Akkadian Conquest of Elam and Anshan

Image adapted from Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2021, Map 2.1, at p. 69)  

My additions: text in white and blue  

Akkadian Dynasty in the Sumerian King List

Surviving fragments of the ‘Ur III’ recension of the Sumerian King List (USKL)

Image adapted from CDLI: P283804

Since this analysis is essentially about the meaning of kingship, initially in the context of Mesopotamia, we must begin with the so-called Sumerian King List (hereafter SKL): as Walther Sallaberger and Ingo Schrakamp (referenced below, at p. 13) observed: 

1. “The SKL is a continuous sequence of ‘dynasties’ and kings, from mythical beginnings down to the time of the composers of the [20 or more] preserved manuscripts, [which span the period] between [the Ur III dynasty, ca. 2100 BC)] and the period after the fall of [the Isin dynasty (ca. 1800 BC)]. ...  All ruling [cities/dynasties] in the list] are arranged in a continuous sequence, ... [a] principle of composition that is based on the fiction that only one single city exercised kingship over [a united Mesopotamia] at any given time.”
   

In this ‘fiction’, the change of location of the kingship was always effected my military force using the following formula:

1. ‘City/Dynasty X was struck by weapons: the kingship [of Mesopotamia] was taken to City/Dynsaty Y’.
   

The most complete version of the list (transliterated as CDLI, P384786) is found on the so-called Weld-Blundell Prism from Larsa, which is now in the Ashmolean Museum.  This list:

1. ✴begins with a list of 8 kings from 5 cities who ruled before the flood for a total of 18,600 years (surface A, col. 1, lines 1-38);
   

2. ✴restarts with the good news that:
   

3. “After the flood had swept over, and the kingship had descended from heaven, the kingship was in Kish”
   

4. and names the first king of Kish as Gushur, who ruled for 1200 years (surface A, col. 1, lines 45-7); and
   

5. ✴ends with the reign of Sin-magir, the 14th king of the Isin dynast (surface D, col. 2, line 43), who reigned for 11 years (in ca. 1800 BC).
   

Most of the other known versions of the text do not include the antediluvian kings, and this is usually assumed to have been a relatively late addition to the underlying tradition. 

Ur III Recension of the Sumerian King List (USKL)

Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2003) published the oldest known version of the text as the ‘Ur III’ recension  (hereafter USKL).  This text was on the upper half of a clay tablet that was in a private collection: the tablet itself is not publicly exhibited, but Steinkeller published a transliteration and photographs (now also available at CDLI: P283804).  The text was inscribed in three columns on the obverse and reverse (spilling over onto the top/bottom), but only the upper half of the tablet (illustrated above) survives: he first quarter of the original text is on the obverse and last quarter on the reverse.  Thus, we know that the complete text:

1. ✴began with King Gushur:
   

2. “When kingship came down from Heaven, Kish was sovereign; in Kish, Gushur exercised (kingship) for 2,160 years’”, (obverse, col. 1, lines 1-4; translated by Gianni Marchesi, 2o10, at p. 231); and
   

3. ✴ended with the kingship of Ur-Namma, who is given a reign of 18 years (in ca. 2100 BC).
   

We also have the scribe’s dedication of his handiwork to:

1. “[The divine] Shulgi, my king: may he live [many] days”, (translated by Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2003, at p. 269).
   

King Shulgi was Ur-Namma’s son and successor.  Steinkeller (as above) argued (at p. 269) argued that the form of the scribe’s dedication suggests that he was inscribing an original text, rather than merely copying an earlier recension. 

It seems that the obverse of the tablet (including the missing half) had been largely devoted to the four dynasties of Kish:

1. ✴Steinkeller (as above) established (at p. 274) that:
   

2. •the first two columns were almost certainly devoted solely to the Kish I, Kish II and Kish III dynasties.
   

3. •the last king named in column 2 would have been Kug-Bau, the only Kish III ruler (since he reigned for 100 years, and the first line of column 3 records a reign of this length). 
   

4. ✴Walther Sallaberger and Ingo Schrakamp (referenced below, in Table 3, at p. 17) showed that the first six kings in column 3 all belonged to the Kish IV dynasty (as Steinkeller had also asserted).   However:
   

5. •in the known recensions of SKL, Na-an-né is usually regarded the last of the Kish IV kings; but
   

6. •in column 3 of the USKL, he is followed by Mes-nun-né, son of Na-an-né.
   

