Elamites and the Babylonian Revolt (653-648 BC)

Events Prior to 650 BC  

As we saw on the previous page, the last two Elamite kings of the Hubanid dynasty:

1. ✴Huban-nikash II (653- 652 BC); and 
   

2. ✴Tammaritu (652-650 BC); 
   

had actively supported the revolt of King Shamash-shuma-ukīn of Babylon against his brother and over-lord, King Ashurbanipal of Assyria, which began in 652 BC.  Ashurbanipal recorded his grievances against these two kings as follows: 

1. ✴“(As for) Huban-nikash II (Ummanigash), the king of the land Elam, whom I installed: he had accepted bribes from [Shamash-shuma-ukin] and set out to help him.  [His relative], Tammaritu, rebelled against him: he struck Huban-nikash II (Ummanigash) and his family down with the sword”, (‘Ashurbanipal, Prism A’, iii: 136 - iv:2).   
   

2. ✴“(Afterwards, Tammaritu, who sat on the throne of the land Elam after Huban-nikash II (Ummanigash)  ... [also] came to the aid of Shamash-shuma-ukin, (my) hostile brother, and readily sent him weapons  ...  [Thanks to the gods], Indabibi, a servant of [Tammaritu], rebelled against him and defeated him in a pitched battle”, (‘Ashurbanipal, Prism A’, iv: 3-12).  
   

Unlike Huban-nikash II, Tammaritu survived: 

1. ✴“As for) Tammaritu, the king of the land Elam ... [he], his brothers, his family, (and) the seed of his father’s house, together with 85 nobles who march at his side, fled to me from Indabibi, and (then) crawled naked on their bellies and came to Nineveh”, (‘Ashurbanipal, Prism A’, iv: 12-27).  
   

Tammaritu’s deposition and his submission to Ashurbanipal effectively marked:

1. ✴the end of the Hubanid dynasty; and 
   

2. ✴the suspension of dynastic kingship at Elam. 
   

Indabibi (ca. 650 - 648 BC)

According to Matt Waters (referenced below, 2000, at p. 65), Indabibi’s coup took place at some time between early 650 and early 649 BC.  This was a critical moment in the Babylonian revolt: the so-called ‘Shamash-shuma-ukīn Chronicle’ recorded that, in 650 BC: 

1. “... the enemy invested Babylon. ... [In each of the next two years], Nabu did not come [to the city] for the [New Year] procession of Bêl”, (ABC 15: 19-22).  
   

In other words, Indabibi’s coup took place at the start of Ashurbanipal’s relentless siege of Babylon.  

In these circumstances, Indabibi sensibly decided not to continue Tammaritu’s anti-Assyrian policy: as Ashurbanipal recorded: 

1. “Indabibi, who sat on the throne of the land Elam after [he had deposed] Tammaritu, recognised the might of my weapons, which had prevailed over the land Elam.  He [therefore] released from prison the [loyal] Assyrians whom: 
   

2. ✴I had sent to aid Nabu-bel-shumati [Ashurbanipal’s treacherous governor of Sealand/ southern Babylon]; and 
   

3. ✴he had seized by guile ... (and) imprisoned. 
   

4. Indabibi [released them and] sent (them) to me ... (with messages) of goodwill and peace, so that (they) would intercede (with me) and say good thing(s) about him, in order to prevent (me) from doing harm to the territory of his land”, (‘Ashurbanipal, Prism B’, vii: 61-76, my changed word order). 
   

It seems likely that: 

1. ✴the Assyrian prisoners in question had been in the custody of Tammaritu at the time of the coup; and 
   

2. ✴Ashurbanipal was correct in his assertion that Indabibi had released and repatriated them as a token of his good faith.   
   

It seems that this token was accepted: as Matt Waters pointed out, Ashurbanipal referred to Indabibi as his brother in a letter that can be dated to 649 BC. 

Shortly thereafter, Ashurbanipal recorded that the Babylonians:   

1. “... who had sided with Shamash-shuma-ukin (and) plotted evil (deeds, [were approaching starvation].  They ate the flesh of their sons (and) daughters ... ; they [even] gnawed on (leather) straps.  The [gods] ...  consigned Shamash-shuma-ukin, (my) hostile brother, who had started a fight against me, to a raging conflagration [that] destroyed his life”, (‘Ashurbanipal, Prism A’, iv: 41-52).  
   

As noted in my page on ... , the  last known Babylonian document from the reign of Shamash-shuma-ukin dated to August 648 BC.  From this point, Ashurbanipal was able to give his full attention to his ‘Elamite problem’.  He now recorded his mounting frustration with Indabibi, since:  

1. “... Nabu-bel-shum[ati], ... a [disloyal] servant who belonged to me, had fled ... to the land Elam, [taking with him] the rest of the Assyrians whom [he] had seized by guile ... I sent (a message) to Indabibi, ... (saying):
   

2. ‘[Since] you have not sent me t[h]ose people, I will c[om]e and tear down your cities   I will carry off [the people of the cities Sus]a, [Madaktu] (and) Hidalu.  [I] will remove you [fr]om [your royal] throne and [make som]eone else [sit] on yo[ur] throne.  [The acti]ons that I used to thwa[rt] Teumman, I will [now use to thwart] you’”, (‘Ashurbanipal, Prism C’, ix: 30-39). 
   

This bluster seems to have had unintended consequences: when the Elamites heard of the arrival of Ashurbanipal’s messenger at Der, on their northern border:

1. “... fear of my royal majesty  ... overwhelmed [the land of Elam:  the people of the land of Elam] rebelled [against] Indabibi (and) [killed him with] the sword.  [They placed Ummanaldashu, son of Att]a-metu, [on] his (Indabibi’s) throne”, (‘Ashurbanipal, Prism C’, ix: 40-52). 
   

Matt Waters (referenced below, 2000, at p. 66) argued that: 

1. “There is no clear evidence that [‘Ummanaldashu, son of Atta-metu’] held power while the Shamash-shuma-ukīn revolt was in progress, ... and [it is possible that] Babylon’s fall may have hastened Indabibi’s end, since the Elamites then might have [wanted to avert] imminent Assyrian action [against them].  The supposition that Indabibi ruled into 648 BC is tenable.” 
   

Assyrian Invasion of Elam (ca. 648 - 646 BC) 

Huban-Haltash III (ca. 648/7 BC) 

Scholars usually refer to Ashurbanipal’s ‘Ummanaldashu, son of Atta-metu’ as Huban-haltash III.  However, it is clear from his filiation that he was not a member of the Hubanid dynasty: rather, like Indabibi before him, he had no dynastic claim on kingship of Elam, which he had taken by force. 

Ashurbanipal’s First Campaign against Huban-haltash 

It seems that Huban-haltash III was reluctant to extradite Nabu-bel-shumati and to repatriate his Assyrian prisoners, which probably explains why, in his first campaign after the fall of Babylon, Ashurbanipal marched:  

1. “... against Huban-haltash III (Ummanaldashu), the king of the land Elam.  I took with me Tammarītu, the (former) king of the land Elam, who had fled to me from Indabibi, his servant, and who had grasped my feet”, (‘Ashurbanipal, Prism A’, iv: 112-115).   
   

