throne.

Sennacherib responded swiftly. Merodach-Baladan, once again unable or unwilling to engage directly, fled from Kish to the marshlands of southern Mesopotamia. Though Sennacherib pursued him, his forces lost track of the fugitive Chaldean.

In his royal inscriptions, Sennacherib records:

“Merodach-Baladan, the disloyal king of Karduniash, fearful of justice, turned to Shutruk-Nahhunte of Elam. He sent him gold, silver, and precious stones as tribute, pleading for help. Shutruk-Nahhunte accepted these gifts and sent a large force to support him.”

This Elamite expeditionary force, reportedly led by General Imbappa, and supported by various tribal commanders—such as Tan-nednu, Nergal-nedsir, and Tashlishu—consisted of 80,000 troops. Despite this formidable coalition, Merodach-Baladan remained absent from major confrontations, leaving command to Elamite generals.

Scholars remain divided on why Shutruk-Nahhunte invested so heavily in supporting a fugitive Babylonian prince. J.A. Brinkman suggested Babylon may have bought Elam’s assistance. Yet such theories underestimate Elam’s strategic rationale. By supporting proxy resistance outside its own borders, Elam avoided direct invasion, preserved its cities from destruction, and drained Assyria’s resources through extended campaigns. Even if outright victory proved elusive, exhausting Assyria's military might reduced its incentive to strike Elamite territory.

When the coalition forces ultimately failed and Merodach-Baladan again fled into the marshes, Sennacherib—recognizing his army’s fatigue—abandoned further pursuit of Elam. Instead, he appointed a puppet ruler, Bel-ibni, to govern Babylon:

“Bel-ibni, of the Rab-Bani lineage and raised like a pet dog in my palace, I appointed over Babylon, Akkad, and Sumer.”
(– Belino Cylinder)

Later, in the Rassam Cylinder, Sennacherib revised the narrative:

“Bel-ibni, of Rab-Bani stock, I placed on the throne of his ancestor Merodach-Baladan. I entrusted the people of Sumer and Akkad to him. Over the land of the Chaldeans, I set my governors and placed them under the yoke of my lordship.”

This strategy of surrogate rule marked a temporary victory for Assyria, but as subsequent events would show, Elam's influence in Babylon—and its defiance of Assyrian dominance—was far from extinguished.

However, it appears that Merodach-Baladan, even from his place of refuge, continued to stir unrest in Babylon with the support of Elam. His persistent resistance proved too great a challenge for Bel-ibni, the Assyrian-appointed puppet king, who was ultimately unable to maintain order or suppress the rebellion. The chaos in Chaldea escalated to such an extent that, in 700 BC, Sennacherib was compelled to depose Bel-ibni and once again place Babylon under direct Assyrian rule.

Yet this heavy-handed solution only intensified the turmoil. With Elamite backing, the rebellious noble Mushēzib-Marduk (also known as Shuzubu) and the veteran agitator Merodach-Baladan managed to unite the southern Babylonian tribes in a renewed uprising. In response, Sennacherib launched a military campaign into the marshlands north of Babylon, hoping to capture Mushēzib-Marduk, but he failed to achieve his objective. Frustrated, he turned his forces southward, aiming to seize Merodach-Baladan. Once again, however, Merodach-Baladan evaded confrontation. Lacking the courage—or perhaps the resources—for direct engagement, he fled by ship along with his relatives to Nagītu, an island in the Persian Gulf (likely modern-day Bahrain), then under Elamite control.

Sennacherib’s repeated references to Elam in his official inscriptions—even though he did not formally attack Elamite territory in 700 BC—underscore Assyria’s growing perception that the root of Mesopotamia’s instability lay in Elam’s persistent interference. Although his campaigns failed to yield decisive results, they had political consequences within Elam itself. The repeated Assyrian incursions near Elam’s borders likely provoked unease among the Elamite nobility, who began to question the wisdom of prolonged entanglement in Babylonian affairs. This discontent may have deepened when Sennacherib appointed his crown prince, Ashur-nadin-shumi, as ruler of Babylon—an attempt to cement Assyrian authority through a policy of dual monarchy. From the Elamite perspective, this maneuver signaled a dangerous shift toward permanent Assyrian dominance over Babylon and a growing threat to Elamite regional interests.

The Reign of Halutush-Inshushinak I (693–699 BC)

According to the Babylonian chronicle, Shutruk-Nahhunte II was overthrown by his brother Halutush-Inshushinak I in 693 BC. This transition appears to have stemmed from dissatisfaction among the Elamite elite with Shutruk-Nahhunte’s more moderate and conciliatory policies. Some scholars mistakenly identify Halutush-Inshushinak I with a later namesake who ruled after Ashurbanipal's destruction of Susa around 585–620 BC. However, this identification is likely incorrect, as the genealogical lines of Halutush-Inshushinak I and II are distinct, and the similarity of names among Elamite monarchs often causes confusion.