There was then a gap of about 30 lines (about 16 lines in column 3 of the obverse and about 15 in column 1 of the reverse) during which we move from the world of myth to the world of history and land on Sargon, the first king of the Akkadian dynasty.  Steinkeller (as above) observed( at p. 274) that the king immediately before Sargon would have been Lugalzagesi of Uruk (as in SKL).  The USKL text then named the first five Akkadian kings (at reverse, col. 1, lines 5’-15’, using the CDLI numbering) as:

1. ✴Sargon (ruled for 40 years);
   

2. ✴Manishtushu (ruled for 15 years);
   

3. ✴Rimush (ruled for 8 years);
   

4. ✴Naram-Sin (ruled for  54 years and six months); and
   

5. ✴Shar-kali-sharri (ruled for 21+ years). 
   

Walther Sallaberger and Ingo Schrakamp (referenced below, Table 5, at p. 18) compared these data with those given in the other relevant SKL manuscripts.

Thus, it seems that, in USKL, the four Kish dynasties accounted for about 70% of the lines devoted to all the kings between (and including) Gushur and Lugalzagesi: the corresponding figure for SKL (by my calculation) is about 40%.  Steinkeller (as above) reasonably argued (at p. 282) that this militated strongly in favour of an Akkadian bias in the compilation of this part of the USKL: after all: 

1. “Sargon and his [successors] would ... have had an obvious interest promoting the idea that Kish had remained the seat of [the god-given Mesopotamian] kingship from time immemorial down to Sargon’s own day.  In such a scheme of history, Akkad [would be] a natural ... successor to Kish ...”
   

On the other hand, everything after the putative entry on the reverse (column 1) for King Lugalzagesi, the destruction of Uruk and the transfer of the kinship to Akkad, just before the entry for Sargon, would have been uncontroversial at the time of Shulgi: after all, apart from the period of confusion during the so-called Gutian Period (see below), it was largely a matter of historic record.

At this point, we should address the question of the of the likely original location of the USKL tablet: Steinkeller (as above) suggested (at p. 269) that, although its provenience is unknown: 

1. “A possible indication of its origins could be [found] in the fact that the list includes ([on the reverse, at col. 3, line 12’]) ...  an Adab dynasty that is not part of the SKL.”
   

This anomaly is also recorded in the data compiled by Walther Sallaberger and Ingo Schrakamp (referenced below, Table 7, at p. 20).  Steinkeller argued that the addition of this dynasty might well have been the handiwork of a local scribe at Adab, which might suggest that the tablet is one of many works from that city (now the modern Bismaya, in Iraq) that were excavated in 1899-19o5 have been illicitly sold on the open market thereafter.  Aage Westenholz (referenced below, 2010, at pp. 456-7) referred to the large number of objects of this kind from Adab, in particular, that entered private collections in the West after the First Gulf War in 1991.

The term “Gutium” (or “Gutean” or “Guti”) period is derived from the terminology of the SKL, which places the dynasty of Gutium after Akkad.

Generally, the term “Gutean period” is understood as covering the time span from the death of Sharkalisharri to the beginning of Urnamma’s reign (MC 2110), since the Late Akkad rulers, Dudu and Shudurul, are generally thought to have ruled over a very restricted region around Akkad in Northern Babylonia. Here we adopt this use of the term.

Prior to Ur-Namma of the Ur III dynasty, the SKL  lists the dynasties of Uruk IV, Gutium and Uruk V with Utu-hengal as its last ruler.

The manuscripts of the SKL  show considerable variations regarding the length of these dynasties, indicating a length of ca. 170-200 years for the Gutean period, with durations of 91-125 years for the Gutium dynasty itself.  As some of these dynasties evidently co-ruled at the same time, the time-span given by the SKL  is, in any case, too long.  Its end is determined by

the victory of Utuhengal of Uruk over Tirigan (around MC 2110); and

Ur-Namma’s accession to the throne (MC 2110),

but the beginning, length and geographical extension of Gutean overrule are debated

USKL differs considerably from SKL in the arrangement of dynasties:

The dynasties of Akkad, Late Akkad and Uruk IV are followed by two discrete dynasties:

a ‘Ummanum’ (Akk. ummānum = army) dynasty and

a Dynasty of Adab with Tirigan as its last ruler, matching the last entry of the Gutium section of the Standard SKL  and the testimony of Utuhengal’s inscription.

Sargon (traditionally 2334-2279 BC) seems to have begun his ‘royal’ career by seizing Kish (which was then the most important political centre of northern Mesopotamia) and declaring himself to be its king  (lugal).  Kish itself subsequently declined when Sargon built the new city of Agade (Akkad), which was probably located somewhere near modern Baghdad.  He began a new tradition of ‘royal’ inscriptions in what we call Old Akkadian cuneiform, often proclaiming himself as King of Akkad.  However, he also continued to use the title ‘King of Kish’: as Douglas Frayne (referenced below, 1993, at p. 7) observed:

1. “... in the context of the Sargonic royal inscriptions, [‘king of Kish’] should be translated as 'king of the world'.”
   

