Rahim Shayegan (referenced below, at Table 14, at pp. 261-81), in his detailed list of the Elamite royal titles that are attested in Elamite and other Mesopotamian sources from the 3rd millennium to the 6th century BC, recorded that the rulers who had claimed the kingship of Anshan included: 

two apparently ‘Elamite’ kings from the early 2nd millennium BC:

Imazu, son of Kindattu, the earliest-known ‘king of Anshan’ (at p. 263);

Idattu I, king of Anshan and king of Shimashki and Elam (at pp. 263-4);

a number of kings of Anshan and Susa (or Susa and Anshan) during the period from:

Ebarat II (p. 265) in ca. 1880 BC; to

Shutruk-Nahhunte II (at p. 276) in ca. 700 BC);

Hallutush-lnshushinak (at p. 277), who used the title ‘enlarger of the realm of Anshan and Susa’ in the late 6th century BC;

Atta-hamiti-Inshushinak (at p. 277), who used the title king of Anshan and Susa at an unknown date; and

as noted above, four ‘Teispid’ kings of Anshan (at pp. 279-80):

Teispes  himself;

Cyrus I;

Cambyses I; and

Cyrus II (559 - 530 BC).

First Middle Elamite Period (15th-14th century BC) 

Elam in the so-called Middle Elamite Period

From Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi (referenced below, 2022, Figure 34.1, at p. 870)   

According to Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi (referenced below, 2022, at p. 884), this period (like the one that preceded it):

1. “... witnessed the use of Mesopotamian cuneiform writing and the Akkadian language [in ‘royal’ inscriptions],”
   

He also observed (at p. 872) that the kings of this period included:

1. ✴Kidinu;
   

2. ✴Tan-Ruhuratir II;
   

3. ✴Tepti-ahar;
   

4. ✴Inshushinak-shar-ili; and
   

5. ✴Shalla (who is not given a regal title in any of his surviving inscriptions, although there is circumstantial evidence that he was a king  - see p. 873).
   

He pointed out that these kings are sometimes grouped together in the so-called  ‘Kidinuid dynasty’, which:

1. “... implies that Kidinu was the founder of a dynasty: [however], this is entirely speculative, since no family ties have been confirmed with and between [these five rulers] ... Therefore, the term [‘Kidinuid dynasty’] is better abandoned.”
   

Furthermore, he pointed out that:

1. “... a recent discovery has brought to light a ruler, [Igi-Hatet - see below], who probably preceded Kidinu.”
   

Igi-Hatet (previously mis-identified as Igi-Halki) 

Inscribed brick, probably from Denho, which records Igi-Hatet, king of Susa and Anshan

Probably from Denha, now in the National Car Museum of Iran , Tehran

Image from Parsa Daneshmand and Meysam Abdoli (referenced below, at p. 2) 

In 2015, Parsa Daneshmand and Meysam Abdoli (referenced below, at pp. 1-2) published the text from a brick (illustrated above) that survives in the National Car Museum of Iran, which they translated as follows: 

1. “Igi-Hatet called [the goddess] Manzat; she heard him and bestowed on him the kingship of Susa and Anshan and he (=Igi-Hatet) renewed the old kukunnu [sacred building] of baked brick and gave it to Manzat.  May she (=Manzat) give him a long life!  May she provide him a joyful kingship!” 
   

As Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi (referenced below, 2022, at p. 872) observed, it was soon:

1. “... recognised that several bricks with the same inscription had previously been discovered at Dehno, located about 33 km southeast of Susa.  However, because the last part of the name on all these other bricks was damaged, the royal name on them had been incorrectly restored as Igi-halki.” 
   

For this reason, prior to 2015, the ‘Denho Manzat’ inscriptions had been incorrectly dated to the period of the Second Middle Elamite Period (14th-13th centuries BC).  Thus, for example, in 2011, Rahim Shayegan (referenced below, at p. 270 and note bp) had placed this text in this later period Period and reproduced its opening line as: 

1. "Ig[i-halik]i, Manzat-Istar having answered him, granted him the kingship of Susa and Anshan." 
   

Armed with the correct completion, Parsa Daneshmand and Meysam Abdoli (as above) were able to revisit the dating of all of these the inscriptions: they argued (at p. 3) that: 

1. “... the attestation of the ‘kingship of Susa and Anshan’ ... probably puts the date of our brick in an overlapping phase between:
   

2. ✴the end of the [so-called Sukkalmah dynasty]; and
   

3. ✴the beginning of the First Middle-Elamite Period in the 15th century BC.” 
   

Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi (referenced below, 2022, at pp. 872-3) went slightly further, arguing that:

1. “The philological analysis of the text suggests that it dates to the very early Middle Elamite period, shortly after the Sukkalmah period.  This being the case, we can [now] identify at least six ... rulers [of the First Middle Elamite Period].”  
   