Ashurbanipal recorded the main results of this campaign as follows:

1. ✴“(As for) Huban-haltash III (Ummanaldashu), the king of the land Elam, he heard ... [that]  my troops had entered the land Elam; he abandoned the city Madaktu, a royal city of his, and ... took to the mountains”, (‘Ashurbanipal, Prism A’, v: 11-14).
   

2. ✴“(As for) Huban-habua (Umba-Bua), who had fled to the city Bubilu after the land Elam had revolted,  and who sat on the throne of the land Elam in opposition to Huban-haltash III (Ummanaldashu), he [also] heard about (the advance of my army) and abandoned the city of Bubilu, a city that was a lordly residence of his, and, like fish, he took to the depths of far away waters”, (‘Ashurbanipal, Prism A’, v: 15-20) 
   

3. ✴“(As for) Tammarītu, who had fled to me (and) grasped my feet, I brought him into the city Susa (and) I installed him as king”, (‘Ashurbanipal, Prism A’, v: 21-22). 
   

Tammaritu’s return was short-lived: Ashurbanipal recorded that:

1. “He forgot the kindness that I had shown him ... and constantly sought out evil (ways) to conquer my troops. ... [The gods] ... saw the dangerous (and) rebellious thought(s) of Tammarītu and called him to account:  they removed him from his royal throne and (then) made him return (and) bow down at my feet for a second time.  On account of ... the fury that my heart had because the unfaithful Tammarītu had sinned against me, ... I marched about triumphantly inside the land Elam in its entirety”, (‘Ashurbanipal, Prism A’, v: 23-40). 
   

Tammaritu spent the rest of his life in humiliating detention at Ashurbanipal’s court.  Ashurbanipal then recorded that he:

1. “... [returned] to Assyria with full hand(s).  (As for) the cities [of Elam],  I conquered [many of them, including] Madaktu (and) Susa ... ; I destroyed, demolished, (and) burned (them) .  I carried off to Assyria their gods, their people, their oxen, their sheep and goats, their possessions, their property, wagons, horses, mules, equipment, (and) implements of war”, (‘Ashurbanipal, Prism A’, v: 41-62).
   

It seems that, when Ashurbanipal withdrew from Elam, Huban-haltash III returned to Madaktu, causing Ashurbanipal to return to the fray: 

1. “I mustered my troops (and) I took the direct road against Huban-haltash III (Ummanaldashu), the king of the land Elam. ... [When he] heard about my conquest of the land Rash (and) the city Hamau, ... he abandoned the city of Madaktu, a royal city of his, and fled to the city Dur-Undashi.  He crossed the Idide River and  ... prepared himself to fight with me”, (‘Ashurbanipal, Prism A’, v: 64-76). 
   

Ashurbanipal claimed (at lines v: 81-94) to have captured a number of what he characterised as ‘royal cities’ (Madaktu, Haltemash, Susa, Dinsharri, Sumuntunash, Pidilma Bubilu, Kabinak and Dur-Undasi) before reaching the Idide River.  His army succeeded in crossing the river and then defeated Huban-haltash III, who once again fled into the mountains (see v: 111-2).  Ashurbanipal then recorded that:

1. “On my return march, ... I conquered the city of Susa, a great cult centre, the residence of their gods, a place of their secret [religious mysteries]”, (‘Ashurbanipal, Prism A’, v: 126-30).  
   

This was followed by a vivid a description of Ashurbanipal’s destruction and despoliation of Susa and his desecration of its cult sites: among these depredations, he:

1. ✴destroyed the ziggurat of Susa (vi: 27-9);
   

2. ✴took the cult statues of Inshshushinak and the other gods and goddesses of Susa to Nineveh (vi: 30-47).
   

Looking back on this campaign, Ashurbanipal recorded that:

1. “I (also) took to Assyria:
   

2. ✴32 statues of [Elamite] kings fashioned from gold, silver, copper, (and) alabaster from inside the cities Susa, Madaktu (and) Huradi:
   

3. ✴along with statues of:
   

4. •[three First Neo-Elamite Dynasty (743 - 693 BC)]:
   

5. -Huban-nikash I, son of Huban-tara (Ummanigash, son of Umbadara);
   

6. -Shutruk-Nahhunte II (Ishtar-Nanhundi); and
   

7. -Hallutush-Inshushinak I (Hallushu); and
   

8. •the later Tammaritu, who had done obeisance to me”, (‘Ashurbanipal, Prism A’, vi: 48-57).  
   

Furthermore:

1. “I destroyed (and) demolished the tombs of their earlier and later kings ...  I exposed (the remains) to the sun and took the bones to Assyria.  I prevented their ghosts from sleeping (and) deprived them of funerary libations”, (‘Ashurbanipal, Prism A’, vi: 70-76). 
   

He then summed up as follows:

1. “On a march of one month (and) 25 days, I devastated the districts of the land Elam (and) scattered salt (and) cress over them.   I carried (off to Assyria;
   

2. ✴the daughters of kings, the sisters of kings, and the [members of the] earlier and later family of the kings of the land Elam;
   

3. ✴the officials (and) mayors of the cities I had conquered;
   

4. ✴the chief archers, captains, charioteers, third men (of chariot crews), cavalrymen, archers, eunuchs, engineers, every kind of artisan [I found alive]; and
   

5. ✴horses, mules, donkeys, oxen, sheep and goats, which were more numerous than locusts. 
   

6. I gathered earth from the cities of Susa, Madaktu and Haltemash and from their other cult centres (and) took (it) to Assyria”, (‘Ashurbanipal, Prism A’, vi: 81-97). 
   

Ashurbanipal’s Second Campaign against Huban-haltash 

Most of the information about the first campaign (above) was recorded in both ‘Ashurbanipal Prism A’ and ‘Ashurbanipal, Prism F’.  However, the former is the only reasonably complete source for this second campaign (albeit that parts of it are conformed in other sources - see Peter Dubovsky, 2013, referenced below, at pp. 469-70).  This account begins as follows:

1. “As for) Huban-haltash III (Ummanaldashu), the king of the land Elam, ... he returned from the mountain(s), his place of refuge, and entered the city of Madaktu, which I had destroyed, demolished, (and) plundered  ... He sat down in mourning, at a place of mourning”, (‘Ashurbanipal, Prism A’, vii: 9-15).
   

Ashurbanipal’s main concern at this point was apparently still to punish Nabu-bel-shumati, his renegade ex-governor of Sealand: 

1. “... who had sinned against my treaty (and) cast off the yoke of my lordship; who had made the kings of the land Elam his [protectors ?] (and) trusted in:
   

2. ✴Huban-nikash (Ummanigash);
   

3. ✴Tammaritu;
   

4. ✴Indabibi; (and)
   

5. ✴Huban-haltash III (Ummanaldashu);
   

6. kings who had exercised dominion over the land Elam”, (‘Ashurbanipal, Prism A’, vii: 16-24).
   