This claim initially reflected the fact that, probably soon after his usurpation of the kingship of Kish, Sargon conquered Uruk and all of the other Sumerian city-states of southern Mesopotamia.  Then, as Daniel Potts (referenced below, at p. 92) observed:

1. “... he turned his attention to the east.  Nothing suggests that sustained political influence [had ever before been] exercised by a Mesopotamian city over one of its eastern neighbours ...  However, this situation changed dramatically [with the advent of Sargon]: for the first time in their history, the regions of southwestern Iran came within the direct political orbit of a Mesopotamian power.”
   

Another of Sargon’s innovations was the use of ‘year names’ on administrative documents.  Since only four of these names are now known (see this list in the CDLI website), it is particularly significant that two of them relate to his conquests in the east: Douglas Frayne (referenced below, 1993, at p. 8) argued that:

1. ✴the ‘year in which Sargon destroyed Uru'a’ (year ba/bb) related to his defeat of the city of Arawa (a city that was referred to as the ‘bolt of Elam’ in the later ‘Hymn B: Ishbi-Erra and Kindattu’, which suggests that it was located on the western fringes of Elam); and 
   

2. ✴the ‘year in which Sargon destroyed Elam’ (year c: Elam = nimki ) probably referred to Sargon’s subsequent defeat of Susa and its region.
   

We can thus reasonably assume that these ‘year names’ both relate to period that followed Sargon’s conquest of southern Mesopotamia. 

Sargon’s Conquest of Elam  

The inscription on a ‘victory’ statue of Sargon at Nippur (known from an Old Babylonian copy, RIME, 2:1:1:1, P461926) described him as: 

1. “Sargon, king of Agade; bailiff (mashkim) of the goddess Ishtar; king of Kish/ the world; anointed priest of the god An; king of the nation (lugal kalam-ma); chief governor of Enlil (ensi2-gal den-lil2)” , (lines 2-11).
   

The text then recorded his conquest of Uruk, Ur, Eninmar, and Lagash in southern Mesopotamia, after which: 

1. “... Enlil gave to him [the rest of] the territory from the Lower Sea (Persian Gulf) to the Upper Sea (Mediterranean): [throughout this territory, only] citizens of Agade are governors (ensi2): [even]:
   

2. ✴Mari [to the northwest]’ and
   

3. ✴Elam [to the southeast];
   

4. serve Sargon, the king of the nation”, (lines 68-86 - see also the translation by Marlies Heinz, referenced below, at p. 76, note 15). 
   

As Heinz observed: 

1. “By removing the local élites in the conquered cities, Sargon secured political control over the occupied territories once his military actions were over.”
   

Thus, we might reasonably assume that, after his conquest of Elam, Sargon installed his own Akkadian ‘ensi‘ as its new governor (or viceroy). 

Two other inscriptions (known from other Old Babylonian copies from Nippur) contain important details relating to Sargon’s conquest of Elam and and Parahshum (Elam’s eastern neighbour:

1. ✴The first text (RIME, 2:1:1:8: P461933), which was on a ‘victory’ monument, began by explicitly naming Sargon as:
   

2. “... king of the world (and) conqueror of Elam and Parahshum”. (lines 1-7). 
   

3. This was followed by a curse on anyone moving the inscription and then by 18 captions, each of which would have identified an image: for example, Caption 2 (lines 25-32), which reproduced lines 1-7, would obviously have accompanied an image of Sargon himself.  We learn from other captions that:
   

4. •Sargon captured at least two commanders from Elam:
   

5. -Luhishan, son of Hishibrasini, king of Elam (lugal elamki  - see Caption 5, lines 38-41); and 
   

6. -Sanam-Shimut, governor of Elam (ensi2 Elamki - Caption 4, lines 35-7); and
   

7. •took booty from at least three Elamite cities:
   

8. -Arawa (Caption 3, lines 33-4);
   

9. -Awan, which (as we shall see) must have been relatively close to Susa (Caption 15, lines 64-5); and 
   

10. -Susa (Caption 18, lines 72-3); and also
    

11. •captured three commanders from Parahshum:
    

12. -Dagu, brother of the king of Parahshum (Caption 9, lines 49-51); and
    

13. -two generals (shagina) of Parahshum:
    

14. ‣Ulul (Captiion 8, lines 46-8); and
    

15. ‣Sidga’u (Caption 16, lines 66-8).
    