Kidinu and Tan- Ruhuratir II

Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi (referenced below, 2022, Table 34.3, at p. 885) observed that each of these rulers is known from only a single text associated with a seal:

1. ✴for Kidinu, the inscription in question is on a clay tablet found at Susa, which had beed ‘sealed’ with the signature:
   

2. “Kidinu, king of Susa and Anshan, son of Adad-sharru-rabu, servant of his god, Kirwashir”; and
   

3. ✴Tan-Ruhuratir II is known only from a cylinder seal of unknown provenance (now in a private collection) that carried the text:
   

4. “ To give health, to create life, to protect ..., protect the weak, to save the life, to hear prayers: (all) is in your power, ...  - ili, ... , [protector ?] of Tan-Ruhuratir, the king of Susa and Anshan”. 
   

Tepti-ahar and Inshushinak-shar-ili 

Inscriptions from Kabnak

Impression made by a seal of Tepti-ahar from Kabnak

From Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi (referenced below, 2011, Table 7, seal 11) 

Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi (referenced below, 2011) published two inscriptions relating to seals of Tepti-ahar (discussed below) from Haft Tepe/Haft Tappeh, some 15 km southwest of Susa, which has been identified as ancient Kabnak.   The presence here of a number of administrative documents from the reign of Tepti-ahar indicates that this was one of his ‘royal’ cities, and it is possible that he was buried in the ‘royal tomb’ that has bee excavated on the site.  Mofidi-Nasrabadi catalogued two inscriptions from Kabnak that related to Tepti-ahar:

1. ✴The inscription illustrated above, which is from his ‘seal 11’ (catalogued at pp. 71-2 and illustrated in Table 7) reads:
   

2. “Tepti-ahar, the king of Susa and Anshan, the servant of the god Kirwashir (and) the god Inshushinak.  As long as he (Tepti-ahar) lives, may they (Kirwashir and Inshushinak) heartily recognise him”, (translation by Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi, 2022, at p. 886).
   

3. To the left of the text, a man (presumably Tepti-ahar) stands before a god (presumably Kirwashir or Inshushinak), who is seated on a snake-throne and holds in his right hand what Mofidi-Nasrabadi described as a ring, together with (what seems to be) either an ear of corn or a staff.  (I wonder whether the god is conferring the symbols of the kingship of Susa and Anshan on Tepti-ahar.) 
   

4. ✴The text produced by his ‘seal 13’ (catalogued at pp. 73 and and illustrated in Table 8) reads:
   

5. “Athibu, high chancellor of Kabnak, administrator and confidante of Tepti-ahar, the king of Susa (and ?) servant of the god Adad”, (translation by Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi, referenced below, 2022, at p. 886). 
   

6. Yuri Khramov (referenced below, in his section ‘Data Source 1: Haft-Tepe Tablet HT38) added that this tablet was dated to:
   

7. “... the year in which the king expelled Kadashman-dKUR.GAL” 
   

8. He argued that, although the meaning of ]’Kadashman-dKUR.GAL’ is debated:
   

9. “... the data [are] sufficient for establishing a synchronism between Tepti-ahar and the Babylonian king Kadashman-Enlil.”
   

10. He synchronised these two kings in ca. 1374 BC (see, for example, Figure 1).
    

Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi (referenced below, 2011) also published three fragmentary inscriptions from this site that mentioned Inshushinak-shar-ili, the most complete of which (his Seal 196, catalogued at p. 141 and illustrated in Table 139) referred to a now-unnamed official who was apparently in the service of :

1. “... [Inshu]shinak-shar-il[i, the king of] Susa (and ?) servant of the god Adad”, (my translation of Mofidi-Nasrabadi’s German). 
   

More recently, Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi (referenced below, 2017, entry 24, at p. 67-8) published an inscription from a seal (his Seal 20) from Kabnak that recorded: 

1. “Inshushnak-shar-ili, king of Susa and Anshan, servant of the god Naprisha’”. 
   

Inscriptions from Susa  

A number of royal inscriptions of these kings were stamped on bricks that had been used in the reconstruction of the temple of Inshushinak at Susa:

1. ✴IRS 20 recorded that:
   

2. “Tepti-ahar, king of Susa [made ? :
   

3. •a statue of himself and of his servant girls, to whom he is gracious; and
   

4. •[another statue of ?] interceding female figures, who would intercede for him and for his servant girls, to whom he is gracious. 
   

5. He built a house of baked bricks and gave it to his lord Inshushinak.  May Inshushinak show him favour as long as he lives”, (lines 1-3, translated by Erica Reiner, referenced below, 1973, at p. 95).
   