Actually, it seems that Nabu-bel-shumati had killed himself by this time, and that Huban-haltash III had custody of his body.  Ashurbanipal demanded that the body should be sent to him, at which point:

1. “Huban-haltash III (Ummanaldashu) became frightened: he preserved the corpse ...  in salt, and gave (it) to my messenger”, (‘Ashurbanipal, Prism A’, vii: 38-39).
   

Shortly thereafter:

1. “Paʾê, who had exercised dominion over the land Elam in opposition to Huban-haltash III (Ummanaldashu), thought about the ... [punishment] that [the gods] had poured over the land Elam, (not) once, (not) twice, (but) three times, and he became disheartened.  He fled to me from within the land Elam and grasped the feet of my royal majesty”, (‘Ashurbanipal, Prism A’, vii: 51-57).
   

Ashurbanipal’s Third Campaign against Huban-haltash 

Ashurbanipal then took time to punish the Arabs who, like the Elamites. had supported Shamash-shuma-ukīn during the Babylonian revolt.  While he was thus employed, the Elamites apparently”

1. “... rebelled against Huban-haltash III (Ummanaldashu).  He  fled alone from the rebellion that his servants had incited against him and he took to the mountain(s), ... I caught him [there], like a falcon, and took him alive to Assyria”, (‘Ashurbanipal, Prism A’, x: 6-16).
   

Only now was the treachery of the Babylonian revolt avenged:

1. “(As for):
   

2. ✴Tammaritu, Paʾê, (and) Huban-haltash III (Ummanaldashu), who had exercised dominion over the land Elam in succession, whom I had made bow down to my yoke ... ; and.
   

3. ✴Uaiteʾ, the king of the land of the Arabs, [whom I had also] defeated and taken [out of] his (own) [lan]d to Assyria;
   

4. after I had gone up to perform sacrifices, ... I made them take hold of the yoke of (my) processional carriage.  They pulled (it) up to the gate of the temple, while I was seated above them: there, I ... [thanked the gods and goddesses who had] forced those who [had rebelled against me] to bow down to my yoke (and) enabled me stand over my enemies in mighty victories”, (‘Ashurbanipal, Prism A’, x: 17-39).
   

Elamite Kings after 646 BC 

After the death of Ashurbanipal in ca. 630 BC, the political situation in Assyria became unstable, enabling Nabopolassar (a self-designated ‘son of nobody’) to seize power in Babylon: one of the surviving Babylonian chronicles recorded that: 

1. “On [the 23rd November, 626 BC], Nabopolassar ascended the throne in Babylon.  [Soon after, he] returned to Susa the gods of Susa, whom the Assyrians had carried off  and settled in Uruk”, (‘Chronicle of the Early Years of Nabopolassar’, lines 14-17). 
   

Thus, we can be certain that Susa survived the sack of 646 BC and that it was still of religious (and presumably, of political) significance for whatever survived of the Elamite kingdom.   However, as Alexa Bartelmus (referenced below, at p. 597 and Table 42.2) observed, we can no longer rely on the Babylonian Chronicles and other contemporary Mesopotamian sources for the identifying and dating the reigns of any of the rulers of Elam (or of parts of it) after 645 BC.  However, as Jan Tavernier (referenced below, 2004, see, for example, the table at p. 39) pointed out, five kings who ruled or possibly ruled in this period can be identified from Elamite inscriptions:

1. ✴Shutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada, who is mentioned in an inscription (EKI 75) from Kul-e Farah; and
   

2. ✴four other kings who are known from ‘royal’ inscriptions from Susa:
   

3. •Hallutash-Insusinak II (EKI 77);
   

4. •Shilhak-Inshushinak II (EKI 78);  
   

5. •Tepti-Huban-Inshushinak (EKI 79-85); and
   

6. •Atta-hamiti-Inshushinak (EKI 86-89). 
   

I discuss these candidates in turn in the sections below. 

Shutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada 

Relief (KF 1) and inscription (EKI 75) from Kul-e Farah 

Image from Javier Álvarez-Mon (referenced below, 2020, at p. 385)

This king is known from an inscription (EKI 75) on a relief carved into a rock face at Kul-e Farah, an open-air sanctuary in a valley in the Zagros mountains, near the town of Izeh (see the map below): as Javier Álvarez-Mon (referenced below, 2020, at p. 378) observed:

1. “A long Elamite inscription on [its] upper half ... identifies the large central figure as Hanni, son of Tahhi:
   

2. ✴‘prince’ or ‘chief’ (kutur) of Ayapir [line 3]; and
   

3. ✴ vassal [ba-me = in the service of ?] of the Elamite king Shutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada [line 10]. 
   

We might reasonably assume that ‘Ayapir ‘ was the name for the region in which the sanctuary was located: Alexa Bartelmus (referenced below, at p. 634) observed that this location appears in a number of surviving texts from the ‘acropolis’ at Susa as a place that was within the economic orbit of Susa.  Javier Álvarez-Mon (referenced below, 2020, at p. 366) dated the relief KF1 (the last of six reliefs at the sanctuary) to ca. 650-550 BC on artistic grounds.  

Jan Tavernier (referenced below, 2004, at pp. 16-22) addressed the difficult matter of dating the inscription EKI 75.  Having reviewed the previous scholarship, he reached the conclusion (at p. 19) that EKI 75 must have slightly post-dated the so-called ‘Susa texts’:

1. “... and this assumption leads to a proposed date of the last quarter of the 7th century BC.”
   

(As he noted at p. 30, the ‘Susa texts’ are a number of administrative texts discovered at Susa, which he dated to 600-575 BC.)  Note that, in the table at p. 22, Tavernier gave the date ca. 645-620, but this seems to be a typographical error:

1. ✴he observed (at p. 21) that, in 626 BC, when Nabopolassar returned to Susa the gods of Susa (see above):
   

2. “In all likelihood Shutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada and father of Huban-kitin [see below], was at that time king in Susa”; and
   

3. ✴in his table at p. 39, he dated the reigns of ‘Indada and Shutur-Nahhunte’ to ca. 625-600 BC.
   

Inscription from Jubaji

Inscribed ring  from the tomb at Jubaji

Images from Yasmina Wicks and Gian Pietro Basello (referenced below):

images of the gold ring from Plate 8a, at p. 29; and drawing of the inscription from the Appendix, Figure 1, at p. 30

An inscription that was discovered in 2007 near the village of Jubaji on the plain of Ram Hormuz (see the map below) is of particular significance for our present discussion:

1. ✴the inscription, which is on the inner surface of one of the flared finials of an open gold ‘ring’, reads:
   

2. Shutur-Nahhunte, son of Intata; and
   

3. ✴this ring was found among other impressive grave goods in a stone-lined chamber that had housed a pair of ‘bathtub-style’ bronze coffins, each of which had contained the skeleton of a young woman.
   