In the early years of Halutush-Inshushinak’s reign, the Chaldean exiles who had fled with Merodach-Baladan to Elam became increasingly aggressive in their operations against Assyrian-held Mesopotamia. Supported by Halutush-Inshushinak, their campaigns escalated regional instability. In 694 BC, according to the Oriental Institute Prism, Sennacherib launched a dual-pronged offensive: his forces sailed down the Tigris using Hittite ships, entered Opis, and proceeded via canal to the Euphrates and Persian Gulf. Despite claims of success, logistical setbacks—likely including flooding and a storm—forced a withdrawal before a major advance into Elamite territory. Sennacherib nevertheless boasted of capturing several Elamite settlements, including Nagitu, Hilmu, Bilatu, and Haupapanu, and of deporting their populations, including people loyal to the Elamite king.

Meanwhile, Halutush-Inshushinak exploited Assyria’s entanglement in the south by launching an unexpected offensive against northern Babylonia. In October 694 BC, he led a joint Chaldean-Elamite army that successfully captured Sippar. More significantly, he took prisoner Ashur-nadin-shumi, Sennacherib’s son and Babylon’s Assyrian-appointed ruler, sending him into captivity in Elam—a severe blow to Assyrian prestige. The Babylonian Chronicle records:

“Then Halutush, king of Elam, came against Akkad. At the end of the month of Tashritu, he entered Sippar and killed its inhabitants. Shamash (the sun god) did not depart from Ebabbar (the temple). Ashur-nadin-shumi was taken prisoner and brought to Elam. The king of Elam placed Nergal-ushezib on the throne of Babylon and launched a campaign against Assyria.”

A later letter to Esarhaddon, Sennacherib’s son and successor, confirms that Ashur-nadin-shumi was captured by Babylonian rebels and handed over to Halutush-Inshushinak, who imprisoned him in Elam. Initially, Elamite authority over Babylon was secure, with Nergal-ushezib acting as a client king.

However, the Assyrian army, trapped in the marshes of southern Mesopotamia, mounted a desperate assault on the Elamite forces. Though Assyrian sources claim to have killed the Elamite king’s son in this engagement, the Elamite army held its ground, and the Assyrians were forced to retreat toward Eridu.

By mid-693 BC, the Babylonian-Elamite alliance, under Nergal-ushezib’s leadership, launched a counteroffensive. They seized key cities like Targibati and Nippur. But by the fall, Assyria regained the upper hand. In September, they captured Uruk, giving them a strategic foothold. Nergal-ushezib fled to Elam but was pressured to return to battle. In October, he re-entered Nippur but was captured during combat. The Babylonian Chronicle states:

“He was captured in battle on all sides and sent to Assyria.”

Sennacherib gloated over the victory, writing in one of his inscriptions:

“My soldiers chained him and threw him into a cage, bringing him to me. I hung him at the gate of Nineveh like a tethered pig.”

In another account, he claimed:

“I captured him alive with my own hands, bound him in iron, and brought him to Assyria.”

Just weeks later, in November 693 BC, Halutush-Inshushinak was assassinated in a palace revolt, likely driven by elite dissatisfaction with his aggressive policies. His son, Kudurru-Nahhunte I, briefly succeeded him.

The Assyrian hatred for Halutush-Inshushinak endured long after his death. Ashurbanipal, Sennacherib’s grandson, vandalized one of his statues—removing its upper lip, a punishment Halutush himself had inflicted on war prisoners. This mutilated statue was later displayed in Ashurbanipal’s palace at Nineveh, alongside 31 others looted from Susa.

The Short Reign of Kudurru-Nahhunte I (692–693 BC)

The expansionist campaigns of Halutush-Inshushinak provoked discontent among the Elamite nobility, especially the moderate faction, who believed that militarism jeopardized trade and internal stability. The Babylonian Chronicle tersely records:

“The people of Hallutu (Halutush-Inshushinak), king of Elam, imprisoned and killed him.”

Fearing opposition from both hawks and moderates, Kudurru-Nahhunte shifted the royal seat from Susa to Madaktu—likely located near the modern Dinarvand Hills between the Karkheh and Dovirij rivers—closer to the Zagros and away from Assyrian reach.

Seizing the opportunity, Sennacherib launched a northern campaign against Elam, aiming to recapture the lands lost by his father, Sargon II, in the battle of Der. He advanced through the region, burning towns between Rashi and Beit Burnaki (modern Dehloran), as reported in the Babylonian Chronicle:

“Sennacherib descended upon Elam, devastated the lands from Rashi to Beit Burnaki, and carried off their spoils.”

In his own inscription, Sennacherib wrote:

“I raided the strong cities and their treasuries, plundered the small towns, razed them to the ground, and set them ablaze.”

The campaign forced Kudurru-Nahhunte to flee from Madaktu to Haidalu, a mountainous refuge between Ramhormoz and Behbahan. Yet, despite initial successes, Assyrian forces were unable to subdue Elam’s rugged highland defenses. Sennacherib blamed his retreat on seasonal hardships:

“Harsh weather arrived—unending rains and snow. I feared the swollen mountain rivers and withdrew to Assyria.”

In response, Elam’s hardline factions redoubled their efforts, reinstating Maushezib-Marduk (also known as Shuzubu) as king of Babylon. But Kudurru-Nahhunte’s position was untenable. By spring 692 BC, he was overthrown and killed, and the more aggressive Huban-Menanu III (689–692 BC)—whom the Assyrians called Umman-Menanu—ascended the Elamite throne.