6. ✴IRS 19, which has been reconstructed from a number of inscribed bricks, recorded that:
   

7. “I, Inshushinak-shar-ili, King of Susa:
   

8. •having entered the temple of Inshushinak; and
   

9. •having seen that the construction of king Tep(ti)-halki was collapsing;
   

10. removed that which was (made) of dried bricks and built beside it [an adjoining structure made of] baked bricks’ (my translation of Malbran-Labat’s French). 
    

First Middle Elamite Period: Conclusions

The surviving epigraphic evidence from this period suggests that the Elamite rulers of the 15th-14th  century BC  introduced the title of ‘king of Susa and Anshan’ to the royal titulary, although they are also known to have used the shorter ‘king of Susa’. 

Igihalkid Dynasty (14th-13th centuries BC) 

Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi (referenced below, 2022, at pp. 877-8) observed that  this ‘dynasty’ is named for Igi-halki, who:

1. “... is only attested in [the] inscription (EKI 48) of Shilhak-Inshushinak (see above), where he is named [at lines 37-40] as the father the brothers of Pahir-ishan and Attar-kitah, who had rebuilt the temple of Inshushinak at Susa.  [The] other kings mentioned in the same text who performed the same service ...  [before the start of the Shutrukid dynasty (see below) are] :
   

2. ✴Untash-Napirisha, son of Humban-numena [at lines 41-3];
   

3. ✴Unpahash-Napirisha, son of Pahir-ishan [at lines 43-5]; and
   

4. ✴Kidin-Hutran, son of Pahir-ishan [lines 45-7] .
   

Some of these names also appear in the so-called ‘Berlin Letter’, which Jeremy Goldberg (referenced below, at p. 2-3) characterised as:

1. “... a late Babylonian literary text that appears to represent ... [an]Elamite royal letter sent to Babylonia [in the 12th century BC]. ...  Most importantly, this letter gives a series of intermarriages between the ruling [Kassite kings] in Babylonia and [the] Igihalkids/Shutrukid [kings] in Elam, which could , [if reliable], provide a firm basis for Igihalkid chronology. ... However, the chronological implications of this evidence have remained uncertain due to its problematic character.”
   

Goldberg (at p. 2) translated the relevant lines (obverse 6-14)of the ‘letter’ as follows:

1. ✴Pahir-ishan [??] (Pihiranu) married [the eldest daughter] of the mighty [Babylonian] king Kurigalzu.
   

2. ✴Humban-numena (Humban- immeni) married his daughter,(and) she gave birth to Untash-Napirisha (Hundasha-Napirisha).
   

3. ✴Untash-Napirisha married the daughter of [the Babylonian king] Burna-Buriash (and) she gave birth to Kidin-Hutran (Kidin-[hudurudish]).
   

4. ✴Kidin-Hutran married the daughter of  [...]-Duniash (and) she gave birth to Napirisha-Untash (Nap[irisha- h]und[ash].
   

5. ✴I, the son [of …], have married the eldest daughter of Meli-Shipak.
   

Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi (referenced below, 2022, at p. 880) observed that:

1. “Because of discrepancies between the different available textual sources, [i.e., EKI 48 and the Babylonian ‘Berlin Letter’], the sequence of the [Igihalkid] rulers and the dates of their reigns cannot be exactly determined.” 
   

He argued that, according to the surviving sources (see below), the following five kings ruled in this period:

1. ✴Pahir-ishan; and
   

2. •his son, Kidin-Hutran (Berlin Letter:Kidin-hudurudish); and
   

3. ✴Attar-kittah; and
   

4. •his son, Humban-numena (Berlin Letter: Humban-immeni); and
   

5. •his grandson Untash-Napirisha (Berlin Letter: Hundasha-Napirisha), son of Humban-numena.
   

Be that as it may, for our purposes, the important point is that we only have evidence for the royal titles of: 

1. ✴Attar-kittah;
   

2. ✴Humban-numena, son of Attar-kittah; and
   

3. ✴Untash-Napirisha, son of Humban-numena.
   

Attar-kittah 

Parsa Daneshmand (referenced below, at p. 2, citing  Marie-Joseph Steve, referenced below, at p. 112) referred to two Akkadian inscriptions bearing the text:

1. “Attar-kittah, son of Igi-halki, king of Susa and Anshan, who wrote (this)”
   

Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi (referenced below, 2022, at p. 889) referred to these as: 

1. “Two property inscriptions on mace heads from Chogha Zanbil ...”
   

Humban-numena, son of Attar-kittah 

Michael Mäder (referenced below, English abstract) observed that:

1. “There are three royal inscriptions authored by Humban-numena, one written in Elamite (EKI 4C) and two written in Akkadian (EKI 4B and the Tavernier fragment).”
   