Javier Álvarez-Mon (referenced below, 2020, at p. 396) dated the tomb and its contents to ca. 625-525 BC.

Given the likely dating of the tomb at Jubaji and its proximity of to the sanctuary at Kul-e Farah, some 75 km to the north, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the ‘Shutur-Nahhunte, son of Intata’ commemorated on this ring should be identified as the Elamite king Shutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada of EKI 75.  Furthermore, as Yasmina Wicks (in Wicks and Basello, referenced below, at p. 1) observed:

1. “Based on the sumptuous grave assemblages [at Jubaji] and the inclusion [among them of the inscribed ring illustrated above] ... , the tomb’s excavator, Arman Shishegar [referenced below], reasonably [characterised] the women ... [who had been buried in the tomb] as royal family members.”
   

Alexa Bartelmus (referenced below, at p. 629) also argued that it ‘seems very likely’ that these two women belonged to the family of this Elamite king of EKI 75, adding that it is:

1. “... therefore [very likely that he] had a strong connection with the region in which the grave is located.”  
   

Inscription on the ‘Jerusalem Seal’

Impression made by the ‘Jerusalem Seal’

Image adapted from  Pierre de Miroschedji (referenced below, Figure 5, at p. 61)

Jan Tavernier (referenced below, 2004, at p. 19) observed that an inscribed seal in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem, which had been published  in 1965 in a catalogue compiled by Penuel Kahane (referenced below, p. 38, no. 90 and pl. IIIg), carried a ‘signature’ that he translated as:

1. “Huban-kitin, son of king Shutur-Nahhunte”.
   

He noted (at p. 20) that this seal was variously dated, but apparently accepted (in the table at p. 22) a dating of ca. 645-620 BC.  However, this is still debated: for, example, Javier Álvarez-Mon (referenced below, 2011, at p. 326) argued that:

1. “The dating of [the] king Shutur-Nahhunte [on this seal] remains problematic; the composition, iconography and style of this seal point, in my opinion, to a date after the fall of Nineveh [in 612 BC].”
   

Although no patronym was given for the ‘king Shutur-Nahhunte’ of this inscription, Tavernier assumed that the ‘signature’ on the seal was that of  king Shutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada: as we have see, he referred (at p. 21) to Shutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada as ‘the father of Huban-kitin’.  There has to be some uncertainty about this, since the provenance of the seal is unknown.  However, there is circumstantial evidence that places it in the milieu of the culture of the Elamite piedmont at this time: Javier Álvarez-Mon (referenced below, 2011, at p. 326 ) described it as: 

1. “A seal of extraordinary manufacture ... , [which] shares significant similarities with the Arjan ring [see below].”  
   

Arjan Ring 

                                                                   A                                                                        B 

C

A: ‘Ring’ from the tomb at Arjan: Image from Javier Álvarez-Mon (referenced below, 2020, Plate 209, at p. 464) 

B: Design on the finials: Drawing from Javier Álvarez-Mon (referenced below, 20211, Figure 10, at p. 305)  

C: Inscription: Image from Yasmina Wicks (referenced below, 2017, Figure 10c, at p. 167)  

As Javier Álvarez-Mon (referenced below, 2020, at p. 392) pointed out, the ‘Arjan tomb’ was discovered in 1982 near the ancient city of Arjan on Behbehan plain, about 100 km southeast of Jubaji.  It was in the form of a stone-lined chamber that had housed a ‘bathtub-style’ bronze coffin and the remains of an adult man, together with an array of grave goods that included four objects that were:

1. “... engraved with a late Elamite cuneiform inscription: ‘Kiddin-Hutran, son of Kurlush’”.
   

One of these was the so-called ‘Arjan ring’  illustrated above.  Álvarez-Mon dated the tomb and its contents to ca. 625-550 BC.

Javier Álvarez-Mon (referenced below, 2020) identified a number of close similarities between the burial sites at Arjan and Jubaji:

1. ✴the use of bronze ‘bathtub’ coffins (see p. 439); and
   

2. ✴similarities in grave goods, including:
   

3. •metal lamps (see p. 448);
   

4. •bladed weapons (see p. 460); and
   

5. •in particular:
   

6. “.. four enigmatic U-shaped gold objects with curved shafts flaring into large disc finials”, (see p. 464).
   

Álvarez-Mon observed that these four ‘enigmatic’ gold objects, which included:

1. ✴the ‘Arjan ring’ inscribed with the name of Kiddin-Hutran, son of Kurlush;
   

2. ✴and ‘Jubaji ring’ inscribed with the name of Shutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada; and
   

3. ✴two gold anepigraphic ‘rings’ from Jubaji.;
   

testify to: 

1. “..a florescence in metal workshops serving the local élite during an Elamite ‘renaissance’ in the wake of the Assyrian Empire’s demise. 
   

It is important to note that the ‘Arjan ring’ is roughly twice the size of the rings from Jubaji and might therefore served a particular function: as Álvarez-Mon pointed out (again at p. 464), it had probably served as a hand-held insignia for ceremonial use, perhaps serving as an emblem of the élite status of Kiddin-Hutran, son of Kurlush or as an attribute of his public office.  Support for this comes in the form of the similar iconography employed on both the finials of this ring and the seal of Huban-kitin, son of king Shutur-Nahhunte.  In short, we might reasonably wonder whether Kiddin-Hutran, son of Kurlush enjoyed at Arjan a status broadly similar to that of Hanni, son of Tahhi, kutur of Ayapir.

Inscription in the Schøyen Collection

Location of Fahliyan/Kurangusn in relation to the road from Susa to Anshan 

Image adapted from Javier Álvarez-Mon (referenced below, 2020, Plate 1, at p. xxxiii)

As Elynn Gorris (referenced below, 2020, at p, 63) observed, a votive text inscribed on a carnelian bead of uncertain provenance, which now no. 91 in the (private) Schøyen Collection, recorded that Shutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada dedicated it to the ‘god Urshu of the Anshan Gate’.  As in the case of the inscription from Jubaji, we might reasonably assume that the ‘Shutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada’ commemorated on this bead should be identified as the Elamite king Shutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada of EKI 75.

Gorris (as above) observed that the otherwise unknown deity ‘Urshu of the Anshan Gate’:

1. “... is very likely a mountain god, protecting [one of] the mountain [passes] that provided lowland rulers access to the highlands, like, for instance, the corridor between the Ram Hormuz plain [i.e., the location of Jubali] and [the regions of]:
   

2. ✴Fahliyan; or
   

3. ✴Malmir/Izeh [i.e., the location of Kul-e Farah] ...”
   

It seems to me that the most likely place for the Anshan Gate and thus for a shrine of Urshu patronised by the Elamite king Shutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada would have been at Fahliyan, where the road from Susa first entered a mountain pass leading to Anshan.  Interestingly, Javier Álvarez-Mon (referenced below, 2020, at p. 206) noted that the latest addition to the rock relief at nearby Kurangun (known as Kurangun III) took place in the 7th/6th centuries BC.

Shutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada: Conclusions 

As noted above, it seems likely that the Elamite king Shutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada had a close link with the region around modern Jubaji.  As Yasmina Wicks (in Wicks and Basello, referenced below, at p. 2) observed: 

1. “In the 1st millennium BC, Jubaji was one of seven occupied Neo-Elamite ... sites on the [Ram Hormuz] plain, along with the larger sites of Tall-e Ghazir and nearby Tappeh Bormi  and four smaller sites ... ; [Even in the period] of growing antagonism between Elam and Assyria in the 8th and 7th centuries BC, occupation continued here unabated, [unlike] sites ... on the exposed Susiana plain, ... [which were closer to the] conflict zones and [thus] targets of Assyrian retaliatory attacks.  Along with the Behbehan plain to its southeast, the Ram Hormuz plain offered access to mountain refuges, the Persian Gulf, and allies in southern Babylonia making in an ideal power base.”
   

Alexa Bartelmus (referenced below, at p. 629) argued that the Neo-Elamite settlement at Jubaji might well have belonged to the family of Shutur-Nahhunte, the son of Indada, and it:

1. “... could therefore be identical with one of the major royal cities mentioned in Assyrian sources.” 
   

In other words, it is at least possible that:

1. ✴following the fall of Susa and the demise of Tammaritu, Paʾê and Huban-haltash III in ca. 646 BC, Shutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada, took power over a substantial part of was left of ‘Elam’ from the safety of his base at what is now Jubaji; and
   

2. ✴as Jan Tavernier, for example, suggested, he was in control of Susa by 626 BC, when King Nabopolassar of Babylon returned the ‘gods of Susa’ to the city. 
   

On the basis of the other evidence discussed above, his sphere of influence:

1. ✴clearly extended at least as far north as the sanctuary at Kul-e Farah, where Hanni, son of Tahhi, kutur of Ayapir, acknowledged him as his overlord; and
   

2. ✴might have extended at least as far south as the sanctuary of Kurangun, if this was indeed the location of the shrine of the ‘god Urshu of the Anshan Gate’. 
   

Furthermore, as discussed above, we can recognise a body of artefacts from this region that arguably characterise a homogeneous ‘renaissance’ culture associated with Shutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada, father of Huban-kitin.

Hallutush-Inshushinak II

The most complete of the 15 surviving inscriptions catalogued by

Friedrich König (EKI 77) and Florence Malbran-Labat (IRS 58), both referenced below

Image from the website of the Louvre, where the bricks are housed (but not exhibited)  

The brick illustrated above is one of 15 that were found near the ‘acropolis’ at Susa, all of which were stamped by the same Elamite text (EKI 77), which Elynn Gorris, referenced below, 2020, at p. 78) translated as follows: 

1. “I (am) Hallutush-Inshushinak, son of Huban-tahra. I expanded the realm of Anshan and Susa [I am the] beloved servant of the gods Napirisha and Inshushinak.  I strengthened the sanctuary of Inshuhinak with bricks that I manufactured out of lime-stone and gave it to my god, Inshushinak.”
   

Gorris also discussed (at pp. 73-5) a Neo-Babylonian adoption contract published by David Weisberg (referenced below, Text 1, at pp. 13-4), which was agreed at ‘Summundanash’ in the 15th year of the reign of ‘Hallushu, King of Elam’.  She:

1. ✴argued (at p. 73) that the Hallushu of this dating formula would have been Hallutush-Inshushinak, son of Huban-tahra, the king of EKI 77; and
   

2. ✴observed (at p. 74) that the ‘Summundanash’ of the contract must have been the ‘royal’ Elamite city of Sumuntunash, which Ashurbanipal claimed to have conquered in ca. 646 BC (‘Ashurbanipal, Prism A’, v: 85 - see above).
   

As I discussed on the previous page, Jan Tavernier (referenced below, 2014, at p. 61) established that: 

1. “Although it was formerly believed that the king [of EKI 77] was one and the same person as the king [of the same name] who reigned from 699 to 693 BC, it is now accepted that [the king commemorated in EKI 77 was] a later king who must be situated at the end of the 7th or the beginning of the 6th century BC.” 
   

The fact that the these kings were not the same man is clear from the facts that:

1. ✴the king who ruled in the 690s BC was the brother of Shutriuk-Nahhunte II (ABC 1, ii: 36-45) and thus the son of Huban-immena, and he ruled Elam for 6 years (ABC 1, iii: 6-8); while
   

2. ✴the king of EKI 77 was son of Huban-tahra and, if he was also the king referenced in the adoption contract, then he ruled Elam for at least 15 years.
   

Gorris argued (at p. 77) that, on the basis of documentary and archeological evidence, the adoption contract must have been agreed in ca. 580 BC.  Thus, if we accept that the kings of EKI 77 and the adoption contract were one and the same man, then he was Hallutush-Inshunak II and his reign can be placed roughly the first two decades of the 6th century BC. 

Importantly, although Hallutush-Inshunak II is identified as King of Elam in the adoption contract, he  is not identified as a king in EKI 77: Wouter Henkelman (as above, at note vi, p. 599) gave the literal translation of the relevant passage as:

1. “I enlarged Anshan and Susa of the realm”.
   

Nevertheless, since this inscription records the rebuilding/restoration of the temple of Inshushinak at Susa, it is clear that Hallutush-Inshushinak II had Susa under his control.  Furthermore, the adoption contract suggests that his realm extended northwards, to include Sumuntunash.  However, nothing in the inscription allows us to assume that he controlled (rather than aspired to control) the whole of the old Elamite kingdom of Anshan and Susa.  

Shilhak-Inshushinak II and Tepti-Huban-Inshushinak

These rulers are known only from what seem to be Neo-Elamite inscriptions from Susa: 

1. ✴the so-called Shilhak-Inshushinak II (numbered thus to distinguish him from the Middle-Elamite Shilhak-Inshushinak) is known from only  a single (and short) inscription (EKI 78) on a bronze door knob, which Elynn Gorris (referenced below, 2020, at p, 71) translated as: 
   

2. “He, king Shilhak-Inshushinak, son of Ummanunu, has given it to the temple of the divine lady of Susa”; and
   

3. ✴Tepti-Huban-Inshushinak, son of Shilhak-Inshushinak, is known from inscriptions on:
   

4. •two stelae (EKI 79 and EKI 85); and 
   

5. •four types of brick inscriptions (EKI 80, EKI 81, EKI 82 and 84, and EKI 83)
   

6. None of these inscriptions designate him by any regnal title, although, on each of the stelae, the opening lines are missing.
   

Jan Tavernier (referenced below, 2004, at p. 39) dated the reigns of the three men named in these inscriptions as follows:

1. ✴Ummanunu, the father of Shilhak-Inshushinak II, who is also known from the archives of Susa (ca. 590-555 BC);
   

2. ✴Shilhak-Inshushinak II (ca. 565-550 BC); and
   

3. ✴Tepti-Huban-Inshushinak, the son of Shilhak-Inshushinak II (ca. 550-530 BC).  
   