The Reign of Huban-Menanu III (689–692 BC)

The fierce determination of the Elamites during this period revealed a deep aversion to political moderation and any attempts at peaceful coexistence with Assyria. Following Sennacherib’s incursion into northwestern Iran, the hardline elites of Elam viewed conciliatory strategies as naïve and self-defeating. Convinced of the futility of compromise, they orchestrated a broad anti-Assyrian alliance across Mesopotamia. In 691 BC, this coalition clashed with the Assyrian army in the plains near the River Tigris, in what became known as the Battle of Halule.

According to Sennacherib:

“Huban-Menanu assembled a vast alliance—comprising the Persians (Parsua), Anshan, Pasiro, Ellipi, all the Chaldeans, and all the Akkadians. They gathered in force alongside the king of Babylon and confronted me in battle. Trusting in the might of Assur, my lord, I met them in combat on the plains of Halule.”

One of the most significant details in this coalition was the participation of the Persians. As earlier noted, the Persians had become a prominent demographic in Anshan since the reign of Shutruk-Nahunte. While some scholars argue that the Parsua referenced here were a different group from the Anshanite Persians—possibly a Zagros-based people near modern Sulduz (West Azerbaijan)—this interpretation remains debated. Vladimir Minorsky locates Parsua in the ninth century BC between Sulaymaniyah and Sanandaj, yet historians like Pierre Briant point to references in Assyrian records placing the Persians among the allied Elamite peoples, suggesting their rising prominence in Elamite affairs.

By the spring of 690 BC, Sennacherib had besieged Babylon with the intention of toppling Marduk-apla-iddina’s successor, Mushezib-Marduk (Shuzubu), a puppet king installed by Elam. The siege dragged on for over sixteen months. A Babylonian chronicle from the Yale Tablet collection recounts the misery:

“During the days of Mushezib-Marduk, king of Babylon, the land was gripped by siege, hunger, famine, and desolation. The gates were sealed, and no one could leave the city. Corpses filled the squares, left unburied.”

Amid this siege, fate turned once more. In early 689 BC, Huban-Menanu III died under unclear circumstances. The Babylonian Chronicle records:

“In the fourth year of Mushezib-Marduk’s reign, on the fifteenth day of Nisan, Menanu, king of Elam, died.”

Sennacherib swiftly capitalized on this moment of instability. On the first day of Kislimu (December), Babylon fell. What followed was one of the most brutal acts of destruction in Mesopotamian history. On the Bavian reliefs, Sennacherib boasts:

“I swept through Babylon like a storm. I surrounded it with mounds and embankments. I slaughtered its nobles and warriors, filling its squares with their corpses. I took Mushezib-Marduk and his family alive and carried them off. I looted its treasures—silver, gold, precious stones—and distributed them among my troops. I shattered its temples and ziggurats, dug a canal through the city, and turned it into a desolate marsh. I made sure that the foundations of Babylon were washed away in flood, never to rise again.”

He adds, in a cruel flourish:

“The kings of Babylon and Elam—when the terror of my battle fell upon them—emptied their bowels in their chariots and fled.”

In the Charter of the Eastern Foundation, Sennacherib recounts how the Elamite military commander Humban-undasha, described as “a man worthy of trust,” was slain. Another Babylonian appeal to Elam from this time reveals the desperate situation:

“Mushezib-Marduk returned from Elam and entered the sanctuary of Babylon. The people placed him on the throne. They opened the temple treasuries and sent offerings to Huban-Menanu, king of Elam, calling on him for aid.”

Despite Assyrian claims of absolute victory, the Babylonian Chronicle notes that:

“Huban-Menanu forced the Assyrian king to withdraw.”

The Second Dynasty of Elam – The House of Huban

Following the death of Huban-Menanu III in 689 BC, a new monarch, Huban-Haltash I (688–681 BC), ascended the throne. The etymology of Haltash combines the Elamite roots halt (rising, rising light) and ash (holy, sacred), forming a name roughly meaning “Holy Sunrise” or Ashavan of the Dawn. Based on Babylonian sources, Huban-Haltash’s accession appears to have been peaceful and uncontested, though no definitive Elamite or Assyrian inscriptions have yet established his relation to the previous king. Some scholars have proposed that this marked the beginning of a new dynasty, possibly unrelated by blood to Huban-Menanu III.

A fragment of the Babylonian Chronicle, though damaged, suggests that the statues of the gods of Uruk were returned during his reign—possibly from Elam. Though the claim remains speculative, A.K. Grayson and others see this as indicative of efforts to normalize relations between Elam and Babylonia following years of war.

According to the Chronicle:

“Huban-Haltash, king of Elam, was paralyzed at midday and died in the heat of the sun.”

For most of his roughly eight-year reign, Elam and Assyria appear to have coexisted in a state of fragile peace. Huban-Haltash I had three sons: Huban-Haltash II, Urtak (also known as Hur-Ac), and Tepti-Huban-Inshushinak. The name Tepti is derived from the root tap, meaning “to throb” or “to strike,” preserved in Avestan and Elamite linguistic traditions.

Upon Huban-Haltash I’s death, his son Huban-Haltash II assumed the throne. The Babylonian Chronicle is unfortunately damaged at the juncture where the succession is recorded, but Grayson proposes that the missing term might have been mari-isu (his son), though this remains speculative.