Elynn Gorris (referenced below, at p. 173) observed that this king was named:

1. ✴Humban-numena on brick inscriptions EKI 4A, found at the ‘acropolis’ at Susa; and
   

2. ✴Huban-numena on the brick inscriptions EKI 4B and 4C found in the sanctuary Liyan (modern Bandar Bushehr).
   

Thus, we are dealing with three inscriptions (apart from the ‘Tavernier fragment);

1. ✴two written in Elamite :
   

2. •one (EKI 4A = IRS 21) from Susa; and
   

3. •one (EKI 4C) from Liyan; and
   

4. ✴one (EKI 4B) written in Akkadian, which is also from Liyan.
   

The Elamite texts are identical, except for name of the king: for simplicity, I refer to him as Humban-numena.

Brick from Susa stamped with the Elamite text EKI 4A = IRS 21

Image from Florence Malbran, IRS 21, at p. 60

The Elamite texts of EKI 4A (= IRS 21) and EKI 4C begins as follows:

1. “O Naprisha, Kiririsha and the  benevolent gods of Liyan.: I, (am) Humban-numena, son of Attar- kittah:
   

2. ✴likume rishakka (the great one of my realm);
   

3. ✴merrik Hatamtik (the protecter (der Betreuer) of Elam);
   

4. ✴katru Hatamtik (the sustainer (der Pfleger) of Elam); 
   

5. ✴halmenik Hatamtik (the sovereign of Elam); and
   

6. ✴sunkik Anzan-Shushunka (the king of Anshan and Susa)”, (my translation of that in German by Michael Mäder, referenced below, at p.129)
   

“[Even] in [my] mother’s womb, Napirisha loved me, he heard me.  My  destiny was established: Inshushinak gave me the kingship.  For my life, for the life of Misimruh, [his wife ??] and for the life of Risap-La [his daughter ??]: for these reasons (since the ancient temple had been completely destroyed), I built a kukunnum and gave it to Naprisha, Kiririsha and the Bahahutep.  May [they] grant me a long life (and) a continuously prosperous kingship”, (based on the translation of Daniel Potts, referenced below, Table 7.7, at p, 200:

translations of the italicised royal titles in lines 2-3 are from Parsa Daneshmand, referenced below, at p. 3; and

the rest of line 3 is from Michael Mäder, referenced below, English abstract.) 

The more fragmentary Akkadian text has been completed as follows:

“[I am Humban-numena, son of Attar-kittah ...], king of Susa [and Anshan ...]:

Inshushinak [gave me the kingship of Susa and of Anshan ...]

[... for my life, for the li]fe of Mishi[mruh, for the life of Rishap-La ... I constructed] the kukunnum ...

May Napirisha, Ki[ririsha ... grant [a happy reign]”, translation by Daniel Potts, referenced below, Table 7.7, at p. 200).

The completion of the royal title in EKI 4B is supported by another Akkadian inscription, this time on an agate stone:

“Humban-numena, son of Attar-Kittah, the king of Susa and Anshan, whose name, since (he was) in the womb of his mother, the great gods and Inshushinak, called.  For his (own) life, he dedicated this (object)”, (reproduced by Eiko Matsushima, referenced below, at p. 418).

All three of these texts probably refer to Humban-numena’s foundation of a kukunnum to Napriisha, Kiririsha and the Bahahutep at Liyan. 

In short, it seems that Humban-numena was given the title:

1. ✴king of Anshan and Susa in Elamite texts; and
   

2. ✴king of Susa [and Ansan] in Akkadian texts,
   

The other important thing about the Elamite inscriptions is that they contain four other ‘royal’ titles that (as we shall see) turn up again in later ‘royal’ inscriptions.

As Daniel Potts (referenced below, at p. 204) observed in these inscriptions, Humban-numena states that Inshushinak chose him to rule as king of Anshan and Susa by virtue of his matrimonial descent, and that this claim is:

“...  unlikely to have been made if access to the throne, previously occupied by his father, [Attar- kittah], had been smooth.”

Untash-Napirisha, son of Humban-numena

Fragment of an inscribed statue, probably of Untash-Napirisha from Susa

Image from the website of the Musée du Louvre, where the statue is exhibited

Yuri Khramov (referenced below, in his section ‘Data Source 2: Immeriya Statue’) translated the first four lines of the Akkadian inscription on the statue illustrated above as follows:

1. “(I), Untash-Napirisha, son of Humban-numena, king of Susa and Anshan:
   

2. ✴the god Immeriya, provider of well-being,
   

3. ✴[Kasht ?]i-ia-ashu, indeed I plundered; (and)
   

4. ✴in siankuk (temple precinct) indeed I placed”.
   

