Ur III Kings at Susa  

Ur Namma

Three views of a fragment (CBS 14934) of a vase taken as booty from Susa to Ur by Ur-Namma

Image from the Penn Museum, where the fragment is now housed

As we have seen, Ur-Namma almost certainly expelled Puzur-Inshushinak from Mesopotamia and the defeated him in the battle in the Elamite highlands discussed above.  There is no surviving evidence that Ur-Namma occupied any of this highland region, but it is likely that his victory allowed the king of Shimashki (and possibly the king of Anshan) to occupy land that had previously formed part of Awan.

Gianni Marchesi (referenced below) re-published the inscriptions on two ‘forgotten’ fragments of vases from Ur (CBS 14934 and CBS 14935) that are now in the Penn Museum, which indicated that the vases themselves had been taken as booty after a king of Ur had attacked Susa.  He restored the name of this king as Ur-Namma, observing (at p. 285) that:  

1. “In previous scholarship, the capture of Susa was generally counted among the deeds of Shulgi, whom the majority of scholars considered to be the true builder of the Ur III empire. Beyond rendering unto Ur-Namma(k) that which is Ur-Namma(k)’s, the texts published here document a key episode in the history of the Ur III empire and of its eastwards expansion.”   
   

Shulgi

Objects  from the reign of Shulgi found at Susa, now in the Musée du Louvre (images from the museum website)

Left: brick (A 6095) with a royal inscription of Shulgi 

Right: ceremonial axe  (Sb 5634) inscribed with the name of Shulgi  

Mirko Surdi  (referenced below) discussed the inscriptions on two bricks (Sb 14724-5 = IRS 1) from Susa (now in the Musée du Louvre) that had previously been attributed to Naram-Sin (mentioned above).  However, he concluded (at pp. 2-3) that:  

1. “[These] two alleged bricks of Naram-Sin ... should instead be ascribed to Shu-Sin [see below], whose name was written at the beginning of the inscription, now completely lost.”   On this basis, the earliest evidence for the control of an Ur III ruler at Susa comes from surviving epigraphic evidence from the reign Shulgi (traditionally 2094-2047 BC) , Ur-Namma’s son and successor.  This evidence includes the Sumerian inscriptions on the two objects illustrated above: 
   

2. ✴the text (IRS 2) stamped on four bricks, which recorded that:
   

3. “Shulgi, the strong man, king of Ur, king of Sumer and Akkad’ built a temple to Inshushinak and restored it to its (original) place”;  and
   

4. ✴the inscription on a ceremonial bronze axe head that had been buried with its owner, which recorded: 
   

5. “Shulgi, powerful hero, king of Ur, king of Sumer and Akkad”. 
   

Shulgi seems to have taken an interest in Anshan later in his reign, and this was reflected ‘year names of Shulgi: 

1. ✴his 30th year was the year in which: 
   

2. “The ensi (governor) of Anshan took [his] daughter in marriage; and
   

3. ✴his 34th year  was the year in which: 
   

4. “Anshan was destroyed”.
   

As Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2013, at pp. 304-5) pointed out, Shulgi’s final conquests were of Kimash and Hurti (see ‘year names of Shulgi’, 46-8).  He observed (at p. 295) that that these conquests represented: 

1. “... a reversal of Puzur-Inshushinak’s deed [above], in that it opened up the Elamite highlands to Babylonia ...” 
   

They also protected his ‘empire’ from an attack from the east, completing the task that had been initiated by Ur-Namma’ s capture of Susa. 

Amar-Sin, Shu-Sin and Ibbi-Sin 

As Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2018, at p. 196) observed, the reign of Amar-Sin, Shulgi’s successor: 

1. “... represented the high point of the [Ur III] empire’s fortunes.  [His] efforts concentrated mainly on political and economic consolidation, ... [and] there were no further [significant] attempts at territorial expansion.”
   

As we shall see, this period was followed in another of continuous decline that culminated in the catastrophic destruction of Ur, an event in which the Elamites played a decisive role.

Gian Pietro Basello (referenced below, at p. 4/791) pointed out, 19 ‘dated’ administrative tablets from Susa that spanned some 24 years, from the 4th year of Amar-Sin to the 3rd year of  Ibbi-Sin.  This evidence of the continuous Ur III occupation of Susa in this period is complemented by the inscriptions on 14 bricks of Shu-Sin:

1. ✴IRS 1 (2 bricks, mentioned above), with the titles ‘mighty king, king of Ur and of the four quarters’; and 
   

2. ✴IRS 3 (12 bricks), with the titles ‘beloved of Enlil, mighty king, king of Ur and of the four quarters’.  
   