Regardless, it is widely accepted that Huban-Haltash II was the son and legitimate heir of Huban-Haltash I, continuing the Huban Dynasty, which would preside over the final powerful decades of Elam’s political life before its eventual decline under pressure from the Neo-Assyrian Empire.

Reign of Huban-Haltash II (681–675 BC)

One year into the reign of Huban-Haltash II, a dramatic shift occurred in Assyria. Sennacherib, having named his youngest son Esarhaddon as crown prince, was assassinated in February 680 BC by his eldest son, Arda-Mulissu—likely with the complicity of his two other brothers, who resented being passed over. Following Sennacherib's death, a fierce struggle erupted among the claimants to the throne. Yet, due to widespread support from both the Assyrian military and Mesopotamian elites, Esarhaddon prevailed and entered Nineveh to consolidate power, officially ascending the throne later that year. In a significant military reform, he appointed a contingent of Median warriors as his personal guard.

Despite this consolidation, Assyria entered a brief period of instability. Seizing the opportunity, King Huban-Haltash II of Elam encouraged Nabi-Zêr-kitti-lishir, son of the former Babylonian king Merodach-Baladan (once a client of Elam under Halutush-Inshushinak I), to mount an attack on Ur. Nabi-Zêr-kitti-lishir, however, proved as militarily inept as his father. He was swiftly defeated by Esarhaddon's forces and fled to Elam. But unlike past Elamite rulers who had harbored Merodach-Baladan with sympathy, Huban-Haltash II broke with tradition: according to the Babylonian Chronicle, he ordered the execution of the fugitive prince.

Subsequently, Na'id-Marduk, another of Merodach-Baladan’s sons and the brother of the slain Nabi-Zêr-kitti-lishir, fled Elam. In a pragmatic turn, he offered rich tribute to Esarhaddon, pledging loyalty in return for clemency. Esarhaddon accepted and appointed him as governor of the "Sealand" (mat tamti) region, demanding regular tribute. Meanwhile, yet another brother, Nebi-Ushalim, also fled to the Sealand with Elamite support, likely indicating internal factionalism among Merodach-Baladan’s sons.

Three preserved letters from this period illuminate the situation. The first, sent from Mahînanu, an official in the Sealand, informed Esarhaddon of the arrival of an Elamite envoy and the alleged death of Na'id-Marduk, suggesting Nebi-Ushalim as a successor. The second letter reiterates this proposal, although it acknowledges uncertainty over Na'id-Marduk’s fate. A third letter confirms that Nebi-Ushalim, backed by Elamite forces, had established himself in the Sealand.

In 675 BC, Elamite troops advanced north to Sippar, an important city on the Euphrates, defeating the Assyrian garrison. However, shortly after this victory, Huban-Haltash II died suddenly, ending his reign. According to the Babylonian Chronicle, he died "in his palace without illness"—a phrase that may hint at political intrigue.

Reign of Ur-Tak ( Ortak) (675–664 BC)

Although Huban-Haltash II had sons, the Elamite elite—particularly the influential and moderate Mahinanu faction—chose his brother Ur-Tak (also known as Ortak) as his successor. He is the last Elamite king explicitly mentioned in the Babylonian Chronicle, though no Elamite inscriptions from his reign have yet been discovered.

Some modern scholars have speculated that Esarhaddon supported Ortak's accession, but there is no textual evidence for this claim. What is clear is that Ortak represented the moderate wing of the Elamite nobility, while the more militant faction was led by Prince Tepti-Huban-Inshushinak, the son of Huban-Haltash I.

During Ortak's reign, tensions remained high between the Elamite military and Assyrian authorities in the Sealand. Several Assyrian letters detail attempts by Elamite factions to incite rebellion against Na'id-Marduk, the Assyrian-appointed governor. One letter even implicates Tepti-Huban-Inshushinak directly, suggesting his opposition to Ortak’s conciliatory policy toward Assyria.

Despite internal divisions, Ortak offered reconciliation to Esarhaddon shortly after ascending the throne, culminating in a formal treaty of peace and non-aggression in 674 BC. Although the treaty text has not survived, Esarhaddon refers to its terms in several inscriptions. One passage records:

“The fierce kings of Elam and the Gutians, once enemies of my ancestors, heard of the vengeance wrought by Assur, my lord. Fear overwhelmed them, and they sent envoys bearing peace offerings to my capital, Nineveh, swearing oaths before the great gods.”

This treaty’s sincerity is echoed in a divinatory text wherein Esarhaddon consults Shamash, god of justice, asking whether Ortak’s overture was made in genuine good faith. The response appears favorable, affirming mutual trust.

A letter from the Assyrian crown prince—either Ashurbanipal or Shamash-shum-ukin—further confirms the treaty:

“The kings of Elam and Assyria, by the command of Marduk, have reconciled and sworn an oath of brotherhood.”

At the time, Assyria was weakened by military setbacks. In 673 BC, its army was defeated in Egypt, as recorded in the Babylonian Chronicle. The year prior, Esarhaddon had also failed to subdue Miletus under its ruler Maugallu. These defeats likely made Esarhaddon more amenable to peace with Elam, which was enjoying a period of relative strength.