Michael Roaf (referenced below, at p. 172 argued that, if ‘Kashtiliashu’ is the correct completion in line 3, then:

1. “... lines 3 and 4 can easily be restored as a statement that Untah-Napirisha had taken a statue of [the Babylonian] king Kashtiliashu and erected it in the siankuk of Napirisha, Inshushinak, and Kiririsha in Susa.”
   

The important point in the present context is that, in this Akkadian inscription, Untash-Napirisha is described as the king of Susa and Anshan.

Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi (referenced below, 2022, at p. 889) listed a number of inscriptions of Untash-Napirisha, some in Akkadian but most in Elamite.  For example, nine Elamite texts (IRS 22-32) from his ‘brick inscriptions’ from Susa, most of which designated him as:

1. ‘Untash-Napirisha, son of Humban-numena, king of Anshan and Susa’. 
   

(The inscription on a tenth brick (IRS 32), which is in Akkadian, contains no royal titles.)

Igihalkid Dynasty: Conclusions

Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi (referenced below, 2022, at p. 888) observed that, during the period:

1. “... Elamite rulers increasingly began to use the Elamite language for their royal inscriptions.  [As far as we know], Humban- numena was the first to commission inscriptions in Elamite in addition to Akkadian, seemingly in contrast to his father Attar-kittah, whose sole extant inscription was written in Akkadian.  During the reign of Humban-numena’s son and successor, Untash- Napiriša, most royal inscriptions were composed in Elamite.”
   

Interestingly (and more importantly for our purposes):

1. ✴Humban-numena used the title: 
   

2. •‘king of Anshan and Susa’ on the Elamite inscriptions of EKI 4A (= IRS 21) and EKI 4C, (along with no fewer that four other royal titles that appear for the first time in our surviving sources); but
   

3. •‘king of Susa and Anshan’ on his surviving Akkadian inscriptions; and
   

4. ✴Untash-Napirisha is recorded as:
   

5. •‘king of Anshan and Susa’ in his many surviving Elamite ‘royal’ inscriptions; but
   

6. •‘king of Susa and Anshan’ in the Akkadian inscription of the Immeriya Statue.
   

Shutrukid Dynasty (12th century BC) 

Shutrukid dynasty, based on Jan Tavernier (referenced below, 2011, at p. 344) 

See Florence Malbran-Labat (referenced below, 2018 at pp. 472-3) for the successive marriages of Nahhunte-Utu   

Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi (referenced below, 2022, at p. 881) pointed out that the next known ruler after Untash-Napirisha was Shutruk- Nahhunte, son of Hallutush- Inshushnak, and:

1. “As his father is not referred to as a king in [any of the surviving sources], Shutruk- Nahhunte is generally considered the founder of a new dynasty, which modern scholars have labeled the Shutrukid dynasty ...”
   

This dynasty is particularly important for the present discussion because Jan Tavernier (referenced below, 2004, at p. 10) noted that the title sunkik Anzan-Shushunka (king of Anshan and Susa) was revived in the Elamite ‘royal’ inscriptions of:

1. ✴Shutruk-Nahhunte (ca. 1185-1155); and
   

2. ✴his sons:
   

3. •Kutir-Nahhunte II (ca. 1155-1150); and
   

4. •Shilhak-Inshushinak I (ca. 1150-1120). 
   

The dates of the respective reigns of the Shutrukids are deduced from their appearance in the inscriptions of the kings of Babylon, with whom they interacted throughout the period.  I will therefore discuss the historical background before moving on to discuss the royal titles used by each of the kings.

Shutrukids and Babylonians 

Daniel Potts (referenced below, at pp. 225) observed that the presence of Shutruk-Nahhunte at Susa is: 

1. “... most famously attested by the booty that he brought [to Susa] from Mesopotamia after he had invaded Babylonia and over-thrown the 35th Kassite king, Zabab-shuma-iddina, in 1158 BC. ... Many of the [looted items] ... bear one or another version of a standard inscription in which Shutruk-Nahhunte identifies himself as, [inter alia], King of Anshan and Susa.” 
   

The evidence for this is found on the so-called Stele of Naram-Sin (discussed below), which had originally been erected at the Babylonian city of Sippar in the 22nd century BC in commemoration of a the victory of the Akkadian King Naram-Sin over the Lullubi (see the map of ancient Elam above). 

An inscription from the reign of the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar I (see below), which is known from a later copy from the library of the Assyrian King Ashurbanipal (669-ca. 630 BC), recorded that Shutruk-Nahhunte (Shutruk-nanhundi):

1. “... drove away the [Babylonian] king [Zababa]-shuma-iddina (and) did away with his reign.  His son Kutir-Nahhunte (Kudur-nanhundi) ... ... [whose] offence exceeded those of his (fore)fathers, (and) [whose] grievous crime was greater than (theirs), plotted [ev]il against the land of Akkad ... Enlil-nadin-ahi [(1157 - 1155BC)], a king who preceded me (=Nebuchadnezzar), established enmity [against Elam] ... and he [Kutir- Nahhunte] over[whelmed] all the people of the land of Akkad like a flood. ... He made [the god Marduk] ...  rise from [his ...] seat.  He took [him to Elam] as booty.  He led Enlil-nadin-ahi [away to Elam, ... (and) did away with [his] reign”, (RIMB, Nebuchadnezzar 6 , obverse, 2-12’).
   