However, as Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2018, at p. 196) observed, during the Shu-Sin’s reign:

1. “... the process of decline had set in, with the Babylonian rule over the periphery having been challenged on several fronts.  In Iran, the most serious challenge came from a group of Shimashkian principalities, which formed an anti- Ur coalition led by the land of [Shimashkian] Zabshali.”
   

The severity of this threat is illustrated by the fact that the only one of the 9 year names of Shu-Sin records a military engagement, and that was with the Zabshali:

1. “Shu-Sin, the king of Ur, king of the four quarters, destroyed the land of Zabshali", (‘year names of Shu-Sin’, 7b).
   

I discuss this war further in the context of the reign of Ebarat I at Susa.

Shimashki Kings at Susa 

As we have seen, Puzur-Inshushinak, the last king of Awan, had been defeated by Ur-Namma and ejected from Susa.  However, there is no evidence that Ur-Namma took any territory in the Elamite highlands: instead, as Katrien de Graef (referenced below 2022, at p. 444) observed: 

1. “... during the time of Ur’s rule in the Susiana plain, a new political power [had emerged] in central Iran [in the form of the] Shimashki ...”.   
   

Shimaski King List

First 10 of the 12 ‘kings’ in the Shimashki King List (from Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2014, at p. 290)

The numbers in brackets indicate the position of this king among to 12 in the list 

The column on the right synchronises this list with the Ur III kings and Bilalama, the father-in-law of Tan-Ruhurater 

Note that the direct genealogical link Ebarat I-Kindattu-Idattu is established by an inscription of Idattu (see below)

As we have seen, at some time during his reign, Puzur-Inshushinak had received the submission of a king of Shimashki: we might reasonably assume that this was Kirname (1), and that he was subsequently able to benefit by Puzur-Inshushinak’s demise.  We know nothing more about either Kirname of Tazitta I (2), but, as Walther Sallaberger and Ingo Schrakamp (referenced below, at p. 25) observed:

1. “... beginning with Ebarat I (3), [the kings in the list] are attested in contemporary textual evidence, and [it can] therefore ... be [accepted as] a document of utmost importance and high reliability for [establishing] a relative chronology.” 
   

A much later inscription (EKI 48) which recorded a number of predecessors of Shilhak-Inshushinak (who, like Shilhak-Inshushinak himself, had restored the ancient temple of Inshushinak at Susa) included apparently in chronological order):

1. ✴Idattu, descendant (ruhushak) of Hutran-tepti (lines 14-16);
   

2. ✴Tan-Ruhuratir, son of Idattu (lines 16-17);
   

3. ✴Kindattu, son of Tan-Ruhuratir (lines 19-20); and
   

4. ✴Ebarat (line 21).
   

These names (and the others in the list) were presumably taken from inscriptions that survived at the time of Shilhak-Inshushinak.

Ebarat I (3)

Seal of unknown provenance attributed to Ebarat I and modern impression

(now in the Gulbenkian Museum, Durham)

Photograph from Wilfred Lambert (referenced below, Plate 5:42)  

Ebarat I, the 3rd king in the Shimashki king list, is extremely well-documented in our surviving sources: for example, Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2007, in the Appendix at pp.230-2) summarised the extensive documentary evidence of his good relations with the Ur III rulers over a period of at least 21 years, from Shulgi 44 until at least Shu-Sin 8 (the penultimate year of Shu-Sin’s reign).  The first of these recorded the receipt by Shulgi of:

1. ✴13 camels from Ia-ab-ra-at, LU.SU (Ebarat, the man of Shimashki); and
   

2. ✴another 2 from Hu-un-da-hi-she-er, lu An-shanki (Hundahisher, the man of Anshan).
   

It is possible that the seal illustrated above belonged to his wife, since the text that it carries reads: 

1. “d[Ebar]at, king (lugal), [now-lost female name], his beloved wife”, (see Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi, referenced below, number 1, at p. 42).
   

The completion ‘Ebarat’ is generally accepted, but scholars still debate whether this should be Ebarat 1 or Ebarat II,  the 9th king in the list, since, for example, the seal is stylistically similar to one that belonged to Ili-turam, the servant of Pala-ishshan, a ruler who shortly post-dated Ebarat II (see the illustrations of both seals (see Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi, referenced below, numbers 1, and 2, at p. 42, and sketches of both of them at his Table 2). 