16. ✴The second text (RIME, 2:1:1:9: P461935), which was on a votive object that had been dedicated to Enlil, contained only eight explanatory captions:
    

17. •three of these related to Sargon’s Elamite captives:
    

18. -Hishibrasini, king of Elam (Caption 7, lines 42-4);
    

19. -Luhishan, son of Hishibrasini, king of Elam (Caption 4, lines 31-4); and 
    

20. -Sanam-Shimut, now described as general of Elam (shagina Elamki - Caption 3, lines 28-30); but
    

21. •only one related to a commander from Parahshum: general Sidga’u (Caption 2, lines 25-7).
    

22. The most important conclusions to be drawn from this second copy for our current purposes are that Sargon’s Elamite captives included Hishibrasini, king of Elam, as well his son, Luhishan (who was presumably his designated heir at this time.
    

Since it is unlikely that Luhishan and Sidga’u were both captured in the same two consecutive battles, we might reasonably assume that these two texts related to the same campaign. 

As we shall see below, during a subsequent campaign in this region, Sargon’s son, Rimush, captured another enemy commander at a place:

1. “... between (the cities of) Awan and Susa, by the Qablitum river”, (RIME, 2:1:2:6: CDLI, P461952, lines 33-42). 
   

This suggests that Awan was close to Susa: if so, then the battle described above was fought close to Elam’s western border.  (Although Parahshum was also defeated in this battle, there is no surviving evidence that Sargon fought on its territory). 

Awan and the Awan King List

Awan and Shimaski king lists from Susa, 

now exhibit as Sb. 17729 in the Musée du Louvre  (image from the museum website)  

As we have seen above, Sargon claimed to have captured Hishibrasini, king of Elam, and his son, Luhishan, in a battle that was fought near the western border of Elam and affected the cities of Arawa, Awan and Susa.  However, on the evidence of an inscription known as the Awan King List (AwKL), it is at least possible that Hishibrasini would have described himself, not as ‘king of Elam’, but as ‘king of Awan’.  

To take this suggestion further, we now need to look more closely at the AwKL in some detail.  The only evidence for a list of this kind is provided by the Akkadian inscription illustrated above, which is on the obverse of what Douglas Frayne (referenced below, 2008, at p. 38) characterised as: 

1. “... a clay tablet from Susa that can be dated on the basis of its script to the period ca. 1800-1600 BC.  The first part of the tablet gives a list of twelve personal names (without regnal years or genealogy) which are summarised by the rubric ‘twelve kings of Awan (LUGAL.MESH sha a-wa-anki)’.   The 8th [name], lu-uh-hi-ish-sha-an, is almost certainly a variant spelling of the royal name Luhishan found in a royal inscription of Sargon [see above]”. 
   

A potential problem with this identification is the fact that Sargon had captured Luhishan while he was still only heir apparent.  However, the possibility that he survived his capture should not be discounted:

1. ✴as we shall see, a ‘Sidga’u, general of Parhshum’, whom Sargon captured in the same campaign, was apparently captured again in a similar campaign waged by Sargon’s son, Rimush; and
   

2. ✴the fact that Rimush had to recapture Elam suggests that Sargon had subsequebtly beed driven out, quite possibly by Luhishan.
   

Another of kings named in the AWKL can also be identified from other sources: Puzur-Inshushinak, the 12th and last king in the list (whose reign is discussed below):

1. ✴in all of the surviving inscriptions in which he was described as a king (all of which came from Susa), he was specifically styled as ‘king of Awan’; but
   

2. ✴he was also documented by Ur-Namma, the first king of the Ur III dynasty, in ca. 2100 BC, but this time as ‘king of Elam’. 
   

Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2018, at p. 179) argued that these disparities in geographical terminology:

1. “... practically assure that ‘Awan’ is a native correspondent of the [Akkadian] ‘Elam’, both terms describing roughly the same geographical area and, during the periods ... , the same political organism.”
   

In other words, on this hypothesis:

1. ✴while Sargon regarded Awan as a city on the western border of the kingdom of Elam (which extended eastwards as far as Parahshum);
   

2. ✴Luhishan (and presumably Hishbrasini) would have regarded this stretch of territory as the kingdom of Awan.
   

Some scholars have argued that Hishibrasini can also be identified in the AwKL: for example, Matthew Stolper (referenced below) argued that the name ‘Hishibrasini’ is a variant of Hishepratep (hi-she-eb-ra-te-eb), the 9th name in the list.  It is obviously unlikely that Luhishan ruled before his father, but this could simply mean that one or other of the sources was inaccurate (perhaps due to scribal error).  However, other scholars disagree with this identification: for example, having reviewed the previous scholarship, Walther Sallaberger and Ingo Schrakamp (referenced below, at p. 23) concluded that: 

1. “The identification of:
   

2. ✴Hishibrasini, known from the ... Sargon inscriptions as the father of Luhishan; with
   

3. ✴Hishebrateb, [the 9th king in the AwKL];
   

4. remains doubtful, [in view of] both ...
   