As Daniel Potts (referenced below, at p. 229) observed:

1. “This does not suggest anything like total abdication on the part of [Shutruk-Nahhunte], merely the appointment of his eldest son, [Kutir-Nahhunte (see below)] as a kind of military governor of Babylonia following its conquest.”
   

Gian Pietro Basello (referenced below, at p. 7/794) observed that, although none of the military achievements of Kutir-Nahhunte are recorded in his Elamite inscriptions: 

1. “... the memory of his sacrilegious deeds against the Mesopotamian cult centres and their gods, encapsulated in the carrying off to Elam of the cult statue of Marduk, is recounted by some [late, literary] Babylonian literary texts ...” 
   

These texts are discussed, for example, by Benjamin Foster (referenced below, at pp. 369-75). 

Shilhak-Inshushinak is not mentioned in Babylonian sources.  However, Hutelutush -Inshushinak had the bad luck of finding himself facing the redoubtable Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar I (1125 - 1104 BC).  The text inscribed on a so-called kudurru, which recorded the grant of land to a Babylonian officer called Shitti-Marduk, included an account of the battle in which Shitti-Marduk had fought alongside Nebuchadnezzar against Hutelutush -Inshushinak:

1. “From the city Dēr, the cult centre of the god Anum, [Nebuchadnezzar] made an incursion to (a distance of) 30 leagues [into Elamite territory].  In the [summer] month of Duʾūzu, he set out on campaign.  During the whole ti[me] (of the campaign) the blistering heat burnt like fire ...”, (‘Shittti-Marduk kudurru’, (RIMB, Nebuchadnezzar 11, 14-18).  
   

Nevertheless, Nebuchadnezzar marched on to engage Hutelutush -Inshushinak at the Ulaya river (named at line 28), with the faithful Shitti-Marduk at his side, and: 

1. “By the command of the goddess Ishtar and the god Adad, the gods (who are) the lords of battle, [Nebuchadnezzar] put Hutelutush -Inshushinak (Hulteludish), the king of Elam, to flight (and) he disappeared [from view ?].  Thus, king Nebuchadnezzar stood in triumph; he seized the land of Elam (and) plundered its property”, (‘Shittti-Marduk kudurru’, (RIMB, Nebuchadnezzar 11, 40-43). 
   

Another text from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar attests to the return of Marduk from Elam to Babylon:

1. “[Nebuchadnezzar], when he departed from the wickedness in Elam, ... took a road of jubilation, a path of rejoicing, a route (indicating his) attention (to) and acceptance (of my prayers), unto Shuanna (Babylon). ... The lord [Marduk] entered and took up his peaceful abode.  Kasulim (‘Gate of Radiance’), his lordly shrine, became bright, filled with rejoicing”, (RIMB, Nebuchadnezzar 9, 12-19).
   

Shutrukid Royal Titles

Shutruk-Nahhunte I

Ancient stele of Naram-Sin (22nd century BC), originally from the Babylonian city of Sippar  

Shutruk-Nahhunte I moved it to Susa after a victory over the Babylonians of Sippar in the 12th century BC

Image from the website of the Louvre Museum, where the stele is displayed 

As mentioned above, Shutruk-Nahhunte seized the the so-called Stele of Naram-Sin (among many other treasures) from Babylon in 1158 BC.  Marian Feldman (referenced below, at p. 275) pointed out that the now lacunose Akkadian cuneiform inscription (RIME 2: 1: 4: 31, CDLI P2155544) on the stele that commemorated Naram-Sin’s victory  over  Lullubum was to the left of the image of the triumphant Naram-Sin,who stands on a heap of the enemy dead.  However, more importantly for our purposes, after the stele’s arrival at Susa, an Elamite inscription (EKI 22) was inscribed on the mountain above the desperate Lullibian survivors, announcing that:

1. “I (am) Shutruk-Nahhunte, son of Hallutush-Inshushinak:
   

2. ✴libak hanik (beloved servant of) Inshushinak:
   

3. ✴sunkik Anzan-Shushunka (king of Anshan and Susa);
   

4. ✴likume rishakka (enlarger of my realm);
   

5. ✴katru Hatamtik (recipient of the sovereignty of of Elam); 
   

6. ✴halmenik Hatamtik (prince of Elam). 
   