Other documents reinforce the extent of this détente. A list of Assyrian tribute to Elam survives, and a letter reports that Ortak resisted pressure from Elamite hardliners to break the treaty and invade Babylon:

“Last year, the king’s brothers urged him to raise an army and take Chaldea from Assyria. But the king of Elam replied, ‘I shall not break the treaty.’”

The alliance held firm even after Esarhaddon’s death in 669 BC. Ashurbanipal, his successor, honored the treaty and supported Elam during a devastating famine in 667 BC by sending food and allowing Elamite refugees to settle temporarily in Assyria. As Ashurbanipal recorded:

“Those who fled famine in Elam, I sheltered in my land. When rebellion stirred among them, I preserved their lives and maintained peace.”

However, pressure from Elamite expansionists eventually forced Ortak’s hand. Around 665 BC, Ortak invaded Babylonia—breaking the treaty. Ashurbanipal’s annals portray the betrayal as unexpected:

“The Elamite, whose rebellion I had not foreseen... who had sought friendship... suddenly betrayed me.”

Ashurbanipal names three conspirators as inciting this turn: Marduk-shum-ibni (Ortak’s advisor), Nabu-shum-eresh (governor of Nippur), and Bel-iqisha (chief of the Gambulu tribe). Ortak, persuaded by their counsel, launched an invasion that was swiftly repelled. Ashurbanipal, informed of the betrayal, initially dismissed it as a rumor but acted decisively upon confirmation:

“Elamite warriors flooded Babylonia like locusts. I struck them in battle. Ortak was defeated and died shortly thereafter.”

Following Ortak’s death, the radical Tepti-Huban-Inshushinak ascended the Elamite throne. Assyrian inscriptions refer to him as Teumman (possibly a shortened form of Huban-Tepti). His rise marked a renewed phase of hostility in Elamite-Assyrian relations.

Reign of Tepti-Huban-Inshushinak (664–653 BC)

Before ascending the throne of Elam, Tepti-Huban-Inshushinak (known in Assyrian sources as Teumman) ruled over the city of Susa. Following the defeat and death of King Ortak, Tepti-Huban quickly consolidated power by eliminating his political rivals. According to the inscriptions of Ashurbanipal, three sons of Ortak—Ummanigash, Ummanappa, and Tammaritu—as well as the sons of the former king Huban-Haltash II, fled Elam with their relatives and sought refuge at the Assyrian court in Nineveh. These princes were, in fact, Tepti-Huban’s nephews.

Tepti-Huban repeatedly dispatched emissaries to Ashurbanipal, demanding the extradition of these Elamite fugitives. However, his tone was imperious and provocative, and Ashurbanipal refused. As the Assyrian king writes:

“In my seventh campaign, I marched against Teumman (Tepti-Huban-Inshushinak), king of Elam. Teumman, incensed by the asylum I granted the sons of Urtak—Ummanigash, Ummanappa, Tammaritu—and the sons of Huban-Haltash, namely Kawa and Paru, sent envoys month after month with arrogant demands. He boasted before his army in Elam, and I, because of the insolent tone of his messages, refused to hand them over.”

Although Tepti-Huban's reign was marked by political aggression, he also undertook significant architectural projects, particularly the construction and renovation of temples in Susa. Nevertheless, it is clear from extant texts that he engaged in military campaigns designed to secure the cohesion of the Elamite state.

Diplomatically, he appears to have supported Shamash-shum-ukin, the Assyrian-installed king of Babylon and elder brother of Ashurbanipal, in his eventual revolt against Assyria. This support likely stemmed from shared resentment of Ashurbanipal’s dominance. While Esarhaddon had appointed Shamash-shum-ukin as king of Babylon, real authority rested with Ashurbanipal in Nineveh, leaving his older brother politically humiliated and discontented.

In July 653 BC, while Ashurbanipal was engaged in religious rites at Arbela (Arba’ili), he received alarming intelligence that Tepti-Huban was mobilizing for war. The Assyrian king quickly moved south to Der and then northward toward Susa, where the decisive Battle of the Ulai River (Karkheh and its tributary, the Shavur) took place.

While some scholars argue that Ashurbanipal exaggerated Tepti-Huban's aggression to justify his own invasion of Elam, the broader context—especially the role of Elamite exiles at the Assyrian court—suggests a genuine deterioration in relations. These exiles likely lobbied Ashurbanipal to intervene in Elam and replace its leadership, possibly seeking to renew the earlier peace treaties Elam had made under Urtak.

Ashurbanipal’s inscriptions describe ominous omens and divine intervention. According to him, a temple priestess of Ishtar received a dream in which the goddess told Ashurbanipal to remain in Arbela and continue his rites—promising that Ishtar herself would defeat Tepti-Huban.

The ensuing battle was fierce. Interestingly, parts of the Elamite army reportedly defected and joined Ashurbanipal, possibly out of loyalty to Ummanigash, son of Ortak. The Elamite forces, led by Tepti-Huban and his ally Shutruk-Nahhunte, king of Hidalu (East Elam), were decisively defeated. Both monarchs were killed in battle, and Ashurbanipal's soldiers beheaded Tepti-Huban and brought his severed head to Nineveh.