However, I think that the use of the superscript ‘d’ before Ebarat’s name in the transliteration of the text (which represents the Akkadian cuneiform determinative symbol that indicated his divine status) is a more useful factor for the purpose of dating the seal.  Interestingly, as Tonia Sharlach (referenced below, at p. 20) pointed out:

1. “In about his 20th year of his rule, ... Shulgi altered the policy of his father Ur-Namma and began to write his name with the divine determinative: that is to say, Shulgi declared himself a god.  This was not without precedent: Naram-Sin, the 3rd king of the Sargonic period, was apparently the first Mesopotamian ruler to have done so ...”. 
   

It therefore seems likely that the ‘Ebarat’ of the inscription had followed Shulgi’s  when he declared his own divinity.  This of itself clearly does not allow us to identify him as Ebarat I, but this identification is further supported by the fact that a surviving administrative document that can be directly associated associated with Ebarat I was dated to the year in which ‘dEbarat became king’ (see below).  (Note however that in the Shimashki king list, only the first name, Kirname, is preceded by this ‘divine’ determinative: see Walther Sallaberger and Ingo Schrakamp, referenced below, at p. 24).

Wilfred Lambert (referenced below, at p. 16), who had examined the seal, observed that:

1. “The composition of the scene seems to be unique.  The seated figure [at the centre] is certainly male and ... the other two must surely be female.”
   

He suggested (at p. 17) that the male figure represented Ebarat and: 

1. “The figure in front of him [what seem to be flowers]  will be his wife, and possibly the act was a formal rite by which his successor was designated.  [If so, then] the [other] lady ... will be Ebarat's sister.”
   

I very much doubt that the rite depicted here had anything to do with the succession since, as Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi (referenced below, at p. 53) observed, the seal would have been that of Ebarat’s wife.  It therefore seems to me that its design would have been intended to emphasise her status as the wife of a deified king: after all, as Tonia Sharlach (referenced below, at p. 21) observed (with reference to Shulgi), the deification of a king clearly affected the status of his wives.  In other words, I think that the seal probably depicted the rite by which the lady on the right became the consort of the deified Ebarat I.  In this context, we might look again at the fact that, in his 30th year, Shulgi gave one of his daughters in marriage to the ensi of Anshan: on this basis, we might wonder whether Ebarat had similarly married a Mesopotamian princess.

As we have seen, the apparent political stability of this period came to an end when:

1. “Shu-Sin, the [4th] king of Ur, king of the four quarters, destroyed the land of [the Shimashkian] Zabshali", (‘year names of Shu-Sin’, 7b).
   

As it happens, a body of information about this insurgency survives in the form of a later copy of two inscriptions (one in Akkadian and one in Sumerian) from statues that Shu-Sin commissioned in order to commemorate his victory.  As Katrien de Graef (referenced below, 2015, at p. 295) observed:

1. ✴the Sumerian inscription recorded that: 
   

2. “... the  Zabshali, whose surge is like a swarm of locusts, from the border of Anshan to the Upper [= Caspian] Sea, threatened the [territory] of Shu-Sin, ... and how [he eventually emerged] victorious”; and
   

3. ✴the Akkadian inscription added the fact that:
   

4. “... Shu-Sin devastated the [presumably Shimashkian] lands of Zabshali, Sigrish, Nibulmat, Alumidatum, Garta and Shatilu.” 
   

She observed that the term ‘the Zabshali’ was sometimes used in the inscriptions to describe a confederation of several Shimaskian territories and cities (led by the Zabshaki) from [the] extensive territory that stretched from the Caspian Sea to Anshan, each of which had its own governor (ensi). The copyist of the original inscriptions added the information that:

1. ✴an enemy prisoner on the ‘Sumerian’ statue was identified on his shoulder as:
   

2. ‘Ziringu, ensi of the land of Zabshali’ (see note 31); and 
   

3. ✴a captive ensi on the ‘Akkadian’ statue, who was depicted being trampled under Shu-Sin’s foot, was identified on his shoulder as:
   

4. ‘the man of Indasu’ (see  note 32). 
   

As Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2018, at p. 196) observed, there is no surviving evidence to suggest that Ebarat I was involved in this insurgency.  Indeed, he argued that: 

1. “In this undertaking, [Shu-Sin] seems to have enjoyed the support of [Ebarat I], who either fought on the side of Ur or at least remained neutral in the conflict.  Shu-Sin’s campaign was a success, [and] several of the Shimashkian lands [were] subsequently incorporated into [his territory].”
   

As Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2018, at p. 196) observed, Shu-Sin’s victory was soon followed by disaster, when:

1. “... only a few years later, at the very beginning of the reign of [his son and successor, Ibbi-Sin, the last king of the dynasty, ... [Ur] lost control of most of [its] foreign possessions ... [and] the empire effectively ceased to exist.”
   