7. At the command of Inshushinak, I struck down Sippar.  I took the stele of Naram-Sin in my hand, and I carried it off and brought it back to Elam.  I set it up in dedication to my lord, Inshushinak”, (translation reproduced by Marian Feldman). 
   

The table above compared the royal titles that Shutruk-Nahhunte used in EKI 22 with those that he used on his many other surviving royal inscriptions.   Significantly, the other two inscriptions that include the same set of titles are on also on ancient objects that formed part of Shutruk-Nahhunte’s booty that are now in the Musée du Louvre ((Sb 14) and SB 47 respectively:

1. ✴EKI 23 was added to a kudurru of the Babylonian (Kassite) king Meli-Shipak (1181-67 BC) ; and
   

2. ✴EKI 24a was added to a statue of the Akkadian king Manishtusu (ca. 2270-2255 BC). 
   

Interestingly, Erica Reiner (referenced below, 1969, at p. 60) pointed out that the famous stele of the law code of the Babylonian King Hammurapi, which also formed part of this booty:

1. “... was likewise effaced in part to provide room for such a triumphal inscription, which was then never engraved on the stone.”  
   

Kutir-Nahhunte II 

Kutir-Nahhunte seems to have ruled in his own right for only a few months.  He identified himself as the son of Shutruk Nahhunte in his three surviving royal inscriptions, using the titles:

1. ✴sunkik Anzan-Shushunka in EKI 31= IRS 37; 
   

2. ✴libak hanik Inshushinak in EKI 29 = IRS 35; and
   

3. ✴both of these titles of EKI 30 = IRS 36. 
   

Shilhak-Inshushinak I 

The table above compared the royal titles that Shilhak-Inshushinak used on his many other surviving royal inscriptions.   Two of them (EKI 56 and 45)use the five titles  used by  Shutruk Nahhunte in EKI 22-24a (above) 

Sit-Shamshi (Sunrise) Bronze from the ‘acropolis’ at Susa, now in the Musée du Louvre (SB 2743) 

Image from Françoise Tallon and Loïc Hurtel (referenced below, entry 87, at p. 138)

EKI 56, which isinscribed on the bronze model illustrated above, reads: 

1. “I, Shilhak-Inshushinak, son of Shutruk Nahhunte:
   

2. ✴libak hanik Inshushinak;
   

3. ✴sunkik Anzan-Shushunka;
   

4. ✴likume rishakka;
   

5. ✴katru Hatamtik;
   

6. ✴halmenik Hatamtik.
   

7. I have made a bronze sit-shamshi (sunrise)”, (based on the translation by Françoise Tallon and Loïc Hurtel (referenced below, entry 87, at p. 137).
   

The model is assumed to represent an Elamite ritual that was presumably carried out at sunrise on the ‘acropolis’.  

The longer of two inscribed bronze cylinders (Sb 175) from Susa 

This and a second (shorter) cylinder (Sb 176) are now in the Musée du Louvre

Images from the website of the museum 

EKI 45 is on the longer of two hollow bronze cylinders from Susa that are now in the Musée du Louvre (illustrated above).  The inscription begins with a dedication to Inshushinak, followed by the identification of Shilhak-Inshushinak, who has the same titles as in EKI 56 (above).  As Javier Álvarez-Mon (referenced below, at p. 326) observed, the next lines in the inscription seem refer to the replacement of decayed tetin (wooden post ?) with one made of bronze.  (The inscription on the shorter cylinder has apparently remains to be translated).  Álvarez-Mon suggested that the cylinders might well have encased new wooden beams.  Since they are inscribed lengthwise, they were presumably originally placed horizontally: Álvarez-Mon observed that, given the context in which they were found:  

1. “... they appear to have been used as sanctified ‘barriers’ for a monumental ‘columned hall’ next to the temple of Insushinak and the ziggurat.”  
   

The other inscriptions in the table were mostly stamped on bricks that were used for the extensive programme of temple-building undertaken by Shilhak-Inshushinak.

Perhaps the most interesting title is ‘halmenik/ menik Hatamtik ak Shushenki‘ (prince of Elam and Susa).  

Hutelutush -Inshushinak (I) 

As Daniel Potts (referenced below, at p. 235) observed, in all of the surviving inscriptions of Shilhak-Inshushinak in which he names his children, Hutelutush-Inshushinak appears as his eldest son.  However, he apparently did not assume all of his father’s royal titles:

1. ✴in one of his surviving royal inscriptions from Susa (EKI 65), he had only a single title, likume rishakki; and
   

2. ✴in the others (see, for example, EKI 60 = IRS 51), he had two titles:
   

3. •likume rishari; and 
   

4. •menir Hatamtir ak Shushenri. 
   