In a triumphalist inscription, Ashurbanipal declared:

“I cut off the head of Teumman, their arrogant and criminal king. I slew multitudes of his warriors.”

Following the battle, Ashurbanipal installed two pro-Assyrian rulers: Ummanigash (identified with Huban-Nikash II) was made king of Susa and Madaktu, while Tammaritu was granted rule over Hidalu. The names of these two Elamite figures have deep linguistic roots: Tam-ritu derives from Teham ("life") and Rit ("path, way")—also reflected in Sanskrit (tapa, "heat, vitality").

Although Assyrian records present Huban-Nikash II as king of Susa, some scholars argue that another local figure, Atta-Hamiti, may have retained power in that city.

The Battle of Ulai is vividly commemorated in the famous limestone relief from Nineveh, likely intended as visual propaganda for the Assyrian court. The battle scene is read from left to right. On the right, Elamite archers with headbands stand in disarray, while Assyrian troops, helmeted and disciplined, advance from the left in phalanxes—each spearman protecting an archer behind. The Assyrians are shown storming the rugged Elamite terrain with infantry, cavalry, and chariots.

In one striking vignette, a wounded Elamite officer—possibly Orak, Hattan Teumman—is depicted lying prone before an Assyrian soldier. The Elamite begs:

“Come, cut off my head and bring it to your king—make yourself famous!”

Another relief shows Ummanigash (Huban-Nikash II) enthroned beneath a celebratory parade presented to Ashurbanipal. The inscription reads:

“Huban-Nikash II, a fugitive who voluntarily submitted to my rule in Madaktu and Susa, I summoned and placed on the throne of Teumman, over whom my hands prevailed.”

Thus, the reign of Tepti-Huban-Inshushinak came to a violent end. His downfall marked a significant shift in Elamite politics, as the once-independent kingdom entered a phase of dependency under Assyrian overlordship, with puppet kings installed in its key cities.

Reign of Humban-Nikash II (653–648 BC)

Following the death of Tepti-Huban-Inshushinak (Teumman) at the Battle of the Ulai (Karkheh River), Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, appointed Humban-Nikash II—a son of the former Elamite king Ortak and a political exile at the Assyrian court—as king of Elam.

However, inconsistencies in Assyrian records cast some doubt on the precise scope and location of Humban-Nikash’s rule. In one inscription, he is described as being enthroned in Madaktu; in another, in Susa, the former capital of Teumman. At times, Ashurbanipal claims he restored him to the throne of Teumman, though other inscriptions refer to Madaktu and Susa collectively. This ambiguity is further complicated by the presence of Atta-Hamiti-Inshushinak, who may have remained ruler of Susa. In his own inscriptions, Atta-Hamiti refers to himself as the “son of Hutran-Tepti” and king of Anshan and Susa.

Ashurbanipal likely hoped that Humban-Nikash would reunify Elam under Assyrian patronage. But it soon became clear that, like his predecessors, Humban-Nikash sought to diminish Assyrian influence and reassert Elamite independence. His aspirations for a new regional balance of power led him to collaborate with Shamash-shum-ukin, Ashurbanipal’s elder brother and rival king of Babylon.

Ashurbanipal writes:

“Ummanigash, to whom I had shown great kindness, whom I had returned to the throne of Elam, broke his oaths to the great gods. He accepted tribute from the envoys of Shamash-shum-ukin, my impious brother and enemy.”

Shamash-shum-ukin reportedly looted the treasuries of the temples of Bel in Babylon, Nergal in Kutha, and Nabu in Borsippa, and sent vast offerings of gold and silver to Humban-Nikash II in Elam to seal their alliance.

Together, they forged a broad coalition of Mesopotamian and  Iranian powers against Assyria. Elamite generals Neshu and Attametu led the allied forces, which included:

• Nabu-bel-shumati, king of the Sealand (a descendant of Merodach-Baladan)

• Sin-tabni-utsur, son of Ningal-iddina, ruler of Ur

• Mannu-ki-Babilli, ruler of Dakur

• Ea-mubassi, ruler of Amukkan

• Nadan, ruler of the Piqudu (Pekud)

Additionally, Sheikh Maliku Wahti of Arabia, hoping to seize Syria and Palestine for himself, joined the alliance. He dispatched two armies: one marched into Edom, Moab, Harran, and Hamath, only to be repelled by the Assyrians. The second, under Sheikh Aimo and Sheikh Abiatah, joined Elamite-Iranian forces in Babylon under the command of Humban-Nikash II.(Hurban NickAsh)

This anti-Assyrian coalition temporarily succeeded in driving Assyrian forces from key Babylonian cities. The urban centers of Sippar, Babylon, Borsippa, and Kutha were fortified as strongholds against further Assyrian retaliation.

In his inscriptions, Ashurbanipal records that Humban-Nikash secretly sent his army through Chaldea, under generals Neshu and Attametu, accompanied by local mayors Zazaz of Pilatu and Paru of Himlu. Humban-Nikash also armed Ondash, a son of the slain Teumman, to seek vengeance. Ashurbanipal claims:

“Ummanigash said to Ondash: ‘Go, and avenge your father’s blood upon the Assyrians.’”