One early sign of this gradual collapse is provided by Ishbi-Erra, who started his career as an officer under Ibbi-Sin before rebelling, capturing Isin, and founding his own ‘Isin dynasty’.  At this point, he naturally established his own series of year names (see ‘year names of Ishbi-Erra’), many of which overlapped with those of Ibbi-Sin.   In the present analysis, I follow the synchronism proposed by Marcel Sigrist (referenced below, at p. 4), in which Ibbi-Sin 24 = Ishbi-Erra 18: on this basis, Ishbi-Erra declared his independence from Ibbi-Sin in Ibbi-Sin’s 7th year, and Ibbi-Sin’s weakness at this time is evidenced by the fact that he was forced to accept this situation for most of the rest of his reign. Steinkeller (as above) then argued that, in this febrile climate:

1. “Sensing that the end of Ur was near, Ebarat turned against Ibbi-Sin and occupied Susa ... .” 
   

The evidence for this is in the form of 13 (presumably subsequent) texts from Susa bearing a year name that refers to Ebarat: as Katrien De Graef (referenced below, 2015, at p. 294) pointed out:

1. ✴one of these documents is dated to the year in which Ebarat became king (lugal);
   

2. ✴eleven are dated to the following year: and
   

3. ✴the last year name (mentioned above) reads, somewhat confusingly:
   

4. “Year that the deified Ebarat (dEbarat) became king, year after the year ...”
   

She also deduced from the original archaeological records that these 13 tablets: 

1. “... were found in an Ur III  context, no doubt on top of it ...”  
   

Some indication  of when Ebarat made his move is given by the ‘year names’ of Ibbi-Sin’, in which we read that:

1. ✴in  year 5:
   

2. “... the governor (ensi) of Zabshali married Tukin-hatti-migrisha, [Ibbi-Sin’s] daughter;  and
   

3. ✴in year 9:
   

4. “Ibbi-Sin, the king of Ur, went with massive power to Huhnuri, the bolt [= gateway] to the land of Anshan ...”.
   

Katrien de Graef (referenced below, 2015, at p. 293) argued that, since no documents dated later than Ibbi-Sin’s year 3 have been found at Susa, suggesting that he lost control there soon after:

1. “... one could interpret the dynastic marriage between [his] daughter and the governor of  Zabshali in year 5 as an attempt to (re-)confirm or strengthen the political alliance with Susa's hinterland.  It is, after all, [likely] that even the very core of Ur's dominions was in open rebellion shortly after[his] accession to the throne.  The attacks on Huhnuri and Anshan in year 9 and on Susa [and Adamdun of the land of] Awan in year 14 [may well indicate] the ultimate convulsions of declining Ur III control on Susa and the Elamite periphery.  We know [from archeological data that at least part of Susa] was violently destroyed [at about this time], and it thus seems quite probable that this can be linked with either the conquest of  Susa by Ebarat [soon after year 3] or the reaction ... of Ibbi-Sin [recorded in his subsequent] year names.  This means that [Ebarat must have taken] control over Susa at sometime between the 3rd and the 9th year of the reign of Ibbi-Sin.”
   

Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2007, at p. 223) had also concluded that:

1. “... the period of Ebarat’s possible control over Susa [must be confined to] the years Ibbi-Sin 4–8.” 
   

Kindattu and Imazu, son of Kindattu

Impression from the seal of Imazu, son of Kindattu, King of Anshan (now in Tehran Museum, tablet 2514)

Image from Javier Álvarez-Mon (referenced below, Plate 60f, at p. 156)

As we shall see, Kindattu, the 6th king in the Shimaski King List, was:

1. ✴the son (as well as the successor) of Ebarat I;  and
   

2. ✴the father of Idattu, the 7th king in the Shimaski King List.
   

We also know the name of another son of Kindattu: the text carried by the seal that produced the impression on a table bearing a legal contract (illustrated above) reads:

1. “Imazu, son of Kindattu, lugal (king) of Anshan”, (see Javier Álvarez-Mon, referenced below, at p. 167 and Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi, referenced below, number 30, at p. 47). 
   

Since Imazu is otherwise unattested, it is sometimes assumed that the title ‘king of Anshan’ was used here for Kindattu (see, for example, Katrien de Graef, referenced below, 2022, at p. 446).  However, Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi, referenced below, at p. 61) suggested that Kindattu had appointed Imazu as king of Ansan (presumably as a vassal within his wider Shimashkian ‘empire’): he argued that, the seal above, which would have belonged to Imazu : 

1. “... is probably intended to show [him] ... receiving a [ceremonial] staff as a sign of office from the king, his father.   The new ... theme of the ‘granting of office’ was used again in the following generations”, (my translation). 
   

Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2007, at p. 223) observed that, apart Ebarat’s short period of control of Susa early in the reign of Ibbi-Sin:

1. “... we are in total darkness as to where [and for how much longer] Ebarat ruled ... [However], it seems reasonable to think that, for both strategic and logistical reasons, the control of Susa and its region would have been indispensable in allowing Ibbi-Sin to launch a campaign against Huhnuri [in year 9].”
   

Thus, he argued that Ibbi-Sin regained control from Susa in or shortly before his year 9.  Then, in year 14: 

1. “Ibbi-Sin, the king of Ur, overwhelmed Susa and Adamdun of the land of Awan like a storm, subdued them in a single day and seized the lords of their people” (‘year names’ of Ibbi-Sin’, 14, see Piotr Steinkeller, referenced below, 2013, p. 296 for the translation ‘Adamdun of the land of Awan’). 
   

It is likely that this ‘victory’ was actually indicative of Ibbi-Sin’s precarious hold on Susa at this time. 

We learn something about the political situation in the subsequent period from an administrative document from Isin that was dated to Ishbi-Erra 13 = Ibbi-Sin 19, which Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2007, p. 221 and note 26) translated as follows: 

1. “... the envoy of Kindattu (and) his five followers … the envoy of Ida[ttu] (and) his [one] follower; these are the messengers of [Shimashki]”.
   

This suggests that, by this time, Kindattu:

1. ✴had succeeded Ebarat I;
   

2. ✴had delegated some ‘royal’ authority to his son Idattu; and
   

3. ✴had reasonably good relations Ishbi-Erra. 
   

Given what we know about the fragility of Ibbi-Sin’s hold on Ur itself at this time, it is likely that Kindattu had  also secured control of Susa.  Thus, as the fortunes of Ibbi-Sin deteriorated, Kindattu, with the assistance of at least two sons, came to presided over a vast territory that included the Shimashki lands, Susa and the surrounding plain, and Anshan. 

We then read in the respective year name lists that, in Ibbi-Sin 22 = Ishbi-Erra 16:

1. ✴Ibbi-Sin, the king of Ur, secured Ur and …, stricken by a hurricane, ordered by the gods which shook the whole world; and
   

2. ✴Ishbi-Erra, the king, smote the armies of Shimashki and Elam. 
   

Furthermore, we learn about Kindattu’s part in these dramatic events from two separate sections of a panegyric to Ishbi-Erra known as ‘Hymn B: Ishbi-Erra and Kindattu’, which celebrated his victory:

1. ✴In the first of these, which is extremely lacunose, we read that: 
   

2. “From Bashimi by the edge of the sea ...... to the edge of Zabshali ......, and from Uru’a (Arawa), the bolt of Elam ...... to the edge of Marhashi .......Kindattu, the man of Elam, ....... ...... Isin, the great spindle of heaven and earth.  The king's battle did not ....... The battle of Elam ...... Sumer. ...... by the edge of the sea. ...... the land of Huhnuri. ...... the wild animals and four-footed ....... The king ...... in the battle”, (segment C).
   

3. ✴In the second of these, we read that:
   

4. “... the news was carried to Kindattu, the man of Elam; the Anshanites and Shimashki gave a battle cry; he (Kindattu) approaches the mountains; he addresses his assembled army”, (segment E, see also the translation by Piotr Steinkeller, referenced below, 2007,  at p. 224, note 34). 
   

As Katrien de Graef (referenced below, 2022, at p. 446) observed, it seems that Ibbi-Sin had faced an Elamite attack on Ur, only to be saved when by Ishbi-Erra, and the second passage of the panegyric clearly establishes that Kindattu, the man of Elam, was the commander of ‘the armies of Shimashki and Elam’ in an alliance that included the Anshanites.

Ibbi-Sin’s 23rd year was listed as the year in which:

1. “... the stupid monkey in the foreign land struck against [him]”, (‘year names’ of Ibbi-Sin’, 23). 
   

We learn in later literary sources that this referred to another invasion of Ur by Kindattu.  This time, there was to be no salvation for Ibbi-Sin:

1. ✴The ‘Lament for Ur’ recorded that: 
   

2. “The good house of the lofty untouchable mountain, E-kish-nu-gal, [the residence of the moon god Nanna and his wife Ningal], was entirely devoured by large axes.  The people of Shimashki and Elam, the destroyers, counted its worth as only 30 shekels.  They broke up the good house with pickaxes.  They reduced the city to [ruins].  ... Ningal cried, ‘alas, my city,’ and ‘alas, my house‘ .... O Nanna, the shrine of Ur has been destroyed and its people have been killed”, (lines 241-9).
   