Atta-hamiti-Inshushinak 

Stele of Atta-Hamiti-Inshushinak, from the ‘acropolis’ of Susa 

Image from the website of the Louvre, where the stele is exhibited  

Elynn Gorris, referenced below, 2020, at p. 80) observed that the Elamite King Atta-hamiti-Inshushinak is known only from the fragmentary inscriptions (EKI 86-9) on the limestone stele illustrated above.  Oscar Muscarello (referenced below, at pp. 198-9) identified the figure to the left as the enthroned king (although the identity of the figure on the right is still debated).  The inscription (EKI 87) between the heads of these two figures is in three parts:

1. ✴the main inscription, which is written from left to right, reads:
   

2. “I (am) Atta-hamiti-Inshushinak, son of Huran-tepti.  I adorn Susa.   I made a statue for the citizens of Susa”; and
   

3. ✴the bordering captions, which are written from top to bottom, read:
   

4. •Atta-hamiti-Inshushinak, son of Hutran-tepti (left border); and
   

5. •libak hanik (the beloved servant of) Inshushinak (right border).
   

The first two lines of one of the fragments on the lower part of the stele (EKI 86: 1-2) record four other titles:   

1. ✴sunkik Anzan Shushunka (king of Anshan and Susa).
   

2. ✴likume rishakka (enlarger of the realm);
   

3. ✴katru Hatamtik (heir to the throne of Elam); 
   

4. ✴halmenik Hatamtik (landlord of Elam).
   

(All of these translations are by Elynn Gorris, referenced below, 2020, at p. 80). 

According to Matthew Stolper (referenced below, at p. 199), in the text to the right of  the king, he expressed:

1. “...his love for Susa and its people, [which] suggests that he did not originate there.”
   

Stolper (who dated the inscription to ca. 650 BC) then noted that, in what survives of the main inscription, the king: 

1. “... mentions his and a predecessor’s activities at other places, notably at stations along the route from [Susa] to the passes [that led] into Fars, and he invokes, not only the god of  Susa, Inshushinak, but also gods associated with Elamite territories in eastern Khuzistan.  Like other Elamite leaders who confronted and evaded the Assyrians, it seems [that] he had his political base on the mountain fringe of Khuzistan, along the road to Anshan, and [that he] took possession of Susa when circumstances allowed.  Therefore, [although] his grand historical titles were not empty, ... they [did] reflect a precarious political reality.”
   

Matt Waters (referenced below, 2000, at p. 86) similarly argued that:

1. “Atta-hamiti-Inshushinak had grand aspirations, at least in using this traditional titulary, but whether his political reach reflected his titulary is another matter.  Elamite kings may have ruled Anshan [until] the early 7th century BC, but there is no indication that they did so beyond that time.  [Thus], Atta-hamiti-Inshushinak's titulary is presumably ceremonial.”
   

As Elyyn Gorris observed (at p. 84), the words ‘su-gìr hal-ka -tash’ appear in EKI 86 at lines 3 (partially completed), 6 and 10; she suggested that this meant either ‘King Halkatash’ or ‘king of the land of Katash’

The word

Athamaita 

The trilingual Behistun inscription of Darius I [link to my page on this inscription] famously deals in some detail with:

1. ✴the many rebellions that he put down in 522 BC, the first year of his reign; and
   

2. ✴two  unsuccessful rebellions of the following two years led (respectively) by:
   

3. •an Elamite named Athamaita; and 
   

4. •a Scythian chief named Skunka.
   

A number of scholars now accept a suggestion first put forward by Matt Waters (referenced below, 2000, at p. 85) that a:

1. “... possible candidate for the Atta-hamiti-Insusinak of EKI 86-87 is an Elamite who rebelled against Darius in 520 BC ... . The Old Persian Athamaita corresponds to Elamite Atta-hamiti-Inshushinak, [albeit that] an identification with the Atta-hamiti-Inshushinak of EKI 86-87 is [necessarily] hypothetical.”
   

Elynn Gorris (referenced below, 2023, at p. 4) agreed that, whether or not the Atta-hamiti-Inshushinak of EKI 86-9 and the Athamaita of the Behistun inscription were one and the same man, we can, at elast:

1. “... safely assume that the Old Persian personal name Athamaita is the Old Persian rendering of the Elamite name Atta-hamiti-Inshushinak.”
   

Two Elamite rebellions were among those recorded in 522 BC:

1. ✴The first was led by Açina the son of Upadarma, who:
   

2. “... told the people of Elam: 'I am king in Elam’.  Thereupon, the people of Elam became rebellious, and they went over to that Açina: he became king in Elam”, (DB i. 72-76).
   

3. The inscription broke off at this point to describe the start of a more serious revolt at Babylon, and then recorded that:
   

4. “I sent [an envoy?] to Elam.  That Açina was brought to me in fetters, and I killed him”, (DB i. 82).
   

5. ✴The second was led by Martiya, the son of Cincaxraish, who:
   

6. “... lived in a Persian city called Kuganakâ.  This man revolted in Elam, and he he told the people [there]: ‘I  am Ummanish, king in Elam’.  At that time, I was friendly with Elam.  Then there were Elamites afraid of me, and they seized and killed that Martiya who was their leader”, (DB ii. 22-23).
   

Both men were depicted among the eight fettered ‘liar kings’ who appeared before Darius in the relief: they were first and fourth in the ‘queue’.  The inscriptions underneath them read (respectively);

1. ✴“This is Açina.  He lied, saying: ‘I am king of Elam’", (DBc).
   

2. ✴“This is Martiya.  He lied, saying: "I am Ummannish, king of Elam", (DBf).
   

The original inscription was finished before the decision was made to include an account of Darius’ victories over Athamaita and Skunka, but a fifth column that was added to the original Old Persian version began as follows:

1. ✴“King Darius says: The following is what I did in the second and third years of my rule.  The province called Elam revolted from me.  An Elamite named Athamaita they made their leader.  Then I sent an army into Elam, commanded by a Persian [officer whom the Greeks knew as] Gobryas.  Then Gobryas ... fought a battle against the Elamites”, (DB v: 1-10). 
   

2. ✴“Then Gobryas destroyed many of the [Elamite] host.  He captured that Athamaita, their leader, he brought him to me, and and I killed him.  Then the province became mine.  King Darius says: Those Elamites were faithless and they did not worship Ahuramazda.  I worshipped Ahuramazda; by the grace of Ahuramazda I did unto them according to my will”, (DB v: 11-17).
   

Athamaita was not depicted in the already-finished Behistun relief (although room was found for an imposing figure of the Scythian chief, Skunka, whose defeat is described in the last line of the inscription).  

We can now compare the Elamite revolts of 522 BC with the subsequent one led by Athamaita.   In relation to the former, as Jan Tavernier (referenced below, 2004, at pp. 27-8) observed, both ‘Açina’ and ‘Martiya’ were Iranian names, and both men may well have been Persian:

1. ✴the ç in Açina is typical of Old Persian; and
   

2. ✴we are told that Martya lived in a Persian city. 
   