The decisive confrontation occurred near Mangissi, close to Savmandir. Though the Assyrian version portrays a sweeping victory, with the deaths of Ondash, Attametu, and the mayors of Hamund-Elam, only General Neshu is said to have survived. Following this, Ashurbanipal sent an envoy to Humban-Nikash to offer terms or seek reconciliation. However, the Elamite king refused to receive the envoy—a defiant act that Ashurbanipal attributed to divine punishment:

“Ummanigash detained my messenger and sent no reply. The gods then punished him, for Tammaritu rose up in rebellion and overthrew him.”

This Tammaritu must not be confused with Tammaritu I, the brother of Humban-Nikash who had earlier been installed as king of Hidalu by the Assyrians. Rather, this was likely Tammaritu II, Humban-Nikash’s nephew, described in inscriptions as “the son of his father’s brother”. He appears in lists of spoils taken from Elam as “Tammaritu Arku”, a name indicating his distinct identity and possible dynastic claim.

The reasons behind Tammaritu II’s rebellion remain obscure. Perhaps Elam’s governing council or nobility grew alarmed at the enormous cost of the war in Mesopotamia. It is plausible that the Senate or military elites no longer supported the burdensome anti-Assyrian campaign, especially in the face of Elam’s internal divisions and uncertain gains.

Nevertheless, the refusal of Humban-Nikash to surrender Ashurbanipal’s envoy indicates that Elam, even after suffering setbacks, retained considerable strength and leverage. It also suggests that Ashurbanipal’s diplomatic outreach—whether conciliatory or coercive—acknowledged the enduring challenge posed by a resurgent Elam.

Unfortunately, no Elamite sources survive from this period to provide an alternative account. The Assyrian records, while vivid, are inherently biased, and the true nature of the final years of Humban-Nikash II’s reign—his motives, policies, and domestic legitimacy—remain elusive.

The Reign of Tammaritu II (649–652 BC)

Shortly after Tammaritu II (or Taham-Riti) ascended the throne of Elam, Shamash-shum-ukin—king of Babylon and elder brother to Ashurbanipal—dispatched envoys to secure his support in the growing coalition against Assyria. Tammaritu viewed the proposal as highly advantageous. On one hand, it aligned with Elam’s traditional foreign policy of counterbalancing Assyrian dominance in Mesopotamia; on the other, siding with Shamash-shum-ukin could help consolidate Tammaritu's fragile legitimacy among Elamite hardliners. A Babylonian victory, he calculated, might restore equilibrium between Elam and Assyria and facilitate eventual reconciliation.

However, internal dissent soon destabilized his reign. One of Elam’s senior generals, Indabibi (or Indabigash), rose in revolt, defeating Tammaritu and forcing him to flee with his brothers and 85 relatives. Their vessel was caught in a storm on the Tigris and eventually drifted into the marshlands of southern Mesopotamia. Ill and weakened, Tammaritu concealed himself there until Ashurbanipal, wary of Indabibi's ambitions, extended an offer of asylum. Tammaritu surrendered to the Assyrian officer Marduk-shar-usur, who sent him to Bel-ibni, the commander of Assyrian forces in the southern provinces. Bel-ibni then escorted Tammaritu and his retinue to Nineveh, where they were received at the Assyrian court.

The Reign of Indabigash (648–649 BC)

Following Tammaritu’s flight, Indabigash (possibly from Anda-Bagash, meaning “protected by the divine Bagha/Ashavan”) assumed the throne of Elam. At this time, Assyrian forces had nearly reconquered all of Babylonia. After fierce sieges and prolonged famine, Babylon—last bastion of resistance—fell. Shamash-shum-ukin, defeated and cornered, set fire to his palace and committed suicide.

In the aftermath, Ashurbanipal exacted brutal vengeance on the Mesopotamian kings, sparing only Nabu-bel-shumati, the king of the Sealand and a descendant of Merodach-baladan, who fled to Elam and sought refuge at Indabigash’s court. Indabigash, a political moderate, initially attempted diplomacy. He freed captured Assyrian soldiers as a gesture of goodwill and sent envoys to Nineveh seeking peace.

These soldiers had originally been dispatched by Ashurbanipal to support Nabu-bel-shumati before the Battle of Mangisi but were betrayed when Nabu-bel-shumati joined the Elamites and imprisoned them. Letters from Bel-ibni report how his forces, operating under extreme conditions, launched raids on the Persian Gulf coast. In one campaign, 400 Assyrian archers in battalion formations decimated the Helim and Pilatus tribes. Another sortie with 600 archers and 50 cavalrymen raided Elamite marshlands, capturing 1,500 head of livestock.

Despite Indabigash’s diplomatic overtures, Ashurbanipal remained hostile. In a biting letter to the Elamite Senate, he declared that Elam had nothing of value—neither gold nor horses—only its treacherous harboring of enemies. He demanded the surrender of Nabu-bel-shumati, threatening annihilation:

“Send me Nabu-bel-shumati and his companions, that I may return your gods to you. But if you delay, I swear by my gods that I shall return your future to your past.”

Before the Elamite court could respond, Indabigash was overthrown. In 648 BC, Humban-Haltash III, commander of the Elamite forces and son of Atta-Hamiti-Inshushinak (king of Susa), seized the throne. Ashurbanipal notes:

“When my envoy had not yet reached Indabibi, the people of Elam heard my message and rebelled. They killed him and placed Omanaldash, son of Attametu, upon the throne.”