3. ✴The roughly contemporary ‘Lament for Sumer and Ur’ similarly recorded that the gods had decided that Ibbi-Sin’s subjects:
   

4. “... should no longer dwell in their quarters [but] ... should be given over to live in an inimical place; that Shimashki and Elam, the enemy, should dwell in their place; that their shepherd, [Ibbi-Sin hmself], should be captured by the enemy in his own palace and like a swallow that has flown from its house, should [be taken] from Mount Zabu on the edge of the [Babylonian marshes] to the borders of Anshan, never to return to his city”, (lines 33-7, my changed word order). 
   

Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2007, at p. 224, note 35) reproduced another text fragment (ACh Ishtar LXVII rev. ii 11–12, which I have not been able to identify), which he translated as follows:

1. “... the reign of destruction of Ibbi-Sin, king of Ur, who, in tears, went as captive to Anshan”. 
   

Ishbi-Erra lived to fight another day:  the ‘year name of Ishbi-Erra’, 26 records that:

1. “Ishbi-Erra, the king, [drove] out of Ur,... the Elamite who was dwelling in its midst.”  
   

It is possible that, by this time, the Elamite in question was Idattu, the son and successor of Kindattu.

Idattu I, son of Kindattu

Royal Inscription of Idattu I (MS 4476 in the Martin Schøyen Collection, Oslo)

Image from the website of the collection

As we have seen, Idattu I was the 7th king in the Shimaski King List.  Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2007, at pp. 221-2 and note 28) published an inscription on the lower surface of a shallow bowl of unknown provenance (illustrated above) that is is now part of the (private) Schøyen Collection in Oslo.  He translated the inscription, which is ‘written’ in classical Ur III script, as follows:

For Idattu, grandson of Ebarat [I], son of Kindattu, the shepherd of Utu, the beloved one of Inanna,

king of Anshan (lugal Anshanki), king of Shimashki and Elam (lugal Shimashki ú Elam-ma)

Kiten-rakittapi, the chancellor (sukkalmah) of Elam and high judge (teppir), his servant

fashioned (this object) for him

Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2007,  at pp. 228-9) argued that this inscription demonstrates that the Shimashki king list:

1. “... is built around a genuine dynastic tradition, which centres on the line of Ebarat I:
   

2. ✴Ebarat I [himself] (no. 3):
   

3. ✴Kindattu (no. 6); and
   

4. ✴Idattu I (no. 7).
   

5. ... Apart from having continued for at least [three] generations, that tradition was also associated with ... Ebarat’s original kingdom, which gradually swallowed up Anshan and other Shimashkian territories and eventually came to embrace Susa and the Susiana as well.” 
   

Katrien de Graef (referenced below, 2015, at p. 296) argued that three administrative tablets from Susa with unattributed year names should probably be placed in the reign of Idattu I.  If this is correct, then, by at least the time of Idattu I, the ‘Shimaski kings’ ruled at Susa as well as at Anshan, Elam and Shimashki.   This inscription contains the first surviving evidence for the important posts of chancellor (sukkkalmah) of Elam and high judge (teppir).

Tan-Ruhurater (8) 

Sketches of the impressions made by two seals from Susa:

Left: Ensi Tan-Ruhurter, from Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi (referenced below, number 20, at p. 45 and Table 8)

Right: Great Queen Mekubi, from Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi (referenced below, number 21, at p. 45 and Table 9)

P. Amiet 1972= Pierre Amiet, referenced below   

Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2007, at pp. 228-9 and note 50) observed that the genealogical line of Ebarat I - Kindattu - Idattu I continued with Tan-Ruhurater (8), who is known to have been the son of Indattu I: 

1. ✴the text IRS 9, which is stamped on two bricks from Susa, recorded:  
   

2. "Idattu, beloved by Inshuhinak, king of Shimashki and Elam; [and] Tan-Ruhurater, son ..." : 
   

3. ✴the inscription of Shilhak-Inshushinak (EKI 48) recorded Tan-Ruhurater, son of Idattu  (at line 17); and
   

4. ✴the text carried by a seal from Susa (see Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi, referenced below, number 20, at p. 45, sketched on the left above) recorded Tan-Ruhurater, ensi of Susa, ... son of Idattu.
   

Katrien de Graef (referenced below, 2015, at p. 296) argued that an administrative tablet from Susa with an unattributed year name should probably be attributed to Tan-Ruhurater, since:

1. “... the text, [MDP 28, 505], mentions his house or palace (e2 tan-dru-hu-ra-/te-er)”.
   

This would suggest (at least to me) that Tan-Ruhurater, who had presumably served under his father as ensi of Susa, subsequently succeeded to at least some of his royal titles.