5. ✴the form of the name: [Hishibrasini ≠ Hishebrateb]; and
   

6. ✴the reversed order of filiation: [Luhishan, son of Hishibrasini ≠ Hisheprateb, son of Luhishan, as implied by the AwKL].”
   

However, Hishibrasini’s probable omission from the AwKL does not necessarily mean that he never ruled Awan: it is possible that the compiler of the list:

1. ✴excluded Hishibrasini because he had been deposed by Sargon; but
   

2. ✴included Luhishan because he had survived his captivity and gone on to drive Sargon from Awan and recover the throne. 
   

Sanam-Shimut 

As we have seen, Sargon’s captive Sanam-Shimut was described:

1. ✴as ensi of Elam in RIME, 2:1:1:8; and 
   

2. ✴as shagina of Elam in RIME, 2:1:1:9. 
   

The only other things we know (or can reasonably deduce) about him are that:

1. ✴he had a securely Elamite name; and
   

2. ✴he was clearly subservient to Hishibrasini (whom Sargon understood to be lugal of Elam).  
   

The second of Sanam-Shimut’s titles, ‘shagina of Elam’ is unproblematic: he was clearly on a par with Ulul and Sidga’u, each of whom was styled as shagina of Parahshum.  Thus, the likelihood is that this was a senior military rank (and hence the usual translation as ‘general’).  More difficult is the fact that he was also styled (apparently in the same campaign) as ensi of Elam.. 

To take this further, we need to look at the wider evidence for the significance of the title ‘ensi’ at about this time.  Aage Westenholz (referenced  below, 2002, at p. 29) observed, in the period before the reign of Sargon, the rulers of the then-independent Sumerian city-states could be styled as either lugal or ensi, albeit that the terms were not freely interchangeable: for example, at Lagash:

1. “... Urukagina (ca. 2340) styled himself:
   

2. ✴ensi of Lagash , as his predecessors had done, during the first two years of his reign; but then
   

3. ✴changed his title to lugal of Lagash and counted his regnal years once again from that event on.
   

4. In other words, the difference between being ensi of Lagash and being lugal of Lagash was to him obvious and important enough to merit a renewed year count; but to us it is totally opaque.”
   

As it happens, we also know something about the use of the title at Elam and Parahshum at around the time of Sargon. conquest: 

1. ✴The inscription RIME, 2:1:1:8: P461933 (above) recorded two of the men captured during Sargon’s campaign against Elam and Parahshum as:
   

2. • Zina, ensi of Huzi... (lines 56-8); and
   

3. • Hidarida-x, ensi of  Gunilaha (lines 59-61).
   

4. However, this is unproblematic, since they might well have been the rulers of independent cities allied to Elam and Parahshum. 
   

5. ✴The inscription RIME, 2:1:1:1, P461926 (above) records that Sargon gave the title ensi to the men whom he appointed as viceroys in the territories that he had subjugated, and, as we shall see, Eshpum, a later Akkadian viceroy, was indeed styled ‘ensi’ of Elam. 
   

I find it difficult to see what could have been meant by Sanam-Shimut’s title ‘ensi of Elam’ when he was clearly subordinate to Hishibrasini, ‘lugal of Elam’.  He could have been Hishibrasini’s ‘first minister’ (as well as his general), although it is unclear to me that Sargon would have regarded a king’s first minister as an ‘ensi’.  I think that, in the case of the case of RIME, 2:1:1:8, we should rather rely on our old friend ’scribal error’ and assume that the scribe of RIME, 2:1:1:9 was correct when he styled Sanam-Shimut as ‘shagina of Elam’.

Akkadian Hegemony over Elam after Sargon 

Rimush, son of Sargon 

As noted above, it seems that Rimush, the son of Sargon, was obliged to return to the fray against Elam and Parahshum.  The relevant source here is another Old Babylonian copy on the Nippur Sammeltafeln (RIME, 2:1:2:6: CDLI, P461952), which is based on a ‘royal’ inscription on a statue of Rimush.  On this occasion, there were apparently two separate battles: 

1. “Rimush, king of the world, was victorious in battle with Abalgamash, king of Parahshum.  Further, Zahara and Elam had assembled in the centre of Parahshum for battle, but he was (again) victorious.  ...  Further, he captured Emahsini, king of Elam,  and all the [...] of Elam.  Further, he captured Sidga’u, the shagina of Parahshum  and then he captured Sargapi, shagina of ZaÌara, in between (the cities of) Awan and Susa, by the Qablitum river. ... Furthermore, he conquered the cities of Elam, and destroyed their city walls, and he tore out the roots of Parahshum from the land of Elam.  [And so, Rimush, king of the world, (now) rules Elam (as) the god Enlil had disclosed (in an omen)”, (lines 1-67).  
   