Ira Spar and Michael Jursa (referenced below, entry 153, at pp. 236-8) catalogued another inscription (now in the Metropolitan Museum, New York) that commemorated his renovation of the temple of Upurkupak at the now-unknown location of Shalulikki, in which he also used two titles used in EKI 60.

Inscribed brick published by Maurice Lambert (referenced below)

Image adapted from his photographs at p. 62

Maurice Lambert (referenced below) published the inscription on a complete brick that had apparently been found ‘between Persepolis and Shiraz’, which began with the name of Hutelutush-Inshushinak, followed by the same the titles as those used on EKI 60 (see his transliteration at p. 63):

1. ✴likume rishari; and 
   

2. ✴menir Hatamtir ak Shushenri. 
   

This inscription was written in vertical columns that are read from left to right and top to bottom on two sides of the brick (which was presumably used at a corner, so that the two inscribed faces were visible). Most of the rest of the text is known from other examples, but the last two lines are not found elsewhere:  Lambert translated them (at p. 66) as follows:

1. “... and, at Anshan, I designed and built in baked bricks a siyan tarin (temple of the alliance) of Napirisha, Kiririsha, Inshushinak and Simut”, (my translation of Lambert’s French).
   

Although the provenance of this important inscription is not completely secure, parts of the same text have been found throughout the site at Tall-i Malyan. Thus, for example, Daniel Potts (referenced below, at p, 240), citing Lambert, asserted that:

1. “Inscribed bricks from Tal-i Malyan, ancient Anshan, proclaim that Hutelutush-Inshushinak built a baked brick temple there to Napirisha, Kiririsha, Inshushinak and Shimut, and it is probable that some of the texts found there relate to that project.” 
   

Shutrukid Royal Titles: Conclusions 

text 

Elamite Dark Age (ca. 1100 - 760 BC) 

As Daniel Potts (referenced below, at p. 244) pointed out, the idea that Hutelutush-Inshushinak took refuge in Anshan after Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion [see below] arose when inscriptions were discovered during the excavations at Malayan in the early 1970s: this suggestion was first put forward by Maurice Lambert (referenced below, at p. 74).  

François Bridey (referenced below, at pp. 180-1) observed that, after Nebuchadnezzar’s  catastrophic invasion of Elam:

“... the dark ages [began] for Susa and its region, at a time when Indo-Iranian peoples ... were gradually migrating into the Iranian region [around Anshan. ... However], the ancient monarchy of Susa and Anshan enjoyed a brief resurgence in the 8th and 7th centuries BC,  ... a period contemporary with the height of the Assyrian empire ... ”

This exemplifies what Alexa Bartelmus (referenced below, at p. 608) characterised as an:

“... established trend in modern Elamite studies: namely:

to treat the three centuries [or more of] the so-called ‘Dark Age’ as if it were a poisonous lake, hostile to any higher forms of life; and

to deny the possibility that [anything of significance happened] within that time span.” 

This is indeed a ‘dark age’ for us because of the absence of surviving sources, to the extent that we do not even know who ruled Elam at any point in this period, but that does not mean that nobody did and that nothing happened.  In other words, we have no idea whether or not the attestation of an Elamite king at the start of the surviving part of the so-called ‘Babylonian Chronicle’, at a time when  the Assyrians were beginning to engage with, and therefore record events in, Elam (see below),  indicates a ‘resurgence’ of ‘the ancient monarchy of Susa and Anshan’.

Other considerations certainly support the idea that Hutelutush-Inshushinak survived this invasion:

as Daniel Potts (as above) observed, it is certain that Nebuchadnezzar neither occupied or annexed Elam; and

as Matt Waters (as above) observed, there is evidence from an inscription (EKI 72 - see below) from the reign of Shutruk-Nahhunte II that the Shutrukid dynasty did not end with the death of Hutelutush-Inshushinak I.

However, we cannot know for certain that the royal inscription from Malayan post-dated Nebuchadnezzar’s  invasion: as Matt Waters (as above) concluded:

“Hutelutush-Inshushinak may have fallen back on Anshan [after the invasion], but this cannot be confirmed.”

He also noted that all we can really take from the evidence found at Malayan in the early 1970s is that Anshan was still an important centre until at least the late 2nd century BC.”

Matt Waters (referenced below, 2000, at p. 10) pointed out that:

“After Hutelutush-Inshushinak [I], no Elamite royal inscriptions are extant until the reign of Shutruk-Nahhunte II (717-699 BC)  [see below]”.

François Bridey (referenced below, at p. 180) observed that the prosperity of Elam in this period was:

“... brought to an end by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar I (ca. 1125-1104 BC) in the late 12th century BC, ... [when he] launched an attack on Elam and drove the Shutrukid king Hutelutus-Inshushinak ... from Susa, forcing him to take refuge in Anshan”.