According to Daniel Potts (referenced below, at p. 140):

1. “Tan-Ruhurater was ... [a] son-in-law of Bilalama of Eshnunna, himself a contemporary of Shu-ilishu, [the second king of Isin, traditionally (1986–1977 BC].”
   

Robert Whiting (referenced below, Figure 1, at p. 28) established the family links between Shu-ilishu, Bilalama and Tan-Ruhurater and identified the daughter of Bilalama who was married to Tan-Ruhurater as Mekubi.  The text stamped on eight (now fragmentary) bricks from Susa relate to the building of a temple to Inanna:

1. ✴four of them (IRS 4, bricks 24-7) bear the name of Tan-Ruhurater, ensi of Susa; and
   

2. ✴the other four (IRS 5, bricks 28-31) bear the name of Mekubi, daughter of Bilalama, ensi of Eshnunna, well-loved wife of [Tan-Ruhurater]. 
   

Interestingly, in a seal from Susa (see the sketch on the right above), a scribe (dub.sar) called Aabanda described himself as the servant of the great queen (nin.gu.l[a]) Mekubi (see Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi, referenced below, number 21, at p. 45).

Katrien de Graef (referenced below, 2021, at p. 51 and notes 6 and 7) observed that Shu=Ilishu (Tan-Ruhurater’s contemporary, who succeeded his father as King of Isin and overlord at Ur) claimed to have:

1. ✴returned the statue of Nanna, which the Elamites took as booty to their homeland:
   

2. “... when he brought (back the statue of) the god Nanna from Anshan to Ur”, RIME 4: 1: 2: 1, lines 5-11); and
   

3. ✴resettled the scattered people of Ur (implying that there [had been] an exile of at least a part of Ur’s population):
   

4. “... [when] he establish[ed in] U[r the people] scattered as far as A[nshan], in their abode”, (RIME 4: 1: 2: 2, lines 27’-28’).
   

We might reasonably assume that:

1. ✴the seizure of the statue of Nanna from Ur and the exile of at least some of its people had occurred when Ur had fallen to Kindattu in Ibbi-Sin year 24; and
   

2. ✴ Shu=Ilishu retrieved them from Anshan at the time of Tan-Ruhurater. 
   

Unfortunately, the surviving records do not indicate whether Shu=Ilishu used military or diplomatic means to secure the retrieval of Nanna and the repatriation of the exiles.

Katrien de Graef (referenced below, 2022, at p. 449) argued that Tan-Ruhurater, who:

1. “... was probably Indattu I’s son, did not succeed as king.  He was governor (ensi) of Susa.”
   

It is true that he is not documented as lugal in any of our surviving sources except for the Shimaski king list, but that does prove that he never acceded to the throne: indeed, in my view, the fact that Mekubi was described as the ‘great queen’ (see above) suggests that he did.  However, it is also entirely likely that his rule was undermined by external pressure: 

1. ✴as noted above, Shu=Ilishu might have used force to retrieve the statue of Nanna from Anshan and to repatriate the people of Ur who were living in exile there; and
   

2. ✴as de Graef pointed out, Ilum-muttabbil, governor of Der (nominally an ally of Tan-ruhurater’‘s father-in-law) claimed to have been: 
   

3. “... the smiter of the head of the army of Anshan, Elam and Shimashki”, (RIME 4: 12: 2: 1, lines 9-14).
   

I return to this possibility in the section of Ebarat II below.

Idattu II (10)

Impression from the seal of Kuk-Simut, judicial official (teppir) of Idattu II  (now in the Musée du Louvre, SB 2294) 

Image from Javier Álvarez-Mon (referenced below, Plate 60g, at p. 156) 

As Piotr Stenkeller (referenced below, 2007, at p. 229, note 50) observed, Tan-Ruhurater (8) is followed in the Shimaski King List by: 

1. “... Ebarat II (9) and Idattu II (10).  While the familial relation of Ebarat II to the other Shimashkians is unclear [see below], Idattu II [was certainly a] son of Tan-Ruhurater.”
   

For example, the text stamped on number of bricks from Susa (IRS 6-8) record him as ensi of Susa, son of Tan-Ruhurater. 

The same filiation is recorded in the (Sumerian) text on a seal from Susa (illustrated above), which reads:

1. “Idattu, ensi of Susa, beloved hero of Inshushinak, son of Tan-Ruhurater, had given (this seal) to the judicial official (teppir), Kuk-Simut, his beloved servant”, (translation by Javier Álvarez-Mon, referenced below, at p. 157, my changed word order; see Jan Tavernier, referenced below for the translation of ‘teppir’). 
   