As noted above, although the site of Awan has yet to be discovered, the phrase ‘between (the cities of) Awan and Susa, by the Qablitum river’ (at lines 37-41) indicates that Awan and Susa were relatively close to each other.   Other surviving inscriptions indicate that, after his  conquest of Elam and Parahshum, Rimash dedicated booty from Elam at:

1. •Nippur (RIME 2:1:2:11; CDLI, P216440); and
   

2. •Ur (RIME 2:1:2:13; CDLI, 461959)
   

It seems that Rimush defeated King Abalgamash before the armies of Zahara and Elam reached Parahshum, and that Rimush then concentrated on restoring Akkadian hegemony over Elam:

1. •he seems to have captured Emahsini in the second battle; and
   

2. •as Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2018, at p. 186) observed, the subsequent reference  to the destruction of of a number of Elamite cities suggests that he then campaigned in the Elamite highlands (although, again, there is no specific mention here of Anshan). 
   

Rahim Shayegan (referenced below, at p. 261) included King Emahsini of Elam in his list of Elamite rulers.  This is surely correct, but again we should add that he would have styled himself king of Awan: his omission from the AwKL might well be the result of the fact he had either submitted to Rimush or died as his captive. 

Manishtushu, son of Sargon 

Manishtushu’s Conquest of Anshan 

No complete examples of Manistushu’s royal inscriptions survive, although:

1. ✴fragments of what seems to have been a ‘standard’ inscription are known from a number of surviving statue fragments (as summarised by Melissa Eppihimer, referenced below, 2010, Table 1, at p. 367); and
   

2. ✴more complete versions of the original (as summarised by Melissa Eppihimer, referenced below, 2010, Table 4, at p. 369) are known from:
   

3. •two scribal copies from Nippur, one of which is on the Sammeltafeln (CBS 13972) from Nippur mentioned above) and
   

4. •another scribal copy from Ur.
   

The composite version of this standard inscription (RIME 2:1:3:1; CDLI P461968) begins:

1. “Manishutush, king of the world: (after he had) conquered Anshan and Sherihum,  ...  (his) ships cross the Lower Sea (Persian Gulf) ”, (lines 1-12).
   

Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2018, at p. 187) observed that the stable conditions that followed Rimush’s campaigns had evidently:

1. “... enabled Manishtushu to expand Akkad’s political and commercial influence further east ... [The] amphibious expedition [that followed Manishtushu’s conquest of Anshan and Sherihum] ... resulted in the capture of 32 ... cities [of Makkan, in what is now Oman  and Abu Dhabi].”
   

Although we hear no more about Anshan in our surviving sources for some 200 years, we might reasonably assume that, given its apparent strategic importance to Manishtushu, it was incorporated into the Akkadian province of Elam at this time.

Eshpum, Governor of Elam

Objects from Susa with inscriptions recording Puzur-Inshushinak, now in the Musée du Louvre 

Sb. 82:votive statue dedicated by Eshpum to Narundi;  Sb. 6677: impression made by Eshpum’s seal

Images from the museum website 

The continuation of Akkadian hegemony over Elam is evidenced by two Akkadian inscriptions from Susa that refer to an Akkadian official called Eshpum (mentioned above) during the reign of Manishtushu: 

1. ✴the inscription (RIME 2:1:3:2001; CDLI P461975) on the back of a statue (now Sb. 82 in the Musée du Louvre) indicates that Eshpum, the servant of Manishtushu, king of Kish/ the world, had presented a statue of himself as an offering to Narunte (Narundi); and 
   

2. ✴the text (MDP. 14,4; CDLI P216807) carried by Eshphum’s seal (now Sb. 6675 in the Musée du Louvre) identifies him as the Akkadian governor of Elam (ensi2 Elamki).   
   

Although these finds indicate that Susa was an important city within the Akkadian province, the dearth of archeological evidence from elsewhere in the province precludes an estimation of its relative importance at this time.

The location of the discovery of the votive statue of Eshpum is significant: Javier Álvarez-Mon (referenced below, at p.182) observed that it was found under the temple of Ninhursag, in a shrine that probably:

1. “... predates the temple of Ninhursag and corroborates the existence (and importance) of a Narundi cult at Susa since at least the time of Eshpum ... ”,
   

Statues of Manishtushu at Susa

Melissa Eppihimer (referenced below, 2010, at p. 367) identified five fragments of statues of Manishtushu in the Musée du Louvre that are of relevance to the present discussion:

1. ✴two (in Table 1) that bear original lines from Manishtushu’s ‘standard’ inscription:
   

2. •Sb. 51 (lines 15-25 and 47-59); and
   

3. •Sb. 15566 (lines 16-19); and
   

4. ✴three (in Table 2) that bear Elamite inscriptions recording that the Elamite king, Shutruk-Nahhunte  had brought them as booty (in the 12th century BC) and re-dedicated them to Inshushinak:
   

5. •Sb. 47 + Sb. 9099, brought to Susa from Akkad;
   

6. •Sb. 49, brought to Susa from Eshnunna; and
   

7. •Sb. 50, brought to Susa, possibly from Akkad.
   