Interestingly, Açina was apparently content to be proclaimed King of Elam without adopting an Elamite throne-name, unlike Martiya, who (as Jan Tavernier observed):

1. “... called himself Ummanish, in order to give himself some dynastic background.”
   

However, as noted above, the ‘Elamite named Athamaita’ in the Behistun inscription was almost certainly an Elamite who was actually known as Atta-hamiti-Inshushinak (whether or not he was also the kin of EKI 86-9).  Furthermore, the (probably Persian) Açina and Martiya received little local support and their revolts fizzled out before they began, while the (almost certainly Elamite) Athamaita/Atta-hamiti-Inshushinak was able to put an army into the field against Darius’ general Gobryas.  In other words, as Elynn Gorris (referenced below, 2023, at p. 4) observed, we might reasonably assume that:

1. “... the third Elamite revolt was not a reflection of an internal [i.e. inter Persian] power struggle as might be suggested for the first and second Elamite revolt.” 
   

However, we cannot know whether the (almost certainly Elamite) Athamaita/Atta-hamiti-Inshushinak who confronted Darius’ general Gobryas in ca. 520 BC was:

1. ✴the same man who was commemorated in the Stele of EKI 86-89, in which the stele would date to the period after ca. 550 BC: or
   

2. ✴a later political leader who had established a power base at Susa during the instability that had followed the death of Cambyses II (Darius’ immediate predecessor) in 522 BC and used the name Atta-hamiti-Inshushinak as a throne name.
   

Elamite Kings of Anshan and Susa after 646 BC: Interim Conclusions 

Although the new King Nabopolassar of Babylon was able to ‘return to Susa the gods of Susa’ in 626 BC, we do not know for certain either:

1. ✴the name of the Elamite king who presumably controlled Susa at this point; or
   

2. ✴the extent of his control to the east.
   

It is reasonable to assume that his successors were able to extend their control over their traditional territory in the direction of Anshan, we do not know how far this process went:

1. ✴In the section above, I suggested that Hallutuh-Inshushinak II, who claimed in EKI 77 to have enlarged the realm of Anshan and Susa and to have glorified the temple of Inshushinuk, might well have controlled Susa in or shortly after 626 BC. 
   

2. ✴It is also possible that the Atta-hamiti-Inshushinak who commemorated in EKI 86-9 as King of Anshan and Susa, expander of the realm, master (?) of Elam, sovereign (?) of Elam, post-dated Hallutuh-Inshushinak II and ruled more of the territory between Susa and Anshan than he had.
   

However, the relative dating of these two inscriptions is on shaky ground, since each of the aspirational titles recorded in them would have reflected not only the actual political situation ‘on the ground’ but also the personality and degree of overt ambition of the man who claimed it. 

Furthermore, before taking this analysis of the Elamite situation any further, we need to look at what we know about the (presumably ‘Persian’) dynasty of  Teipses, King of Anshan. 

Introduction: Cyrus the Great, King of Anshan

Inscribed clay cylinder known as the Cyrus Cylinder from  the foundations of the wall of Babylon,
Image from the site of the British Museum, where the tablet is now housed

The famous clay cylinder was used as a ‘foundation deposit’ by  the man who is known to history as Cyrus the Great, after he had captured the ancient city of Babylon in 539 BC, probably during his subsequent rebuilding of a section of the city wall.  As Irving Finkel (referenced below, at p. 39) pointed out, its Akkadian cuneiform text falls naturally into three distinct consecutive sections:

1. ✴Section 1 (CB: 1-19, written in the third person) describes how the previous Babylonian king Nabonidus had offended Marduk, the most important god of the Babylonian pantheon, who had therefore deposed him and:
   

2. “... searched everywhere, ... [before] he took a righteous king ... by the hand, called out his name, Cyrus, king of the URU (city) of Anshan, ... [and] pronounced [him] to be king all over the world”, (CB: 12);
   

3. ✴Section 2 (CB: 20-36, written in the first person) constitutes the proclamation of Marduk’s chosen one, to his new subjects, beginning with the following introduction:
   

4. I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king, powerful king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four quarters of the world:
   

5. •son of Cambyses [I], great king, king of the city of Anshan;
   

6. •grandson of Cyrus [I], great king, king of the city of Anshan; and
   

7. •liblibbu (either descendant or great grandson) of Teispes, great king, king of the city of Anshan”, (CB: 20-1).
   

8. ✴Section 3 (CB: 37-45, written in the third person), largely concerned with Cyrus’ rebuilding/restoration of the urban fabric of Babylon.
   

In the sections below, I set out the long history of the Elamite kingship of Anshan and discuss why the man whom we think of as the founder of the Persian Empire professed himself to be (inter alia) the fourth in a line of kings of what probably was, by 539 BC, hardly a city at all. 

‘Persian’ Kings of Anshan

As we have seen, the inscription on the so-called Cyrus Cylinder (ca. 539 BC) recorded:

1. ✴the titles of Cyrus the Great as:
   

2. •king of the city of Anshan (CB: 12); and
   

3. •king of the world, great king, powerful king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four quarters of the world (CB: 20-36) ; and
   

4. ✴named him as the m
   

5. •son of Cambyses [I], great king, king of the city of Anshan;
   

6. •grandson of Cyrus [I], great king, king of the city of Anshan; and
   

7. •liblibbu of Teispes, great king, king of the city of Anshan”, (CB: 20-1). 
   

The inscription on a brick stamp from Ur, which must belong to the period 539-530 BC, similarly proclaimed:

1. “Cyrus, King of the World, King of Anshan, son of Cambyses [I], King of Anshan: the great gods delivered all the lands into my hand, and I made this land to dwell in peace.” 
   

The earliest known record of Cyrus II as king of Anshan is in the inscription on the so-called Sippar Cylinder of Nabonidus: as Antigoni Zournatzi (referenced below, at p. 155, note 28) observed, this inscription:

1. “... which is dated between the 13th and 16th regnal years of Nabonidus (543/542 - 540/539 BC):
   

2. •refers to Cyrus as a ‘king of the land/country (KUR) Anshan” in a [historical] context that is dated to the beginning of Nabonidus’ 3rd year (summer 553 BC); and
   

3. •suggests that an Anshanite title was already used by/of Cyrus before his campaign and triumph against the Median king Astyages. [in 550 BC]”
   

The inscription on the so-called the Nabonidus Chronicle (ca. 539 BC)  records Cyrus as:

1. ✴the king of Anshan, who deposed Astyages and transported of the plunder from his capital of Ecbatana to the land of Anshan in 550 BC, (‘Nabondinus Chronicle’, ii: 1-4); and
   

2. ✴the king of the land of Parsu (Persia), who crossed the Tigris and defeated a now-unknown enemy in 547 BC, (‘Nabondinus Chronicle’, ii: 15).
   

In short, Cyrus is documented (in the context of events that took place in 553 - 530 BC as king of:

1. ✴Anshan; the land of Anshan; and the city of Anshan; and
   

2. ✴the land of Parsu.
   