Javier Álvarez-Mon (as above) suggested that this scene might well depict the seated Idattu II investing Kuk-Simut as teppir by presenting him (via the figure in the centre) with a ceremonial axe (perhaps reflecting a an investiture ceremony used at Susa since the time of Shulgi ??).   However, the important point is that the entry in the Shimashki king list is the only surviving evIdence that Idattu ever ruled as an Elamite king.

Ebarat II (9)

‘Cylindroid of Atta-husha’, from Susa 

Now in the Musée du Louvre (SB 15440), image from museum website   

As Katrien de Graef (referenced below, 2022, at p. 451) observed, Ebarat I, who  is mentioned between Tan-Ruhurater (8) and Idattu II (10) in the Shimashki king list, is probably the ‘Ebarat’ who is is mentioned without affiliation in the inscription of Shilhak-Inshushinak (EKI 48, at  line 21).  Although he might have been a son of Tan-Ruhurater (perhaps the older brother of Idattu II), this is by no means certain.  She argued that,

Katrien de Graef (referenced below, 2012, at p. 535 and note 32) reproduced a re-reading by Jean-Jacques Glassner (referenced below) of the inscription on the stele illustrated above: 

1. “For Ebarat, lugal (king) of Anshan and Susa: when Shilhaha was sukkalmah (chancellor) and ADDA LUGAL (father of the land) of Anshan and Susa, Atta-hushu, son of the sister of Shilhaha, built the temple of Nanna”.
   

She added that Glassner had suggested, on the basis of this new reading, that:

1. “... Ebarat II ruled as king over Anshan and Susa while Shilhaha, being his sukkalmah, exercised authority in his name over Elam and/or Shimashki.”  
   

She concluded (at p. 536) that, at the time of the inscription, each of:  

1. “... Ebarat II, Shilhaha and Atta-hushu [seem to have] exercised their power on a different  level and/or in a different area ... : 
   

2. ✴Ebarat II ruled as king over Anshan and Susa]; and 
   

3. •Shilhaha was his sukkalmah in Elam (or in Shimashki and Elam); and
   

4. •Atta-hushu was [Shilhaha’s] sukkal [deputy] and teppir [judicial official] in Susa.”  
   

I discuss the relationship between Ebarat II, Shilhaha and Atta=hushu below:  the important thing in the present context is that Ebarat II is named as ‘king of Anshan and Susa’ in an Akkadian inscription some 500 years before the title next appears (in Elamite) in our surviving sources.  

Seal of Kuk-tanra from Susa, servant of Shilhaha and modern impression

Now in the Musée du Louvre (Sb 6225), image from museum website

The seal illustrated above carries the text:

1. “Ebarat, king (lugal): Kuk-tanra [or Kuk-kalla], son of  Kuk-sharum, servant of Shilhaha.”
   

It is likely tha t Shilhaha was still Ebarat’s sukkalmah at this point, and it is possible that the scene carried by the seal depicts him leading Kuk-tanra towards Ebarat, who is about to invest Kuk=tanra with his new official position as ‘servant of Shilhaha’. 

Shilhaha 

As we have seen, Shilhaha  served under Ebarat II as:

1. “sukkalmah and ADDA LUGAL (father of the land) of Anshan and Susa”. 
   

He is the second Elamite ruler to be named as sukkalmah in our surviving sources: the first was :

1. “Kiten-rakittapi, sukkalmah of Elam and high judge (teppir), servant of Idattu I”.
   

Kiten-rakittapi is otherwise unattested in our surviving sources.  However, Shilhaha is recorded:

1. ✴in the inscription of Shilhak-Inshushinak (EKI 48, at lines 22-3), immediately after Ebarat II, as: 
   

2. “Shilhaha, the chosen son (shak hanik) of Ebarat”, (see the translation of Yuri Khramov, referenced below, in his section ‘Data source 3), although it is not clear that this signifies a genealogical link between Ebarat and Shilhaha; and
   

3. ✴on the obverse of a legal document (MDP 28, No, 45, now in the Musée du Louvre (Sb 24644), transliterated here) from Susa as king (lugal).  
   

Siwe-palar-hupak 

Daniel Potts (referenced below, 2016, at pp/ 2-4) observed:

1. “It was not until the reign of Siwe-palar-hupak in the 18th century BC that a name for the land described by Sumerian and Akkadian scribes as Elam appears in the Elamite language ...” 
   

This is a reference to an inscription (EKI 3) of Siwe-palar-hupak, who described himself (at line 3) as ‘me-ni-ik ha-da-am-[ti-ik]’ (ruler of Hatamti = ‘Elam’).