It is possible, although by no means certain, that Sb. 51 and/or  Sb. 15566 belonged to a statue that was originally at erected at Susa, which (if it could be confirmed) would add to the impression that Susa was indeed an important part of the Akkadian province of Elam at the time of Manishtishu.   

Naram-Sin, Son of Manishtushu 

So-called ‘Treaty of Naram-Sin, from Susa, now in the Musée du Louvre (Sb. 8833)

A ‘royal’ inscription of Naram-Sin that is known from two Old Babylonian copies (translated as a composite as RIME 2:1:4:25: CDLI, P462023) described him as:

1. “Naram-Sin, king of Akkad, commander of the world ... and of:
   

2. ✴the land of Elam, all of it, up to Parahshum; and
   

3. ✴the land of Subartum, up to the Forest of Cedar”, (lines 1-10).  
   

Another inscription (translated as a composite as RIME 2:1:4:2005: CDLI, P462005) on a number of stone mace heads of uncertain provenance (one of which is now in the israel Museum) recorded a dedication of the mace in question to the god Ilaba by: 

1. “Naram-Sin, the mighty, king of the four quarters, conqueror of Armiinum, Ebla and Elam” (lines 4-7).
   

Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2018, at pp. 187-8) suggested that these inscriptions offers some support for the claim made in later literary sources that Elam had participated in the ‘Great Revolt’ against Naram-Sin and  that (like all of the rebel territories) it had subsequently been re-conquered. 

Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2018, at p. 189) also drew attention (at p. 189) to the supporting evidence for Naram-Sin’s continuing hegemony over Elam provided by the inscription (MDP 11: 88; EKI 2; CDLI, P480691) on the clay tablets illustrated above, which is usually referred to as the ‘Treaty of Naram-Sin’.  The Musée du Louvre notes (see Sb. 8833) characterise this as: 

1. “The oldest surviving diplomatic text, which was ‘written’ in [old] Elamite and transcribed into Akkadian [cuneiform].  At the start, the gods of Elam are recorded as guarantors of the treaty, and this is followed by the declaration that:
   

2. ‘Naram-Sin’s enemy is my enemy, and Naram-Sin’s friend is my friend’", (my translation of what was originally a translation into French of lines 3: 10-16 by Vincent Scheil, see MDP 11, referenced below). 
   

However, Steinkeller (as above) drew attention to the enormous linguistic difficulties presented by this text and reproduced (at his note 22) the opinion of Friedrich König (referenced below - he transliterated the inscription as EKI 2) that a complete translation of the text is ‘nicht zu denken’ (out of the question).  Thus, Steinkeller reasonably argued that the exact function of the ‘document’ remains unknown: all we can really say is that that:

1. ✴it starts with the invocation of a number of gods, the majority of whom are Elamite, including, for example, Inshushinak (dnin-szuszin), who appears at line 1: 8 and again on seven occasions); and
   

2. ✴the name of Naram-Sin (na-ra-am-dsuen) appears at least ten times.
   

As he pointed out, there appears to be no corresponding references in the text to either:

1. ✴the most important Akkadian gods; or
   

2. ✴a named Elamite ruler;
   

which somewhat undermines the ‘treaty’ hypothesis.  Nevertheless, the discovery of this text at Susa at least confirms Naram-Sin’s complete control of Susa. 

(Note that  the two stamped bricks (Sb 14724-5 = IRS 1) from Susa that were previously assigned to Naram-Sin should probably be re-assigned to the Ur III king Shulgi - see below). 

Naram-Sin seems to have been the first king to use these titles, and many examples of this usage survive: for example, as we have seen, he styled himself on one occasion as:

“... the mighty king of the four quarters, conqueror of Armiinum, Ebla and Elam”, (RIME 2:1:4:2005: CDLI, P462005, lines 4-7).

This was by no means an isolated example: he used similar titulary in many of his other inscriptions, including a number that related to his suppression of the Great Revolt’: for example, he is recorded in an inscription on a (now fragmentary) statue from Akkad that subsequently found its way to Susa (which is now Sb. 52 in the Musée du Louvre) as: 

“Naram-Sin, the mighty king of the four quarters, victor in nine battles during one year”, (RIME 2:1:4:13: CDLI, P461993, lines 1-8).