The Reign of Humban-Haltash III (644–648 BC)

After Humban-Haltash III (also rendered Humman-Haltash) took the throne, Ashurbanipal demanded the extradition of Nabu-bel-shumati. In response, the Elamite king prepared for defense but also seemed initially inclined to comply. Yet, the powerful Elamite Senate—whose institutional authority rivaled that of the king—opposed the surrender, arguing that Elam should not abandon a loyal ally or legitimize Assyrian hegemony.

This resistance reflected the Senate's long-standing role as guardian of Elamite sovereignty and Mesopotamian balance. The term "Senate" itself derives from the root sanaya, meaning “age” or “wisdom,” with cognates across Indo-Iranian and Latin traditions, such as the Roman senātus (“council of elders”).

The Senate’s refusal hardened Elam’s stance. In 647 BC, Ashurbanipal invaded Elam. He reinstalled Tammaritu as a puppet king and began a campaign of unprecedented destruction:

“Fourteen cities and palaces, countless small towns, and twelve districts of Elam I conquered. I burned them, I reduced them to dust. I slew their warriors. Ommanaldaš, king of Elam, fled naked into the mountains.”

Ashurbanipal's vengeance reached a fever pitch in the sack of Susa. He tore down its ziggurats, looted its palaces, and desecrated its religious sanctuaries:

“I made the wild donkeys and gazelles lie down in the ruins, as if it were their pasture. The sound of human life, the murmur of lullabies, I silenced with war.”

He carried off 32 royal statues and 19 divine effigies—including that of Inshushinak, the chief god of Elam—back to Nineveh. He salted the fields, uprooted groves, opened graves, and scattered the ashes of the dead.

Following the Assyrian withdrawal, Humman-Haltash III returned to Madaktu and addressed the Elamite Senate. Bel-ibni, in a letter to Ashurbanipal, paraphrased part of the king’s rebuke to his ministers:

“Did I not warn you before my departure that…”

[The rest of the speech remains fragmentary, lost in transmission.]

Conclusion: The Legacy of Elam—A Foundational Layer in Iranian Imperial Identity

The history of the Elamite Empire, as reconstructed through a close reading of Assyrian annals, Babylonian chronicles, Elamite inscriptions, and archaeological remains, reveals a polity of remarkable resilience, cultural sophistication, and geopolitical dynamism. Situated at the crossroads of Mesopotamian and Iranian worlds, Elam was not merely a reactive frontier kingdom but a strategic actor with its own ideological, military, and institutional agency. From its earliest interactions with Akkad and Ur, to its entanglements with Babylon and its bitter struggles with Assyria, Elam consistently sought to maintain a precarious yet often effective balance of power within a volatile regional system.

The dynastic history of Elam—particularly in its Neo-Elamite period—was shaped by oscillations between internal factionalism and external pressure. The reigns of monarchs such as Tepti-Huban-Inshushinak (Teumman), Tammaritu II, and Humban-Haltash III demonstrate the empire’s reliance on a complex political ecology: a powerful senate that mediated royal authority; shifting alliances with Mesopotamian powers; and a deeply rooted ideological vision of kingship that emphasized both divine sanction and territorial guardianship.

Yet, Elam’s downfall at the hands of Ashurbanipal was not merely a military collapse—it was a symbolic assault on an entire civilizational paradigm. The sack of Susa and the desecration of Inshushinak’s cult center marked the end of Elam as an autonomous imperial force, but not the end of its Iranian cultural legacy. Elamite administrative practices, scribal traditions, architectural motifs, and religious symbols would echo through subsequent Iranian dynasties, particularly in the Median and Achaemenid periods. The fact that Cyrus the Great ruled from Anshan—a city once central to the Elamite world—before founding the Achaemenid Empire, is not a coincidence of geography but a testament to continuity. Elam provided the institutional scaffolding upon which later Iranian imperial forms would be constructed.

Moreover, the Elamite dialect and script would survive in cuneiform archives well into the Achaemenid era, underscoring the cultural endurance of Elamite Iranian identity even after its political extinction. The fusion of Elamite, Median, and later Persian traditions would eventually give rise to the enduring imperial model that defined the Iranian plateau for over a millennium.

As we transition into the next chapter on the Median Empire, it is crucial to recognize that the Medes did not emerge from a vacuum. Rather, they inherited a geopolitical terrain conditioned by centuries of Elamite statecraft, resistance, and cultural production. The Elamite struggle against Assyrian imperial overreach and their complex interactions with Babylonian and Mesopotamian politics form a direct antecedent to the Median coalition-building against Nineveh. Likewise, the royal ideology and sacred kingship of Elam would find echoes in the Median court and later in the Achaemenid conception of divine kingship.

In this light, Elam must be understood not as a prelude to Iranian history, but as its first great act—a native, enduring, and often underestimated empire that laid the ideological and institutional groundwork for what would become the long arc of Iranian imperial civilization. The story of Elam is not merely a chapter of ancient Near Eastern history—it is the foundational prologue to Iran's enduring imperial legacy.