Cyrus, Son of Teispes (PFS 93)

Impression made by a seal (PFS 93*) from the so-called Persepolis Fortification Archive  

Image (slide 9) from this Powerpoint presentation “Cyrus and Beyond’ by Wouter Henkelman

An important ‘heirloom’ seal (PFS 93) is known from its use on a number of surviving documents in the so-called Persepolis Fortification Archive in the reign of Darius (including the one illustrated above).  Its importance lies primarily in the fact that it preserves a six-line Elamite inscription that reads: 

‘Kurash, the Anzanite, son of Sheshpesh’;

which is usually translated as:

Cyrus the Anshanite, son of Teispes.

Wouter Henkelman (referenced below, 2018, at p. 807), who assumed a date in the late 7th century BC for the seal itself:

1. ✴argued that
   

2. •the Elamite ‘Kurash’ (used in the seal inscription) must have been the source of the the Old Persian ‘Kurush’ (Cyrus)’; and
   

3. •this assertion is supported by the fact that the Elamite ‘Sheshpesh’ used  in this inscription  represents the earliest attested form of Teispes; and
   

4. ✴suggested that:
   

5. •Cyrus the Anshanite, son of Teispes in this seal inscription; and
   

6. •Cyrus, great king, king of the city of Anshan, who is recorded as the grandfather of Cyrus the Great on the ‘Cyrus Cylinder’; 
   

7. might well have been one and the same man. 
   

The seal depicted a mounted soldier trampling over the bodies of two enemy soldiers while taking aim at a third, who holds a quiver and a broken bow.  As Matt Waters (referenced below, 2011, at p. 291) observed, the mounted man would have represent Cyrus the Anshanite himself, who:

1. “... was making a statement, [and] it is a reasonable assumption that [this] statement resonated with his Elamite and Persian contemporaries (and not just at a superficial level).”
   

Wouter Henkelman (referenced below, 2018, at p. 809) pointed out that an analysis of the documents that were stamped with this seal reveals that it:

1. “... was used by a chief agent of the crown in sealing receipts for animals procured ... for the royal table. ... [Seals of this kind] were deployed, in the most literal sense, ‘in the name of the king’, be it:
   

2. •in that of the reigning monarch, [Darius]; or
   

3. •in that of a perceived distant predecessor with whom he, [Darius],  sought to associate himself.
   

4. Being exposed to administrative contexts wherever the [itinerant] court halted, the ‘heirloom’ seal that had originally belonged to Kurash of Anshan became an emblematic argument underscoring Darius’s dynastic claims ... The historic significance of the seal is therefore not in doubt.  In fact, its central, narrative and legitimising role need not have commenced with Darius: for the Teispids too, the heirloom may have suggested a concrete connection to a distant past [and] a founding hero, [Teispes], of whom little was known.  Some would even suspect that the suspiciously clean and straightforward genealogy Cyrus presents in the Cyrus Cylinder  (son of Cambyses I, grandson of Cyrus I, descendant of Teispes) was inspired by the very seal of [Cyrus the Anshanite, son of Teispes].”
   

We should not be surprised if Darius valued and made use of the ‘heirloom’ seal precisely because it had been used by Cyrus II: as Wouter Henkelman (referenced below, 2018, at p. 809) pointed out, this would be consistent with his likely commissioning of a number of short inscriptions at Pasargadae.  For example, the identical trilingual (Old Persian/ Elamite/ Babylonian) inscriptions from the main palace on the site (known as Palace P) read:

1. “I, Cyrus the king, an Achaemenid”, (CMa).
   

As David Stronach (referenced below, see particularly p. 353) observed , these inscriptions probably date to ca. 519 BC, at the time of the completion of construction at the time of Darius I.  The point is that it would have been in Darius’ interest to propagate the perception the ‘Achaemenid’ and ‘Teispid’ kings belonged to the same ancient and all-powerful dynastic line.  Thus, for example, his Behistin began with the assertion that:

“I am Darius, the great king, king of kings, king in Parsa (Persia), king of peoples/countries,

the son of Hystaspes, the grandson of Arsames, an Achaemenid.

King Darius says: My father is Hystaspes; the father of Hystaspes was Arsames;

the father of Arsames was Ariaramnes; the father of Ariaramnes was Teispes;

the father of Teispes was Achaemenes.

King Darius says: That is why we are called Achaemenids;

from antiquity, we have been noble; from antiquity, our family have been kings.

King Darius says: there were eight from my family who were previously kings; I am the ninth:

nine (of us) duvitāparanam [in two lines?], we are kings”, (DB: i: 1-4).   

Cyrus I, son of Teispes

If we accept that:

1. ✴Cyrus the Anshanite, son of Teispes in this seal inscription; and
   

2. ✴Cyrus, great king, king of the city of Anshan in the inscription on the ‘Cyrus Cylinder’;
   

were one and the same man, and that this man was indeed the grandfather of Cyrus the Great, then we  have a basis for analysing the interplay between;

1. ✴the Neo-Elamite Kings of Anshan and Susa discussed above; and
   

2. ✴the (presumably Persian) Teispid Kings of Anshan.
   

Our first concern must be to establish the probable regnal dates for these Teispid rulers, starting with thoseof Cyrus II are usually given as ca. 560 - 530 BC, since:

1. ✴dated Babylonian inscriptions suggest that he died in August 530  BC; and
   

2. ✴according to Herodotus (‘Persian Wars’, 1: 214: 3), he had reigned for 29 years (and other, slightly later Greek sources record that he reigned for 30 year.
   

Matt Waters (referenced below, 2022, at pp. 26-7) argued that ‘Cyrus, King of Parsumash’ of the ‘Ashurbanipal, Prism H’ (at vi: 1-25) and the so-called ‘Ishtar Temple Inscription’ (at lines 114-7), which I discussed above in the context of the sack of Susa in 647 BC was also the same man as Cyrus I, although he acknowledged (at p. 30) that this would require an average reign of 40 years for Cyrus I and Cambyses I, and that:

1. “... such lengthy reigns are not the norm in antiquity.”
   

In fact, reigns of 40 years would be unusual, so two in succession would be very unusual indeed. 

Jan Tavernier (referenced below, 2018, at p. 170), following Pierre de Miroschedji (referenced below, at p. 284), preferred the following dating (which assumes a less extreme average length for the reigns of Teispes, Cyrus I and Cambyses I of 25 years):

1. ✴Teispes (ca. 635 - 610 BC);
   

2. ✴Cyrus I (ca. 610-585 BC);
   

3. ✴Cambyses I (ca. 585-560 BC); and
   

4. ✴Cyrus II (559 - 530 BC).
   

On this model, Cyrus, king of Parsumash, who had submitted to King Ashurbanipal of Assyria soon after 646 BC, had been unrelated to Teispes, king of the city on Anshan: this is presumably the reason that  Wouter Henkelman (referenced below, 2018, at p. 807) this Cyrus as ‘a kinglet of Parsumash’.