Ili-ishmani

Ili-ishmani is recorded in the Akkadian inscription (RIME 2:16:3:1: CDLI P214852) on an axe from Susa (now in the Musée du Louvre, Sb. 14243) as dubsar (scribe) and shagina mati Elamki (military governor ? of Elam).  Daniel Potts (referenced below, Table 4.7, at p. 97) dated this artefact to the end of the reign of Naram-Sin or the start of the reign of his successor, Shar-kali-sharri (see below).  

Akkadian Hegemony over Elam: Conclusions 

The table above summarises my proposed scenario for the governance of Awan/Elam in the period of (albeit intermittent) Akkadian hegemony.  I argued above that:

1. ✴both Hishibrashini and Emahsini were kings of Awan, but that they were omitted from the AwKL because they had each been captured and deposed by an Akkadian invader; and
   

2. ✴Luhishan (and, possibly, Hishebrateb) ruled as King of Awan before Emahshini.
   

Throughout this period, Awan/Elam extended from Arawa in the west to the border with Parahshum in the east.  I argued above that:

1. ✴Manishtushu incorporated Anshan into the Akkadian province; and
   

2. ✴it was possibly during his reign that Susa began to emerge as one of the more important of its cities.
   

Puzur Inshushinak and the Awan King List

In the sections above, we have followed Puzur-Inshushinak’s career as he progressed (in the eyes of his Susian subjects) through the following series of titles:

1. ✴ensi of Susa and shagina/ shakkanakkku of Elam (in the Akkadian inscriptions on a number of other inscribed objects including Sb. 55 and 157); and
   

2. ✴after his important victory at Huposhan/ Hupsana and his subsequent receipt of the submission of the neighbouring king of Shimashki:
   

3. •king of Awan (in the LE inscriptions on the steps Sb. 139, 140A and 155);
   

4. •mighty king of Awan (in the Akkadian inscription on the step Sb. 151, which was probably duplicated on  Sb. 150, 157, 18452 and 18455); and 
   

5. ✴probably after his victories in the Diyala region and, in particular, his conquest of Akkad:
   

6. •mighty king of Awan and of the four quarters (in the Akkadian inscription on the step Sb. 156, which was probably duplicated on Sb 137, 149, 153, 18451, 18453, 18454 and 18458). 
   

This raises the question of why Puzur-Inshushiunak, who had adopted the Akkadian title shagina of Elam, subsequently rejected the Akkadian title ‘king (lugal) of Elam’ in favour of ‘king of Awan’.  The immediately obvious answer would be that he claimed to have recovered the kingdom of Hit’a (who would later appear as the 11th of the kings in the AwKL).  However:

1. ✴Puzur-Inshushinak is the only Elamite ruler who is known to have used the title ‘king of Awan’; and
   

2. ✴the AwKL (at least in the form in which it has come down to us) was obviously compiled during or after his reign.
   

We therefore cannot rule out the possibility that Puzur-Inshushinak himself commissioned the original list (and that the the other men named in it blissfully unaware that they had been rulers of Awan, rather than of Elam).  If so, then he might have made this choice because Awan had previously appeared in the so-called Sumerian King List (SKL, translated as a composite in CDLI: P283804): in the relevant passages:

1. ✴when Balulu, the last of the Ur I kings, was ‘struck down’, the god-given rule of Mesopotamia was ‘carried off to Awan’ (lines 146-7); and
   

2. ✴it remained there throughout the reigns of three successive (but now un-named) kings of Awan: their reigns lasted (in total) for 356 years before the kingship was seized by Su-suda, the first of the Kish II kings (lines 157-61). 
   

It is entirely possible that Puzur-Inshushinak was aware of an early version of this list: as Gianni Marchesi (referenced below, at pp. 223-4, see also note 14) observed, although the most ancient surviving source for this list is a manuscript from the Ur III period published by Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2003):

“... we have several clues to the existence of an earlier version dating back to the Sargonic period [that was] possibly written in the Akkadian language.  ... Although the circumstances under which [the list was originally] created are still unknown, it is probable that [it] originally served to legitimise, in some manner, the domination of the kings of Akkad over the whole of Mesopotamia.”

An important consideration in this context is that Shimpi-Ishhuk, Puzur-Inshushinak’s father, does not appear in the Awan king list, which means that Puzur-Inshushinak himself  probably had no dynastic right to the kingship of Awan.  It is thus entirely possible, that, after his success in northern Mesopotamia and Akkad, he received he either received the submission of a ruling king of Awan or took the territory and the title by force.

RIMB: Cyrus II